SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2

Does purchasing power parity hold for G7 countries?

Satın alma gücü paritesi G7 Ülkeleri çin geçerli mi?

Burcu ÖZCAN
Pages
137–161
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

The results confirm the validity of PPP in most situations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purchasing power parity (PPP) suggests that, once converted to a common currency, national and foreign price levels should be equal.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It relies on the idea that goods market arbitrage enforces parity in prices across countries, and can be illustrated by making a distinction between absolute and relative PPP.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results confirm the validity of PPP in most situations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purchasing power parity (PPP) suggests that, once converted to a common currency, national and foreign price levels should be equal. It relies on the idea that goods market arbitrage enforces parity in prices across countries, and can be illustrated by making a distinction between absolute and relative PPP. PPP has attracted a large empirical interest. However, there is no consensus on whether or not it holds. There are many applied techniques that used to test the validity of PPP. In this study, we aim to investigate the validity of PPP for G7 countries between 1980-2010 years by using PANKPSS test, which takes account crosssectional dependency and multiple structural breaks. The results confirm the validity of PPP in most situations.

Özet

Satın alma gücü paritesi (SAGP) ortak bir para birimi cinsinden ifade edildiginde, ulusal ve yabancı fiyat düzeylerinin esit olması gerektigini ileri sürmektedir. SAGP, mal piyasası arbitrajının ülkelere karsı fiyatlardaki pariteyi yürürlüge koydugu fikrine dayanmakta olup mutlak ve nispi türleri arasında bir ayrım ile açıklanabilmektedir. SAGP oldukça genis çaplı bir ampirik merak dogurmustur. Fakat tutarlılıgı konusunda bir uzlası söz konusu degildir. Geçerliligini test etmek üzere birçok ampirik teknik kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalısmada ise G7 ülkeleri için 1980-2010 dönemi boyunca yatay kesit bagımlılıgı ve çoklu yapısal kırılma durumunu dikkate alan PANKPSS testini kullanarak SAGP’nin geçerliligini sınamaktayız. Sonuçlar, çogu durumda SAGP’nin geçerliligini teyit etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZCAN, B. (2022). Does purchasing power parity hold for G7 countries?. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2, 137–161. https://ajindex.com/articles/533118

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Abumustafa, N.I. (2006) “New Evidence of the Validity of Purchasing Power Parity From Jordan”, Applied Economics Letters, 13(6), 379-383.
  2. Acaravci, A., . Öztürk (2010) “Testing Purchasing Power Parity in Transition Countries: Evidence from Structural Breaks”, The Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 12(27), 190-198.
  3. Allsopp, L., R. Zurbruegg (2003) “Purchasing Power Parity in East Asia: Why all the Fuss?”, Centre for International Economic Studies, Discussion Paper, No:0304. AL-Omar, M.A., K.H. Ghali (2003) “PPP Tests in Cointegrated Heterogeneous Panels: The Case of the GCC Countries”, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 35, 163-172.
  4. Alves, D.C.O., R.C. Cati, V.L. Fava (2001) “Purchasing power parity in Brazil: a test for fractional cointegration”, Applied Economics, 33(9), 1175-1185.
  5. Azali, M., M.S. Habibullah, A.Z. Baharumshah (2001) “Does PPP hold between Asian and Japanese Economies? Evidence Using Panel unit Root and Panel Cointegration”, Japan and the World Economy, 13, 35-50.
  6. Baharumshah, A.Z., R. Aggarwaland, C. Tze-Haw (2005) “East Asian Real Exchange Rates and PPP: New Evidence from Panel-Data Tests”, MPRA Paper No. 2023.
  7. Baharumshah, A.Z., D. Borsic (2008) “Purchasing Power Parity in Central and Eastern European Countries”, Economics Bulletin, 6(32), 1-8.
  8. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., A. Gelan (2006) “Testing the PPP in the Non-linear STAR Framework: Evidence from Africa”, Economics Bulletin, 6(17), 1-15.
  9. Bai, J., P. Perron (1998) “Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes” Econometrica, 66(1), 47–78.
  10. Basher, S.A., M. Mohsin (2004) “PPP tests in Cointegrated Panels: Evidence from Asian Developing Countries”, Applied Economics Letters, 11, 163–166.
  11. Beirne, J., J. Hunter, M. Simpson (2007) “Is the Real Exchange Rate Stationary? The Application of Similar Tests for a Unit Root in the Univariate and Panel Cases”, Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis in Social Sciences, 1(2), 55- 70. Boyd, D., R. Smith (1999) “Testing for Purchasing Power Parity: Econometric Issues and an Application to Developing Countries”, The Manchester School, 67, 287–303.
  12. Breitung, J., B. Candelon (2005) “Purchasing Power Parity during Currency Crises: A Panel Unit Root Test under Structural Breaks”, Review of World Economics, 141(1), 124-140.
  13. Breusch, T., A. Pagan (1980) “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Application to Model Specifications in Econometrics”, Reviews of Economics Studies, 47: 239-253.
  14. Cashin, P., C.J. Mcdermott (2006) “Pari