SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 13

Price Level Convergence Among Provinces in Turkey

Türkiye'de illerarası Fiyat Yakınsaması

Ömer ÖZÇİÇEK
Pages
266–279
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Half life is found to be 13 years which is much larger than the ones in other studies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purchasing power parity (PPP) analyzes the price level and nominal exchange rate dynamics among countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study the CPI convergence has been investigated for Turkey’s 19 provinces using univariate and panel unit root tests, and it has been found that statistically no convergence is found.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Half life is found to be 13 years which is much larger than the ones in other studies.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purchasing power parity (PPP) analyzes the price level and nominal exchange rate dynamics among countries. The unsatisfactory results obtained from PPP research and to be able to better understand the price level dynamics, investigating price level convergence among cities in the same country became popular. Even though, in general, it is found that there is price convergence among cities, the convergence time is longer than expected. In this study the CPI convergence has been investigated for Turkey’s 19 provinces using univariate and panel unit root tests, and it has been found that statistically no convergence is found. Half life is found to be 13 years which is much larger than the ones in other studies.

Özet

Satın alma gücü paritesi (SGP) ülkeler arası fiyat seviyesi ve nominal kur dinamiklerini incelemektedir. SGP araştırmalarında tatminkâr sonuç alınmaması ve fiyat dinamiklerinin daha iyi araştırılması için aynı ülke içindeki şehirlerin fiyat seviyelerinde yakınsama olup olmadığı araştırılmaya başlanmıştır. Yapılan çalışmalarda genelde fiyat yakınsamasının olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmışsa da, yakınsama süresi beklenenden uzun çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin 19 ilinin TÜFE’sinde yakınsama tek değişkenli ve panel birim kök metotlarıyla incelenmiş ve istatistiksel olarak yakınsamanın olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Yarı ömür diğer çalışmalardan çok daha yüksel olan 13 sene bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZÇİÇEK, Ö. (2022). Price Level Convergence Among Provinces in Turkey. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 13, 266–279. https://ajindex.com/articles/433204

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. BOWMAN, D. (1998), Efficiency tests for autoregressive unit root in panel data. American Central Bank, Board of Governors. CAMARERO, M., ESTEVE V. ve TAMARI, C. (2000), Price convergence of peripheral European countries on the way to the EMU: A time series approach. Empirical Economics 25, s. 149-168.
  2. CAMPBELL, J. ve PERRON, P. (1991), Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots, National Bureau of Economic Research Macroeconomics Annual, s. 141–201.
  3. CARRION-I-SILVESRTRE, J., BARRION T. ve E. LO´ PEZ-BAZO (2004), Evidence on the purchasing power parity in a panel of cities. Applied Economics 36, s. 961–966.
  4. CECCHETTI, S., MARK, N., ve SONARA, R. (2002), Price index convergence among United States cities, International Economic Review 43(4), s. 1081-1099.
  5. CEGLOWSKI, J. (2003), The law of one price: International evidence for Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics 36, s. 373-400.
  6. CHAUDHURI, K. ve SHEEN, J. (2004), Purchasing Power Parity Across States and Goods Within Australia. The Economic Record 80, s. 314–329.
  7. CULVER, S. ve PAPELL, D.(1999), Panel Evidence of Purchasing Power Parity Using International and International Data, Houston University. ENGEL, C., ROGERS, J.H., (1996), How wide is the border? American Economic Review 86, s. 1112-1125.
  8. ENGEL, C., ve ROGERS, J.H. (2001), Deviations from purchasing power parity: causes and welfare costs. Journal of International Economics 55, s. 29-58.
  9. ESAKA, T. (2003), Panel unit root tests of purchasing power parity between Japanese cities, 1960–1998: disaggregated price data. Japan and the World Economy 15, s. 233–244.
  10. FRANKEL, J. (1986), International Capital Mobility and Crowding Out in the U.S. Economy: Imperfect Integration of Financial Markets or of Goods Markets? How Open is the U.S. Economy?, Edit: R. Hafer, Lexington Books. FLOOD, R.P. ve TAYLOR, M.P. (1996), Exchange Rate Economics: What is wrong with the Conventional Macro Approach? The Microstructure of Foreign Exchange Markets, Ed: J.A. Frankel, G. Gali ve A. Giovannini, Chicago University Pres. HAKKIO, C. (1984), A reexamination of Purchasing Power Parity. Journal of International Economics 17, s. 265-277.
  11. IM KS, PESARAN M.H. ve SHIN, Y. (2003), Testing for unit Roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics 115, s. 53–74.
  12. LEVIN A., C. LIN, ve CHU, C. (2002), Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 108, s. 1–24.
  13. MADDALA, G.S. ve WU, S. (1999) A Comparati