SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 25

THE VALIDITY OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF PURCHASING POWER PARITY VERSIONS: EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY

SATIN ALMA GÜCÜ PARİTESİ ve VARYASYONLARININ TÜRKİYE İÇİN SINANMASI

Sefer ŞENER
Veli YILANCI
Esra CANPOLAT
Pages
53–63
Publication Date
2015-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

However, by employing unit root tests which allow structural breaks in intercept and intercept and also trend, we conclude that Qualified PPP and Qualified-Trend PPP with structural breaks is valid.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, we investigated different versions of purchasing power parity PPP for Turkey over the period January 1980 – December 2012.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The test results we obtained show that purchasing power parity is not valid for Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, by employing unit root tests which allow structural breaks in intercept and intercept and also trend, we conclude that Qualified PPP and Qualified-Trend PPP with structural breaks is valid.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi · Yapısal Kırılma · Reel Döviz Kuru

Abstract

In this study, we investigated different versions of purchasing power parity PPP for Turkey over the period January 1980 – December 2012. The test results we obtained show that purchasing power parity is not valid for Turkey. However, by employing unit root tests which allow structural breaks in intercept and intercept and also trend, we conclude that Qualified PPP and Qualified-Trend PPP with structural breaks is valid.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de satın alma gücü paritesinin ve çeşitli varyasyonlarının geçerliliği Ocak 1980 – Aralık 2012 dönemi için, reel döviz kurunu çeşitli veri yaratma süreçleriyle modelleyerek sınanmıştır. Yapılan testler sonrasında, Türkiye’de satın alma gücü paritesinin geçerli olmadığı görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte, çoklu yapısal kırılmaya izin veren birim kök testleriyle yapılan analizde, sadece sabit terimde ve sabit terim ile trend terimlerinde kırılmaya izin veren birim kök testlerinde, reel döviz kuru durağan bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bu sonuçlar, Türkiye’de sınırlı SAGP ile Kırılmalı-Trendli-Sınırlı SAGP’nin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENER, S., YILANCI, V., CANPOLAT, E. (2015). THE VALIDITY OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF PURCHASING POWER PARITY VERSIONS: EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 25, 53–63. https://ajindex.com/articles/170182

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. 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.
  2. Alba, J. D., & Park, D. (2005). An empirical investigation of purchasing power parity (PPP) for Turkey, Journal of Policy Modeling 27, 989–1000.
  3. 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. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Chang, T., & Lee, K-C. (2014). Purchasing power parity in the BRICS and the MIST countries: Sequential Panel Selection Method. Review of Economics & Finance, 4(1), 1-12.
  4. Bai, J., & Perron, P. (1998). Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica, 66, 47–78.
  5. Balassa, B. (1964). The purchasing-power parity doctrine: A reappraisal. Journal of Political Economy, 76(6), 584-596.
  6. Basher, S.A., & Carrion-i-Silvestre, J.L. (2011). Measuring persistence of U.S. city prices: New evidence from robust tests. Empirical Economics, 41(3), 739-745.
  7. Bozoklu, Ş., & Yılancı, V. (2010), Reel döviz kurlarının durağanlığı: E7 ülkeleri için ampirik bir inceleme. Maliye Dergisi, 158, 587-606.
  8. Christopoulos, D.K., & León-Ledesma, M.A. (2010). Smooth breaks and non-linear mean reversion: Post-Bretton Woods real exchange rates. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29(6), 1076-1093.
  9. Cuestas, J.C., & Regis, P.J. (2013). Purchasing power parity in OECD countries: Nonlinear unit root tests revisited. Economic Modelling, 32, 343–346.
  10. Dornbusch, R., & Vogelsang, T. (1991). Real Exchange rates and purchasing power parity. İçinde de Melo, J., & Sapir, A. (ed) Trade Theory and Economic Reform: North, South, and East, Essays in Honor of Bela Balassa, (ss. 3–24). Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Gómez-Zaldívar, M., Ventosa-Santaulària, D., & Wallace, F. (2012). The PPP hypothesis and structural breaks: the case of Mexico. Empirical Economics, doi: 10.1007/s00181-012- 0653-6, 1-9.
  11. Güney, P.Ö., Telatar, E., & Hasanov, M. (2012). Re-examining purchasing power parity for selected emerging markets and African countries. Applied Economics Letters, 19(2), 139-144.
  12. Hegwood, N. D., & Papell, D. H. (1998). Quasi purchasing power parity. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 3, 279–89.
  13. Kalyoncu, H. (2009). New evidence of the validity of purchasing power parity fro