SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 67

Testing the Validity of Purchasing Power Parity at the Sectoral Level: The Case of Türkiye

Satınalma Gücü Paritesinin Sektörel Düzeyde Sınanması: Türkiye Değerlendirmesi

Ahmet Bilal Kurtoğlu(Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası)0009-0002-7941-9308
Mete Han Yağmur(İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İŞLETME FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-7630-6335
Pages
491–516
Publication Date
2026-01-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Evidence supporting the stationarity of the exchange rate increases when nonlinearity is taken into account; the PPP hypothesis is supported for all sectors except tobacco products and clothing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Because the purchasing power parity (PPP) hypothesis is a key element of equilibrium exchange rate models, many scholars have examined its validity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While factors such as the tradability of goods and varying tax rates on products are expected to influence the validity of the PPP, few studies have examined it at the sectoral level.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Evidence supporting the stationarity of the exchange rate increases when nonlinearity is taken into account; the PPP hypothesis is supported for all sectors except tobacco products and clothing.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Satınalma Gücü Paritesi · Reel Döviz Kuru · Birim Kök Testleri

Abstract

Because the purchasing power parity (PPP) hypothesis is a key element of equilibrium exchange rate models, many scholars have examined its validity. While factors such as the tradability of goods and varying tax rates on products are expected to influence the validity of the PPP, few studies have examined it at the sectoral level. In this research, the validity of the PPP hypothesis is tested sector-by-sector by analysing real effective exchange rates for 23 manufacturing sectors in Türkiye. Using standard unit root tests, the validity of PPP is confirmed in 11 of the 23 sectors. Evidence supporting the stationarity of the exchange rate increases when nonlinearity is taken into account; the PPP hypothesis is supported for all sectors except tobacco products and clothing.

Özet

Satın alma gücü paritesi (SAGP) hipotezi, denge döviz kuru modellerinin önemli bir bileşeni olduğundan, geçerliliği birçok çalışmanın konusu olmuştur. Malların ticarete konu olması ve ürün bazında uygulanan vergi oranı gibi unsurların SAGP’nin geçerliliğine etki etmesi beklenirken, SAGP hipotezinin sektörel bazda geçerliliğiyle ilgili sınırlı sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, SAGP hipotezinin geçerliliği Türkiye’de 23 imalat sanayi sektörü için reel efektif döviz kurları elde edilerek sektörel bazda sınanmıştır. Doğrusal birim kök testleri uygulandığında, 23 sektörün 11’i için döviz kurunda birim kökün varlığı reddedilmiş; bu sektörler için SAGP’nin geçerliliği yönünde kanıt elde edilmiştir. Doğrusal olmama durumunu dikkate alan birim kök testleri kullanıldığında, daha fazla sektör için döviz kurunun durağan olduğu gözlemlenmiş; tütün ürünleri ve giyim eşyası dışındaki tüm sektörlerde SAGP hipotezinin geçerli olduğuna dair ampirik kanıtlar elde edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kurtoğlu, A. B., Yağmur, M. H. (2026). Testing the Validity of Purchasing Power Parity at the Sectoral Level: The Case of Türkiye. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 67, 491–516. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2026.01.21

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (49)

  1. Alba, J.D. & D. Park (2005), “An Empirical Investigation of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) for Turkey”, Journal of Policy Modelling, 27(8), 989-1000.
  2. Alptekin, V. (2016), Makro Ekonomi, Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
  3. Boughton, J.M. (2002), “On the Origins of the Fleming-Mundell Model”, International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 50(1).
  4. Caner, M. & B.E. Hansen (2001), “Threshold Autoregression with a Unit Root”, Econometrica, 69(6), 1555-1596.
  5. Cassel, G. (1918), “Abnormal Deviations in International Exchanges”, The Economic Journal, 28(112), 413-415.
  6. Clements, K.W. & J.A. Frenkel (1980), “Exchange Rates, Money, and Relative Prices: The Dollar-Pound in the 1920s”, Journal of International Economics, 10(2), 249-262.
  7. Chen, N. (2004), “The Behavior of Relative Prices in the European Union: A Sectoral Analysis”, European Economic Review, 48(6), 1257-1286.
  8. Cuddington, J.T. & H. Liang (2000), “Purchasing Power Parity over two Centuries?”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 19(5), 753-757.
  9. Demir, A. & H. Kıymaz (1999), “Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi ve Birlikte Bütünleşme Türkiye ve Ana Ticaret Ortakları Uygulaması”, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 14(162), 32-49.
  10. Dickey, D.A. & W.A. Fuller (1979), “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431.
  11. Dickey, D.A. & W.A. Fuller (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
  12. Elliott, G. & E. Pesavento (2006), “On the Failure of Purchasing Power Parity for Bilateral Exchange Rates after 1973”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 38(6), 1405-1430.
  13. Fleming, J.M. (1962), “Domestic Financial Policies under Fixed and under Floating Exchange Rates”, Staff Papers-International Monetary Fund, 369-380.
  14. Frankel, J.A. (1979), “On the Mark: A Theory of Floating Exchange Rates Based on Real Interest Rate Differentials”, The American Economic Review, 69(4), 610-622.
  15. Franses, P.H. & D.V. Dijk (2000), Non-linear Time Series Models in Empirical Finance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Frenkel, J.A. (1976) “A Monetary Approach to the Exchange Rate: Doctrinal Aspects and Empirical Evidence”, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 78, 200-224.
  17. Gujarati, D.N. & D.C. Porter (2009), Basic Econometrics, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
  18. Harvey, D.I. et al. (2010), “The Prebisch-Singer Hypothesis: Four Centuries of Evidence”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 367-377.
  19. Hegwood, N.D. & D.H. Papell (1998), “Quasi Purchasing Power Parity”, International Journal of Finance and Economics, 3(4), 279-289.
  20. Kalyoncu, H. (2009), “New Evidence of the Validity of Purchasing Power Parity from Turkey”, Applied Economics Letters, 16(1), 63-67.
  21. Kapetanios, G. et al. (2003), “Testing for a Unit Root in the Nonlinear STAR Framework”, Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379.
  22. Karademir, C. & R. Ceylan (2025), “Türkiye’de SAGP Hipotezinin İncelenmesi: Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testlerinden Kanıtlar”, Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 47-58.
  23. Koçak, İ. & S. Özbek (2020), “Satın Alma Gücü Paritesinin Geçerliliği: Durağanlık ve Birim Kök Testlerinden Yeni Kanıtlar”, Uluslararası Ticaret ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 22-31.
  24. Krager, H. & P. Kugler (1993), “Nonlinearities in Foreign Exchange Markets: a Different Perspective”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 12, 195-208.
  25. LeBaron, B. (1992), “Some Relationship Between Volatility and Serial Correlations in Stock Market Returns”, Journal of Business, 65, 199-219.
  26. Lee, J. & B.C. Yi (2005), “Industry Level Real Effective Exchange Rates for Korea”, Economic Papers, 9(1), 143-185.
  27. Lothian, J. & M. Taylor (1996), “Real Exchange Rate Behavior: The Recent Float from the Perspective of the Past Two Centuries”, Journal of Political Economy, 104(3), 488-509.
  28. Mackinnon, J.G. (1996), “Numerical Distribution Functions for Unit Root and Cointegration Tests”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 601-618.
  29. Mundell, R.A. (1960), “The monetary dynamics of international adjustment under fixed and flexible exchange rates”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 74(2), 227-257.
  30. Mundell, R.A. (1961), “The international disequilibrium system”, Kyklos, 14(2), 153-172.
  31. Mundell, R.A. (1963), “Capital mobility and stabilization policy under fixed and flexible exchange rates”, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 29(4), 475-485.
  32. Narayan, P.K. & S. Narayan (2007), “Are Real Exchange Rates Nonlinear with a Unit Root: Evidence on PPP for Italy: a Note”, Applied Economics, 39, 2483-2488.
  33. Papell, D.H. (2002), “The Great Appreciation, The Great Depreciation, And The Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis”, Journal of International Economics, 57, 51-82.
  34. Papell, D.H. & R. Prodan (2020), “Long-run Purchasing Power Parity Redux”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 109, 102260.
  35. Perron, P. (1989), “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis”, Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401.
  36. Sarno, L. & M. Taylor (2002), “Purchasing Power Parity and the Real Exchange Rate”, IMF Staff Papers, 49(1), 65-105.
  37. Schwert, G.W. (1989), “Tests for Unit Roots: A Monte Carlo Investigation”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 7(2), 147-159.
  38. Sercu, P. et al. (1995), “The Exchange Rate in the Presence of Transaction Costs: Implications for Tests of Purchasing Power Parity”, The Journal of Finance, 50(4), 1309-1319.
  39. Sollis, R. et al. (2002), “Tests for Symetric and Asymetric Nonlinear Mean Reversion in Real Exchange Rates”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 34(3), 686-700.
  40. Sollis, R. (2005), “Evidence on Purchasing Power Parity from Univariate Models: the Case of Smooth Transition Trend-stationarity”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(1), 79-98.
  41. Sollis, R. (2009), “A Simple Unit Root Test Against Asymmetric STAR Nonlinearity with an Application to Real Exchange Rates in Nordic Countries”, Economic Modelling, 26(1), 118-125.
  42. Stock, J.H. (1994), “Unit Roots, Structural Breaks and Trends”, Handbook of Econometrics, 4, 2739-2841.
  43. Taylor, A.M. & M.P. Taylor (2002), “The Purchasing Power Parity Debate”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(4), 125-158.
  44. Taylor, M.P. et al. (2001), “Nonlinear Mean‐reversion in Real Exchange Rates: Toward a Solution to the Purchasing Power Parity Puzzles”, International Economic Review, 42(4), 1015-1042.
  45. Tong, H. (1990), Non-linear Time Series: A Dynamical System Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  46. Tong, H. & K.S. Lim (1980), “Threshold Autoregression, Limit Cycles and Cyclical Data”, Journal of Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 42(3), 245-292.
  47. Uğur, M.S. & A.E. Alper (2023), “Revisiting Purchasing Power Parity in OECD Countries: New Evidence from Nonlinear Unit Root Test with Structural Breaks”, Sosyoekonomi, 31(57), 25-45.
  48. Yardımcı, M.C. (2024), “Satın alma gücü paritesi hipotezinin Türkiye için geçerliliğinin araştırılması: Lineer olmayan birim kök testi”, Uluslararası Batı Karadeniz Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 22-39.
  49. Alptekin, V. (2016), Makro Ekonomi, Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.