The figure illustrates this pattern, showing a significant response of the Chilean 3  peso but a non-significant movement in long-term bond prices. The opposite results hold for Mexico.2 Similarly, the response at country-group level also indicates differences when an US MP shock hits other countries' MP rate decomposed into expected MP rate and term premium (see Table 1). Whereas in AEs the adjustment mechanism is mainly through expected MP rate, the transmission in EMEs is via the term premium. ER comes out as more reactive in AEs rather than EMEs, presumably because central banks in EMEs are less prone to conduct sterilized FX interventions, aiming to—partially—stabilize interest rates and the ER simultaneously. Table 1: US MP spillovers (†)  10-Year interest rate Expected interest rate Term premium FX depreciation  Advanced economies 2003-2016 Post Nov.08 0.335*** 0.429*** 0.331*** 0.234*** 0.005 0.196*** 7.50*** 10.920***  Emerging economies 2003-2016 Post Nov.08 0.293*** 0.557*** 0.054 0.136** 0.239*** 0.421*** 3.520*** 6.660**  (†) The country sample includes 12 EMEs and 12 AEs. The panel regressions use daily data from Jan-03 to Dec-16. The units represent effects in basis points (bp), for a US MP shock of 1 bp. (***) p<1%, (**) p<5%, (*) p<10%. Source: Central Bank of Chile. Of course, a flexible ER also facilitates the reallocation of economic activity between the tradable and non-tradable sectors by speeding up the adjustment of relative prices.
Still, this characterization is based on very crude generalizations; in reality, EMEs spread over a broad range of possibilities for each dimension and different combinations of them. The question is then to what extent does such variety of cases make a difference for the spillover from changes in global financial conditions and what role does the exchange rate (ER) play in it. How important are global financial and business cycles to EMEs compared to local ones? To address this issue from an EME’s perspective, a first question refers to the relative importance of externally-induced shocks as compared to purely domestic ones. Even if the Global Financial Cycle were a very powerful force, as long as countries can still get into troubles of their own, macro policy, including the ER regime, may make an important difference. A review of the last 40 years of economic history reveals many episodes during which cyclical turning points originated in domestic, rather than foreign, shocks. In Latin America in particular, many of the major shocks of the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s originated locally, usually from misconceived policies, private sector exuberance, or inadequate regulations. The fact that these shocks showed up as large current account deficits surely reflects the degree of dependence of governments and business on external funding, but that does not exempt local conditions from being the main source of the imbalances.