SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2014 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 22

Testing Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis (PPP) for OECD Countries

Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Hipotezi (SAGP)’nin OECD Ülkeleri İçin Test Edilmesi

Reşat CEYLAN
Hakan ULUCAN
Pages
193–210
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)

Because according to AESTAR procedure the PPP hypothesis holds 20 OECD countries

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main aim of this study is to test the validity of purchasing power parity (PPP) hypothesis for OECD countries among which the economic integration have been increasing over time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study purchasing power parity is tested for 25 OECD countries by using the yearly data from 1970 to 2013.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Because according to AESTAR procedure the PPP hypothesis holds 20 OECD countries
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to test the validity of purchasing power parity (PPP) hypothesis for OECD countries among which the economic integration have been increasing over time. In this study purchasing power parity is tested for 25 OECD countries by using the yearly data from 1970 to 2013. KSS and AESTAR test procedures that are based on non-linear techniques are used in the study. Findings suggest that AESTAR estimation gives more robust results than KSS. Because according to AESTAR procedure the PPP hypothesis holds 20 OECD countries

Özet

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, aralarındaki ekonomik bütünleşmenin giderek arttığı OECD ülkelerinde satın alma gücü paritesi (SAGP) hipotezinin geçerliliğini test etmektir. SAGP hipotezi, reel döviz kurunun kendi ortalamasına dönme eğiliminde olacağını ifade etmektedir. Bu çalışmada 25 OECD ülkesi için SAGP hipotezi 1970-2013 dönemine ait yıllık veriler kullanılarak analiz edilmektedir. Çalışmada doğrusal olmayan zaman serisi tekniğine dayanan KSS ve AESTAR test prosedürleri kullanılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, AESTAR sürecinin KSS sürecinden daha güçlü kanıtlar sunduğunu göstermekte ve 25 OECD ülkesinden 20 tanesinde SAGP'nin geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

CEYLAN, R., ULUCAN, H. (2022). Testing Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis (PPP) for OECD Countries. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 22, 193–210. https://ajindex.com/articles/592497

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Alba, J.D. & D. Papell (2007), “Purchasing Power Parity and Country Characteristics: Evidence from the Panel Data Tests”, Journal of Development Economics, 83, 240-251.
  2. Benassy, A. & V. Duran & R. Lahreche & V. Ignon (2005), “Real Equilibrium Exchange Rates: A G20 Panel Co-integration Approach”, Thema working paper, 2005.
  3. 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.
  4. Cang, T. & C. Lee & P. Chou & D. Tang (2011), “Revisiting Long-run Purchasing Power Parity with Asymetric Adjustment for G-7 Countries”, Japan and the World Economy, 23, 259- 264. Chang, T. & C. Lee & W. Liu (2012), “Non linear adjustment to purchasing power parity for ASEAN countries”, Japan and the World Economy, 24(4), 325-331.
  5. Cassel, G. (1918), “Abnormal deviations in international exchanges”, The Economic Journal, 28, 413-415.
  6. Çağlayan, E. & N. Saçaklı (2006), “Satın Alma Gücü Paritesinin Geçerliliğinin Sıfır Frekansta Spektrum Tahmincisine Dayanan Birim Kök Testleri ile İncelenmesi”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 20, 121-137.
  7. Doğanlar, M. (2006), “Long-Run Validity of Purchasing Power Parity and Co-integration analysis for Central Asian Countries”, Applied Economics Letters, 13, 457-461.
  8. Gözgör, G. (2013), “Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis Amongthe Main Trade Partners of Turkey”, Economics Bulletin, 31, 1432-1438.
  9. Güloğlu, B. & S. İspir & D. Onat (2011), “Testing the validity of quasi PPP hypothesis: Evidence from a recent panel unit root test with structural breaks”, Applied economics letters, 18, 1817-1822.
  10. Holmes, M.J. & J. Otero & J. Panagiotidis (2012), “PPP in OECD Countries: An Analysis of Real Exchange Rate Stationary Cross-Sectional Dependancy and Structural Breaks”, Open Economics Review, 23(5), 767-783.
  11. Kalyoncu, H. & K. Kalyoncu (2008), “Purchasing power parity in OECD countries: Evidence from panel unit root”, Economic Modelling, 25(3): 440-445.
  12. Kapetanios, G. & Y. Shin & A. Snell (2003), “Testing for a unit root in the non-linear STAR framework”, Journal of Econometrics, 16, 359-379.
  13. Karoglou, M. & B. Morley (2012), “Purchasing Power Parity and Structural instability in the US/UK Exchange rate”, Int. Fın. Markets, Int. and Money, 22, 958-972.
  14. Korkmaz, T. & E.İ. Çevik & N.K. Çevik (2013), “Satın Alma Gücü Paritesinin Azerbaycan, Kazakistan ve Kırgızistan için Geçerliliğinin Test Edilmesi: Birim Kök ve Eşbütünleşme Analizi”, Bilig, (64), 2