Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği

Tunahan HACIİMAMOĞLU (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, İktisat Bölümü, Rize, Türkiye)
Business and Economics Research Journal
4 1
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 799 - 811 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.20409/berj.2021.353 İndeks Tarihi: 13-01-2022

Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği

Öz:
Satın alma gücü paritesi (SAGP), ülkeler arasında fiyat farklılıklarını ortadan kaldırarak ülkelerin para birimlerinin satın alma gücünü eşitleyen tek fiyat kanununa dayalı bir yaklaşımdır. Uluslararası gelişmişlik ölçütü olarak da kullanılan SAGP hipotezine olan ilgi, ülkelerin karşılaştığı fiyat istikrarsızlıkları ve dış açık sorunları nedeniyle artmaktadır. Artan ilgi ile birlikte SAGP hipotezinin geçerliliği farklı ülke ve ülke gruplarında çeşitli dönem aralıkları itibarıyla güncel analiz yöntemleri kullanılarak sınanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dokuz N-11 ülkesinde 1970-2019 dönemi için SAGP hipotezinin geçerliliğini sınamaktır. Bu doğrultuda çalışmada güncel bir test tekniği olarak Lee, Wu ve Yang (2016) tarafından ileri sürülen yatay kesit bağımlılığına, yumuşak kırılmalara ve ortak faktör yapısına izin veren BCIPS birim kök analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Analiz bulgularından N-11 ülkeleri için reel döviz kurlarının durağan olduğu tespit edilmiş, dolayısıyla SAGP hipotezinin geçerli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda N-11 ülkelerinde reel (efektif) döviz kuru üzerinde şokların etkisinin geçici olduğu, para politikası kararlarında ve uluslararası gelişmişlik ölçütlerinde SAGP’nin güvenilir bir gösterge olarak kullanılabileceği ortaya konulmuştur.
Anahtar Kelime:

Investigation of the Validity of Purchasing Power Parity with Fourier Unit Root Test: The Case of N-11 Countries

Öz:
Purchasing power parity (PPP) is an approach which is based on the law of one price and balances the purchasing power of currencies by excluding price differences among countries. The interest in the PPP hypothesis, which is also used as an international development criteria, has been increasing due to price instability and trade deficits faced by countries. Along with the increasing interest, the validity of the PPP hypothesis is tested more often for different country groups and time periods by using modern analysis methods. The aim of this study is to test the validity of the PPP hypothesis for the period 1970-2019 in nine of N-11 countries. Accordingly, the BCIPS unit root analysis method, which allows for cross-section dependence, soft breaks, and common factor structure and which was proposed by Lee, Wu, and Yang (2016), was used as a modern test technique in the study. The findings of the analysis suggest that the real exchange rates for N-11 countries are stationary, therefore, it is concluded that the PPP hypothesis is valid. In this respect, it is revealed that the effect of shocks on the real (effective) exchange rate in N-11 countries is temporary and that PPP can be used as a reliable indicator in monetary policy decisions and international development measures.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abuaf, N., & Jorion, P. (1990). Purchasing power parity in the long run. The Journal of Finance, 45(1), 157-174.
  • Abumustafa, N. I., & Feridun, M. (2010). Explaining the long-term real equilibrium Exchange rates through purchasing power parity (PPP): An empirical investigation on Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. African Journal of Business Management, 4(7), 1260-1265.
  • Alba, J. D., & Papell, D. H. (2007). Purchasing power parity and country characteristics: Evidence from panel data tests. Journal of Development Economics, 83(1), 240-251.
  • Altıner, A., & Bozkurt, E. (2018). The validity of purchasing power parity hypothesis in E-7 countries: Panel data analysis. Business and Economics Research Journal, 9(4), 735-747.
  • Arize, A. C., Malindretos, J., & Ghosh, D. (2015). Purchasing power parity-symmetry and proportionality: Evidence from 116 countries. International Review of Economics & Finance, 37, 69-85.
  • Aslan, A., Kula, F., & Kalyoncu, H. (2010). Additional evidence of long-run purchasing power parity with black and official exchange rates. Applied Economics Letters, 17(14), 1379-1382.
  • Balassa, B. (1964). The purchasing-power parity doctrine: A reappraisal. Journal of Political Economy, 72(6), 584-596.
  • Baum, C. F., Barkoulas, J. T., & Caglayan, M. (2001). Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity in the post-Bretton Woods era. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(3), 379-399.
  • Berg, A., Borensztein, E., Milesi-Ferretti, G. M., & Pattillo, C. (1999). Anticipating balance-of-payments crises. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, 1-34.
  • Breuer, J. B., McNown, R., & Wallace, M. S. (2001). Misleading inferences from panel unit‐root tests with an illustration from purchasing power parity. Review of International Economics, 9(3), 482-493.
  • Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  • Brissimis, S. N., Sideris, D. A., & Voumvaki, F. K. (2005). Testing long-run purchasing power parity under exchange rate targeting. Journal of International Money and Finance, 24(6), 959-981.
  • Carvalho, M., & Júlio, P. (2012). Digging out the PPP hypothesis: An integrated empirical coverage. Empirical Economics, 42(3), 713-744.
  • Chang, H. L., Su, C. W., Zhu, M. N., & Liu, P. (2011). Re-examining long-run purchasing power parity for Central and Eastern European countries: Nonlinear panel unit root tests. Applied Economics Letters, 18(5), 411-415.
  • Chang, T., Lee, C. H., & Liu, W. C. (2012). Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity for ASEAN countries. Japan and the World Economy, 24(4), 325-331.
  • Chang, T., & Tzeng, H. W. (2011). Long-run purchasing power parity with asymmetric adjustment: Further evidence from nine transition countries. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 1383-1391.
  • Chowdhury, I. (2007). Purchasing power parity and the real exchange rate in Bangladesh: A nonlinear analysis. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 12(1), 61-75.
  • Corbae, D., & Ouliaris, S. (1988). Cointegration and tests of purchasing power parity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), 508-511.
  • Corbae, D., & Ouliaris, S. (1991). A test of long‐run purchasing power parity allowing for structural breaks. Economic Record, 67(1), 26-33.
  • Cuddington, J. T., & Liang, H. (2000). Purchasing power parity over two centuries? Journal of International Money and Finance, 19(5), 753-757.
  • Culver, S. E., & Papell, D. H. (1999). Long-run purchasing power parity with short-run data: Evidence with a null hypothesis of stationarity. Journal of International Money and Finance, 18(5), 751-768.
  • Darvas, Z. (2012). Real effective exchange rates for 178 countries: A new database, 1-35.
  • Díaz, J., Lüders, R., & Wagner, G. (2003). La República en Cifras: Chile 1810-2000. Manuscript, Central Bank of Chile.
  • Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431.
  • Doganlar, M. (1999). Testing long-run validity of purchasing power parity for Asian countries. Applied Economics Letters, 6(3), 147-151.
  • Doğanlar, M., Mike, F., & Kızılkaya, O. (2020). Testing the validity of purchasing power parity in alternative markets: Evidence from the fourier quantile unit root test. Borsa Istanbul Review, 1-9. Dornbusch, R. (1976). Expectations and exchange rate dynamics. Journal of Political Economy, 84(6), 1161-1176.
  • Duncan, R., & Calderón, C. (2003). Purchasing power parity in an emerging market economy: A long-span study for Chile. Documentos de Trabajo (Banco Central de Chile), (215), 1-43.
  • Edison, H. J., & Klovland, J. T. (1987). A quantitative reassessment of the purchasing power parity hypothesis: Evidence from Norway and the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2(4), 309-333.
  • Eickmeier, S. (2009). Comovements and heterogeneity in the euro area analyzed in a non‐stationary dynamic factor model. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(6), 933-959.
  • Froot, K. A., & Rogoff, K. (1995). Perspectives on PPP and long-run real exchange rates. Handbook of International Economics, 3, 1647-1688.
  • Gailliot, H. J. (1970). Purchasing power parity as an explanation of long-term changes in exchange rates. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2(3), 348-357.
  • Genberg, H. (1978). Purchasing power parity under fixed and flexible exchange rates. Journal of International Economics, 8(2), 247-276.
  • Geary, R. C. (1958). A note on the comparison of exchange rates and purchasing power between countries. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 121(1), 97-99.
  • Harvey, D. I., Leybourne, S. J., & Xiao, B. (2008). A powerful test for linearity when the order of integration is unknown. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 12(3), 1-23.
  • He, H., Chou, M. C., & Chang, T. (2014). Purchasing power parity for 15 Latin American countries: Panel SURKSS test with a Fourier function. Economic Modelling, 36, 37-43.
  • Holmes, M. J. (2001). New evidence on real exchange rate stationarity and purchasing power parity in less developed countries. Journal of Macroeconomics, 23(4), 601-614.
  • Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1997). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
  • Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 231-254.
  • Johnson, H. (1976). The monetary approach to balance-of-payments theory. The Monetary Approach to the Balance of Payment, 147-67.
  • Kalyoncu, H., & Kalyoncu, K. (2008). Purchasing power parity in OECD countries: Evidence from panel unit root. Economic Modelling, 25(3), 440-445.
  • Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., & Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379.
  • Khamis, S. H. (1970). Properties and conditions for the existence of a new type of index numbers. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B, 81-98.
  • Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, J. M. (1988). Price levels and the exchange rate in the long run. International economics: Theory and policy (pp. 378-409). Boston (MA): Scott, Foresman, and Co.
  • Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
  • Lee, C., Wu, J. L., & Yang, L. (2016). A Simple panel unit‐root test with smooth breaks in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(3), 365-393.
  • Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2004). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Manuscript, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, 33(4), 2483-2492.
  • Lothian, J. R., & Taylor, M. P. (2000). Purchasing power parity over two centuries: Strengthening the case for real exchange rate stability: A reply to Cuddington and Liang. Journal of International Money and Finance, 19(5), 759- 764.
  • Lucas Jr, R. E. (1982). Interest rates and currency prices in a two-country world. Journal of Monetary Economics, 10(3), 335-359.
  • Ma, W., Li, H., & Park, S. Y. (2017). Empirical conditional quantile test for purchasing power parity: Evidence from East Asian countries. International Review of Economics & Finance, 49, 211-222.
  • MacDonald, R. (1993). Long-run purchasing power parity: Is it for real? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(4), 690-695.
  • MacDonald, R., & Taylor, M. P. (1994). The monetary model of the exchange rate: Long-run relationships, short-run dynamics and how to beat a random walk. Journal of International Money and Finance, 13(3), 276-290.
  • Menyah, K., Nazlioglu, S., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2014). Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in African countries: New insights from a panel causality approach. Economic Modelling, 37, 386-394.
  • Narayan, P. K. (2005). New evidence on purchasing power parity from 17 OECD countries. Applied Economics, 37(9), 1063-1071.
  • Nusair, S. A. (2003). Testing the validity of purchasing power parity for Asian countries during the current float. Journal of Economic Development, 28(2), 129-147.
  • Ocal, O. (2013). Purchasing power parity in the case of Romania: Evidence from structural breaks. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 3(4), 973-976.
  • Papell, D. H. (1997). Searching for stationarity: Purchasing power parity under the current float. Journal of International Economics, 43(3-4), 313-332.
  • Payne, J., Lee, J., & Hofler, R. (2005). Purchasing power parity: Evidence from a transition economy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 27(6), 665-672.
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Discussion Paper Series, IZA DP No. 1240.
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
  • Pesaran, M. H., Smith, L. V., & Yamagata, T. (2013). Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Journal of Econometrics, 175(2), 94-115.
  • Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
  • Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
  • Qayyum, A., Khan, M. A., Khair-u-Zaman, & Saqib, O. F. (2004). Exchange Rate Misalignment in Pakistan: Evidence from Purchasing Power Parity Theory [with Comments]. The Pakistan Development Review, 721-735.
  • Sachs, G. (2007). Beyond the BRICs: A look at the next 11. Beyond BRICS; Goldman Sachs Global Economic Group: New York, NY, USA.
  • Sarno, L. (2005). Towards a solution to the puzzles in exchange rate economics: Where do we stand? Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D'économique, 38(3), 673-708.
  • Strauss, J. (1995). Real exchange rates, PPP and the relative price of nontraded goods. Southern Economic Journal, 61, 991-1005.
  • Taylor, M. P., & Peel, D. A. (2000). Nonlinear adjustment, long-run equilibrium and exchange rate fundamentals. Journal of international Money and Finance, 19(1), 33-53.
  • Taylor, A. M., & Taylor, M. P. (2004). The purchasing power parity debate. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(4), 135- 158.
  • Vasconcelos, C. R. F., & Júnior, L. A. L. (2016). Validity of purchasing power parity for selected Latin American countries: Linear and non-linear unit root tests. Economia, 17(1), 114-125.
  • Wilson, D., Stupnytska, A., Poddar, T., Bhundia, A., Morra, P., & Ahmed, S. (2007). Goldman Sachs, Global Economics Paper No: 153
  • Wu, J. L. (1996). The empirical investigation of long-run purchasing power parity: The case of Taiwan exchange rates. International Economic Journal, 10(4), 59-69.
  • Xie, Z., Chen, S. W., & Hsieh, C. K. (2021). Facing up to the polysemy of purchasing power parity: New international evidence. Economic Modelling, 98, 247-265.
  • Yılancı, V. (2012). The validity of purchasing power parity in Central and Eastern European countries: A rolling nonlinear unit root. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 25(4), 973-986.
  • Yıldırım, D. (2017). Empirical investigation of purchasing power parity for Turkey: Evidence from recent nonlinear unit root tests. Central Bank Review, 17(2), 39-45.
  • Zeren, F., & İşlek, H. 4 Is Per Capita Real GDP Stationary in the D-8 Countries? Evidence from a Panel Unit Root Test. (Ed.) E. Çağlayan Akay & Ö. Korkmaz, Selected topics in applied econometrics (pp. 67-86). PeterLang.
  • Zhou, S. (1997). Purchasing power parity in high-inflation countries: A cointegration analysis of integrated variables with trend breaks. Southern Economic Journal, 64(2), 450-467.
  • Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (2002). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 25-44.
APA HACIİMAMOĞLU T (2021). Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. , 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
Chicago HACIİMAMOĞLU TUNAHAN Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. (2021): 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
MLA HACIİMAMOĞLU TUNAHAN Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. , 2021, ss.799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
AMA HACIİMAMOĞLU T Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. . 2021; 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
Vancouver HACIİMAMOĞLU T Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. . 2021; 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
IEEE HACIİMAMOĞLU T "Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği." , ss.799 - 811, 2021. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
ISNAD HACIİMAMOĞLU, TUNAHAN. "Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği". (2021), 799-811. https://doi.org/10.20409/berj.2021.353
APA HACIİMAMOĞLU T (2021). Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal, 12(4), 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
Chicago HACIİMAMOĞLU TUNAHAN Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal 12, no.4 (2021): 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
MLA HACIİMAMOĞLU TUNAHAN Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal, vol.12, no.4, 2021, ss.799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
AMA HACIİMAMOĞLU T Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal. 2021; 12(4): 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
Vancouver HACIİMAMOĞLU T Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal. 2021; 12(4): 799 - 811. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
IEEE HACIİMAMOĞLU T "Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği." Business and Economics Research Journal, 12, ss.799 - 811, 2021. 10.20409/berj.2021.353
ISNAD HACIİMAMOĞLU, TUNAHAN. "Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testi ile İncelenmesi: N-11 Ülkeleri Örneği". Business and Economics Research Journal 12/4 (2021), 799-811. https://doi.org/10.20409/berj.2021.353
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
25-04-2024 13:21

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları