SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1

-

KÜÇÜK AÇIK EKONOMİLERDE DÖVİZ KURU İLE FAİZ ORANI ARASINDAKİ OYNAKLIK DEĞİŞ-TOKUŞUNUN KESTİRİMİ: HONG KONG ÖRNEĞİ

Aslı ŞEN TAŞBAŞI
Pages
103–117
Publication Date
2015-03-12
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)

While the pre-crisis and post-crisis periods implied a trade-off between exchange rate and interest rate volatilities, the 1991-2003 period exhibited a positive relationship between exchange rate and interest rate movements contrary to the trade-off hypothesis

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to ascertain the policy choice between the fixed and the flexible exchange rate regimes by empirically investigating whether eliminating the volatiliy in exchange rates increases volatility in interest rates.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This volatility trade off hypothesis is tested for Hong Kong through a bivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic (GARCH) model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While the pre-crisis and post-crisis periods implied a trade-off between exchange rate and interest rate volatilities, the 1991-2003 period exhibited a positive relationship between exchange rate and interest rate movements contrary to the trade-off hypothesis
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Döviz Kuru · Faiz Oranı · Oynaklık Değiş-Tokuşu

Abstract

This study aims to ascertain the policy choice between the fixed and the flexible exchange rate regimes by empirically investigating whether eliminating the volatiliy in exchange rates increases volatility in interest rates. This volatility trade off hypothesis is tested for Hong Kong through a bivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic (GARCH) model. Splitting the data into pre-crisis, post-crisis and crisis-included periods, the analysis ended up with different findings. While the pre-crisis and post-crisis periods implied a trade-off between exchange rate and interest rate volatilities, the 1991-2003 period exhibited a positive relationship between exchange rate and interest rate movements contrary to the trade-off hypothesis

Özet

Bu çalışmada, döviz kurlarındaki oynaklığın (volatility) ortadan kaldırılmasının faiz oranlarındaki oynaklığı artırıp artırmadığı sorusu görgül olarak incelenerek, sabit ve esnek döviz kuru sistemleri arasındaki politika tercihinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştıır. Oynaklık değiş-tokuşu (volatility trade off) olarak adlandırılan bu hipotez, Hong Kong ekonomisi için, genelleştirilmiş ardışık bağlanımlı, koşullu, değişen varyans (generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity - GARCH) modeli yardımıyla sınanmıştır. Veri kümesi, kriz öncesi dönem, kriz dönemi ve kriz sonrası dönem olarak üç alt kümeye bölünmüş ve farklı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Kriz öncesi ve kriz sonrası dönemler döviz kuru oynaklığı ile faiz oranı oynaklığı arasında bir değiş-tokuşa işaret ederken, kriz döneminde değiş-tokuş hipotezine aykırı olarak döviz kuru ve faiz oranı hareketleri arasında pozitif bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TAŞBAŞI, A. Ş. (2015). -. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1, 103–117. https://ajindex.com/articles/6496

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. AKÇAY, O. C., ALPER C. E. ve KARASULU M, 1997, “Currency Substitution and Exchange Rate Instability: The Turkish Case”, European Economic Review 41 (3-5): 827-845. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(97)00040-8.
  2. ARTIS, M J., ve TAYLOR M. P. 1994, “The Stabilizing Effect of the ERM on Exchange Rates and Interest Rates: Some Nonparametric Tests”, IMF Staff Papers 41 (1): 123-148. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3867487.
  3. BAILLIE, R. T., ve BOLLERSLEV, T., 1990, “A Multivariate Generalized ARCH Approach to Modeling Risk Premia in Forward Foreign Exchange Rate Markets”, Journal of International Money and Finance no. 9: 309-324.
  4. BAILLIE, R. T., ve BOLLERSLEV, T., 1991, “Intra-day and Inter-Market Volatility in Foreign Exchange Rates”, Review of Economic Studies 58 (3): 565-585. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2298012.
  5. BAXTER, M, ve STOCKMAN, A. C., 1989, “Business Cycles and the Exchange-Rate Regime”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 23 (3): 377-400. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(89)90039-1.
  6. BENITA, G., ve LAUTERBACH, B, 2007, “Policy Factors and Exchange Rate Volatility: Panel Data versus a Specific Country Analysis”, International Research Journal of Finance & Economics, no. 7: 7-23. url: http://www.eurojournals. com/IRJFE%20ISSUE%207.htm. BERGIN, P., 2004, “Measuring the Costs of Exchange Rate Volatility”, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter No:2004-22. url: http://www. frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2004/el2004-22.pdf. BODART, V., ve REDING, P., 1999, “Exchange Rate Regime Volatility and International Correlations on Bond and Stock Markets” Journal of International Money and Finance 18 (1): 133-151. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261- 5606(98)00042-4.
  7. BOLLERSLEV, T., 1986, “Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticty” Journal of Econometrics 31 (3): 307-327. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1.
  8. BOLLERSLEV, T., 1990, “Modelling the Coherence in Short-Run Nominal Exchange Rates: A Multivariate Generalized ARCH Model”, The Review of Economics and Statistics 72 (3): 498-505. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2109358.
  9. BORIO, C. E.V., ve MCCAULEY, R. N., 1996, “The Anatomy of Bond Market Turbulence of 1994”, Bank of International Settlements Working Paper No. 32 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.11153.
  10. CALVO, G. A., ve REINHART, C. M., 2001, “Fixing for Your Life” Brookings Trade Forum 2000., Susan Collins ve Dani Rodrik, (ed) içinde, 1-39,
  11. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. CALVO, G