This thesis develops empirical econometric models of the private sector aggregate demand for real and financial assets in Kenya over the period 1973 to 1990. Single-equation error-correction models of the demand for money are estimated using systems cointegration methods developed by Johansen (1988). The models are found to be statistically stable functions throughout the period, and are capable of encompassing existing studies. Across a range of monetary aggregates, including a Divisia index aggregate for broad money, the models describe demand for money functions in which inflation and illegal foreign currency substitution are significant determinants of money holdings, and where the private sector adjusts rapidly to deviations from its stable longrun equilibrium real money demand. The demand for money is then integrated within a neo-classical model of asset demands, which examines the behaviour of the aggregate private sector asset portfolio in response to changes in relative prices between assets and to external shocks to the economy, principally the 1976-77 coffee boom. A variant of the Almost Ideal Demand System model developed by Deaton and Muellbauer (1980) is estimated for a class of six assets: base money, banking system deposits, government securities, tradable capital, nontradable capital and inventories. The asset substitution model, which also takes an errorcorrection form, and which allows for credit rationing, generates results which are consistent with the earlier demand for money models, where private agents are also denied access to foreign-denominated assets. Using this model, the maintenance of policies of financial repression are shown to cause the private sector to offset inflationary shocks through the accumulation of real assets, principally in the form of non-tradable capital in the construction and property sectors. The evidence from the two models is used to analyze the fiscal effects of the inflation tax and financial repression measures. Policies of financial liberalization are shown to reduce the revenue maximizing rate of inflation (estimated to be 14% per annum) and the implicit tax on domestic holders of government liabilities. This dampens asset substitution in response to inflationary shocks and offsets the adverse effects of "construction-boom" investment on non-tradable capital prices.

This thesis studies the causes and consequences of the credibility problem in trade liberalization, with a special reference to African economies. The two necessary conditions for credibility are found to be macroeconomic compatibility and time-consistency, while the sufficient conditions are more difficult to identify. A lack of credibility is typically probabilistic as private agents may be uncertain about the government's intentions, or the future terms of trade. The first part of the thesis develops a theory of economic behaviour in the absence of credibility. Due to private responses, incredibility creates a welfare cost which may arise from (i) non optimal intertemporal substitution in consumption, (ii) accumulation of stocks of imports, (iii) insufficient relocation of factors, and (iv) deferral of investment. A simple consumption model and two production models are used to assess the magnitude of the welfare cost and to derive a cost curve as a function of the probability of default. A non-monotonic curve with kinks emerges. Many standard results concerning the speed of liberalization change drastically when the assumption of full credibility is relaxed. Containing consumption costs would typically call for a gradual reform to reduce the incentive to accumulate inventories, while, from the production point of view, a big bang or initial overshooting are preferable. Gradualism is preferable when (i) reserves may otherwise be depleted by speculative imports, forcing the government to abandon the reform, (ii) only incremental devaluation is possible, or (iii) the level of the implicit tariff is unknown. The second part examines how liberalization episodes can be identified empirically using a quantitative measure of trade policy. The average implicit tariff index, which is the ratio of the domestic deflator to the world price index, is derived for Kenya. As the domestic deflator appears to be biased, a hypothetical implicit tariff index is derived from a Linear Expenditure System. Further, the other empirical study quantifies the social cost of incredibility during four Kenyan reforms. Three hypotheses are tested: (i) speculative accumulation of imports, (ii) deferral of investment, and (iii) increased liquidity in response to perceived uncertainty about future trade policy. The highest welfare cost was incurred during the 1980 reform which was not coordinated with exchange rate management and was therefore incompatible.

Trade liberalization in Kenya started in the early 1980s with the structural adjustment programmes, and continued under the multilateral framework of the WTO. During the same period, the incidence of poverty and level of inequality also worsened. The government’s focus on trade negotiations has been to ensure that there is policy space for the daily running of the economy even though welfare impacts are also important. Non-state actors have argued that trade liberalization has negatively affected the poor; particularly the farmers, since they cannot compete with the developed countries whose farmers enjoy significant government support through subsidies, making their products much cheaper in the world market. Government officials, on the other hand, contend that trade liberalization is good as it brings in competition and transfer of technology which is good for an economy. It is important to examine how trade liberalization has affected household’s welfare in Kenya, given that this kind of analysis has not been conducted in Kenya. This study is unique because it does not assume the existence of a trade liberalization– poverty relationship, unlike most studies. It uses a multi-method approach to first test the hypothesis that there is no statistically significant relationship between trade liberalization and poverty, it further tests for multiplier effects of trade liberalization on poverty determinants. Trade Liberalization and poverty is found to have a stochastic relationship, furthermore investments and capital stock were found to significantly affect poverty determinants in the stochastic model. Due to unavailability of household welfare measure data in time series, a CGE model was used to establish the dynamics of trade liberalization on poverty at a point in time using the 2003 Social Accounting Matrix Data for Kenya. Overall, trade liberalization accompanied by FDI had the greatest impact on household welfare. Trade liberalization had a positive impact on household welfare since household incomes and consumption increased. Micro simulations results, based on changes in consumption, also showed that poverty incidence reduced for all households, even though the urban households experienced higher decreases. The study found that there was little difference in protecting sensitive products and not protecting them; secondly, trade liberalization accompanied by foreign direct investment had greater impact on improving the household welfare. Consumption and incomes increased, resulting in overall poverty reduction. The welfare of urban households was much higher than rural households in terms of income and consumption increases. However, income inequality was much higher in urban than rural areas. / Economics / D. Litt. et Phil. (Economics)

Trade liberalization in Kenya started in the early 1980s with the structural adjustment programmes, and continued under the multilateral framework of the WTO. During the same period, the incidence of poverty and level of inequality also worsened. The government’s focus on trade negotiations has been to ensure that there is policy space for the daily running of the economy even though welfare impacts are also important. Non-state actors have argued that trade liberalization has negatively affected the poor; particularly the farmers, since they cannot compete with the developed countries whose farmers enjoy significant government support through subsidies, making their products much cheaper in the world market. Government officials, on the other hand, contend that trade liberalization is good as it brings in competition and transfer of technology which is good for an economy. It is important to examine how trade liberalization has affected household’s welfare in Kenya, given that this kind of analysis has not been conducted in Kenya. This study is unique because it does not assume the existence of a trade liberalization– poverty relationship, unlike most studies. It uses a multi-method approach to first test the hypothesis that there is no statistically significant relationship between trade liberalization and poverty, it further tests for multiplier effects of trade liberalization on poverty determinants. Trade Liberalization and poverty is found to have a stochastic relationship, furthermore investments and capital stock were found to significantly affect poverty determinants in the stochastic model. Due to unavailability of household welfare measure data in time series, a CGE model was used to establish the dynamics of trade liberalization on poverty at a point in time using the 2003 Social Accounting Matrix Data for Kenya. Overall, trade liberalization accompanied by FDI had the greatest impact on household welfare. Trade liberalization had a positive impact on household welfare since household incomes and consumption increased. Micro simulations results, based on changes in consumption, also showed that poverty incidence reduced for all households, even though the urban households experienced higher decreases. The study found that there was little difference in protecting sensitive products and not protecting them; secondly, trade liberalization accompanied by foreign direct investment had greater impact on improving the household welfare. Consumption and incomes increased, resulting in overall poverty reduction. The welfare of urban households was much higher than rural households in terms of income and consumption increases. However, income inequality was much higher in urban than rural areas. / Economics / D. Litt. et Phil. (Economics)