SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Econometric Review / 2023 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

Gibson Paradox: Panel Data Analysis on ASEAN-T Countries

Seçkin KABAK
Tuğçe DALLI
Pages
12–27
Publication Date
2023-06-22
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)

Therefore, the Gibson paradox is valid in the ASEAN-T countries in the examined period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The existence of a long-term positive relationship between the nominal interest rate and the general price level is called the Gibson paradox in the economics literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In other words, according to this paradox, high prices are the result of high interest rates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, the Gibson paradox is valid in the ASEAN-T countries in the examined period.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Gibson Paradox · Panel Data Analysis · Panel ARDL Bound Test

Abstract

The existence of a long-term positive relationship between the nominal interest rate and the general price level is called the Gibson paradox in the economics literature. In other words, according to this paradox, high prices are the result of high interest rates. Studies on this paradox in the literature gained momentum after the work of Gibson (1923). The main purpose of this study is to test whether Gibson paradox is valid for ASEAN-T countries with quarterly data of 1993:Q1-2019:Q4. In this context, short and long term interest rates and consumer price index variables were used in the study. In the study, in which panel data analysis was carried out, it was first analyzed whether there was a cross-section dependency. Because of the cross-section dependency in the series, the CADF unit root test, one of the second generation panel unit root tests, was used. Panel ARDL (Autoregressive Distributed Lag) bounds test was carried out due to the different stationarity levels of the series. According to the panel ARDL bounds test findings, there is a positive relationship between the long-term interest rate and the consumer price index in both the short and long run. Therefore, the Gibson paradox is valid in the ASEAN-T countries in the examined period.

🔖

Cite This Article

KABAK, S., DALLI, T. (2023). Gibson Paradox: Panel Data Analysis on ASEAN-T Countries. International Econometric Review, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 12–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/947480

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Aklan, N. A., Akay, H. K. and Çınar, M. (2014, Ekim). Türkiye’de Faiz Haddi ve Enflasyon İlişkisi: Gibson Paradoksu’na Yönelik Bir Değerlendirme. International Conference in Economics Prague, Czech Republic September 03-05,
  2. Prague. Altunöz, U. (2017). Nominal Faiz Oranı-Genel Fiyat Düzeyi İlişkisi ile Türkiye’de Gibson Paradoksunun Geçerliliği Analizi. TİSK Akademi, 12(23), 172-184.
  3. Altunöz, U. (2020). Faiz Haddi-Enflasyon İlişkisi ve Türkiye’de Gibson Çelişkisinin Analizi: Keynes-Wicksell ve Fisher Örneği. Sayıştay Dergisi, (118), 153-178.
  4. Atgür, M. (2021). Türkiye’de Enflasyon ve Faiz İlişkisi: Gibson Paradoksunun Türkiye’de Geçerliliği (2004-2020). Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 513-526.
  5. Atkins, F. J. and Serletis, A. (2003). Bounds Tests of the Gibson Paradox and the Fisher Effect: Evidence from Low-Frequency International Data. Manchester School, 71(6). Bakkal, H. (2021). Türkiye’de Gibson Paradoksunun Geçerliliği: Maki Eşbütünleşme Testi. Journal of Emergıng Economies and Policy, 6(2) 226-235.
  6. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q. and Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence in a Fixed Effects Panel Data Model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177.
  7. Barsky, R. B. and Summers, L. (1988). Gibson Paradox and The Gold Standard. Journal of Political Economy, 96(3). Benjamin, D. K. and Kochin, L. A. (1984).
  8. War, Prices, And Interest Rates: A Martial Solution to Gibson's Paradox. In A Retrospective on The Classical Gold Standard. 1821-1931, University of Chicago Press, 587-612.
  9. Breusch, T.S. and Pagan, A.R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Spesification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  10. Chadha, J.S. and Pearlman, M. (2014). Was The Gibson Paradox for Real? A Wicksellian Study of the Relationship between Interest Rates and Prices. Financial History Review, 21(2), 139-163.
  11. Cheng, H., Kesselring, R. G. and Brown, C. R. (2013). The Gibson Paradox: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 27, 82-93.
  12. Cochran, J. (1997). Replicating Gibson: or, A Pair of Dummies Does not Beata Paradox. GMU Economics Department Working Paper Series, WPE:99-10, 1-21.
  13. Corbae, D. and Ouliaris, S. (1989). A Random Walk Through The Gibson Paradox. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 4, 295-303.
  14. Coulombe, S. A. (1998). Non-Paradoxical Interpretation of The Gibson Paradox. Bank of Canada Working Paper, No. 98-22, 1988.
  15. Dehghani, Z., Nooralah, S. A. and