The Purchasing Power Parity Debate

Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 18, Number 4 Fall 2004 Pages 135158
The Purchasing Power Parity Debate
Alan M. Taylor and Mark P. Taylor

Our willingness to pay a certain price for foreign money must ultimately and essentially be due to the fact that this money possesses a purchasing power as against commodities and services in that country. On the other hand, when we offer so and so much of our own money, we are actually offering a purchasing power as against commodities and services in our own country. Our valuation of a foreign currency in terms of our own, therefore, mainly depends on the relative purchasing power of the two currencies in their respective countries. Gustav Cassel, economist (1922, pp. 138 39) The fundamental things apply As time goes by. Herman Hupfeld, songwriter (1931; from the lm Casablanca, 1942)
urchasing power parity (PPP) is a disarmingly simple theory that holds that the nominal exchange rate between two currencies should be equal to the ratio of aggregate price levels between the two countries, so that a unit of currency of one country will have the same purchasing power in a foreign country. The PPP theory has a long history in economics, dating back several centuries, but the specic terminology of purchasing power parity was introduced in the years after World War I during the international policy debate concerning the appropriate level for nominal exchange rates among the major industrialized countries after the large-scale inations during and after the war (Cassel, 1918). Since then, the idea of PPP has become embedded in how many international economists think about the world. For example, Dornbusch and Krugman (1976) noted: Under the skin of any international economist lies a deep-seated belief in some variant of the PPP theory of the exchange rate. Rogoff (1996) expressed much the same
y Alan M. Taylor is Professor of Economics and Chancellors Fellow, University of California

at Davis, Davis, California, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mark P. Taylor is Professor of Macroeconomics, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Both authors are Research Fellows, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, United Kingdom. Their e-mail addresses are amtaylor@ucdavis.edu and mark.taylor@warwick.ac.uk , respectively.
136
Journal of Economic Perspectives
sentiment: While few empirically literate economists take PPP seriously as a short-term proposition, most instinctively believe in some variant of purchasing power parity as an anchor for long-run real exchange rates. The question of how exchange rates adjust is central to exchange rate policy, since countries with xed exchange rates need to know what the equilibrium exchange rate is likely to be and countries with variable exchange rates would like to know what level and variation in real and nominal exchange rates they should expect. In broader terms, the question of whether exchange rates adjust toward a level established by purchasing power parity helps to determine the extent to which the international macroeconomic system is self-equilibrating.
Should PPP Hold? Does PPP Hold?

The general idea behind purchasing power parity is that a unit of currency should be able to buy the same basket of goods in one country as the equivalent amount of foreign currency, at the going exchange rate, can buy in a foreign country, so that there is parity in the purchasing power of the unit of currency across the two economies. One very simple way of gauging whether there may be discrepancies from PPP is to compare the prices of similar or identical goods from the basket in the two countries. For example, the Economist newspaper publishes the prices of McDonalds Big Mac hamburgers around the world and compares them in a common currency, the U.S. dollar, at the market exchange rate as a simple measure of whether a currency is overvalued or undervalued relative to the dollar at the current exchange rate (on the supposition that the currency would be valued just right if the dollar price of the burger were the same as in the United States). In January 2004, the cheapest burger was in China, at $1.23, compared with an average American price of $2.80. According to the Big Mac index, therefore, this implied that Chinas yuan was 56 percent undervalued. The average price of a Big Mac in the euro area countries was $3.48, suggesting that the euro was 24 percent overvalued against the dollar. In contrast, the Japanese yen was 12 percent undervalued on the Big Mac PPP standard. The Big Mac index has proved so popular that the Economist has also started to publish prices around the world of another globally invariable standard of value: a tall latte cup of coffee from Starbucks. While the Big Mac and tall latte indices are an immediately engaging and fun way to think about exchange rates, it is easy to come up with good reasons why the prices of coffee and burgers might differ internationally, most of which are related to the fact that many of the inputs into a tall latte or a Big Mac cannot be traded internationally or not easily at least: each good contains a high service componentthe wages of the person serving the food and drinkand a high property rental componentthe cost of providing you with somewhere to sit and sip your coffee or munch your two beef patties on a sesame seed bun with secret-recipe sauce. Neither the service-sector labor nor the property (nor the trademark sauce) is easily arbitraged internationally, and advocates of PPP have generally based their view largely on arguments relating to international goods arbitrage. Thus, while these
137
indices may give a lighthearted and suggestive idea of the relative value of currencies, they should be treated with caution. The idea that purchasing power parity may hold because of international goods arbitrage is related to the so-called Law of One Price, which holds that the price of an internationally traded good should be the same anywhere in the world once that price is expressed in a common currency, since people could make a riskless prot by shipping the goods from locations where the price is low to locations where the price is high (for example, by arbitraging). If the same goods enter each countrys market basket used to construct the aggregate price level and with the same weightthen the Law of One Price implies that a PPP exchange rate should hold between the countries concerned. Possible objections to this line of reasoning are immediate. For example, the presence of transactions costsperhaps arising from transport costs, taxes, tariffs and duties and nontariff barrierswould induce a violation of the Law of One Price. Engel and Rogers (1996), for example, looked at the price differentials between similar goods in cities across the United States and Canada and reported evidence broadly in support of this hypothesis: they found that the volatility of the price differential tended to be larger the greater the distance between the cities concerned, and it increased substantially when prices in cities in different countries were compared (the so-called border effect). Moreover, not all goods are traded between all countries, and the weight attached to similar goods in aggregate price indices will differ across countries. In addition, different countries tend to produce goods that are differentiated rather than perfectly substitutable. Some of these problems could be addressed, at least in principle, with better data. Also, since PPP is based on traded goods, it might be more usefully tested with producer price indices that tend to contain the prices of more manufactured tradables, rather than consumer price indices, which tend to reect the prices of relatively more nontradables, such as many services. A recent theoretical and empirical literature, discussed below, has attempted to allow for short-run deviations from PPP arising from sources such as these, while retaining PPP in some form as a long-run average or equilibrium. These objections notwithstanding, however, it is often asserted that the PPP theory of exchange rates will hold at least approximately because of the possibility of international goods arbitrage. There are two senses in which the PPP hypothesis might hold. Absolute purchasing power parity holds when the purchasing power of a unit of currency is exactly equal in the domestic economy and in a foreign economy, once it is converted into foreign currency at the market exchange rate. However, it is often difcult to determine whether literally the same basket of goods is available in two different countries. Thus, it is common to test relative PPP, which holds that the percentage change in the exchange rate over a given period just offsets the difference in ination rates in the countries concerned over the same period. If absolute PPP holds, then relative PPP must also hold; however, if relative PPP holds, then absolute PPP does not necessarily hold, since it is possible that common changes in nominal exchange rates are happening at different levels of
138
purchasing power for the two currencies (perhaps because of transactions costs, for example). To get a feel for whether PPP in either its relative or its absolute versions is a moderately good approximation to the real world, start with Figure 1. The top panel plots data on the U.S. and UK consumer price indices (CPIs) over the period 1820 2001. Both are expressed in U.S. dollar terms, which means that the UK CPI was multiplied by the number of U.S. dollars exchanging for one UK pound at that point in time. The bottom panel shows the comparison using producer price indices, using data for a slightly longer period 17912001.1 We have (arbitrarily) normalized each of the series to be equal to zero in 1900. At least three points are worth raising from a consideration of these graphs. First, absolute PPP did not hold perfectly and continuously: the correlation between the two lines is less than perfect in both cases. In other words, there are substantial short-run deviations from PPP. Second, the national price levels of the two countries, expressed in a common currency, did tend to move together over these long periods. Third, the correlation between the two national price levels is much greater with producer prices than with consumer prices. Figure 2 shows several graphs using data for a large number of countries over the period 1970 1998.2 Consider rst the two graphs in the top row of Figure 2. For each country we calculated the one-year ination rate in each of the 29 years and subtracted the one-year U.S. ination rate in the same years to obtain a measure of relative ination (using consumer price indices for the gures on the left and producer price indices for the gures on the right). We then calculated the percentage change in the dollar exchange rate for each year and, nally, we plotted relative annual ination against exchange rate depreciation for each of the 29 years for each of the countries. If relative PPP held perfectly, then each of the scatter points would lie on a 45o ray through the origin. In the second row, we have carried out a similar exercise, except we have taken averages: we have plotted 29-year annualized average relative ination against the average annual depreciation of the currency against the U.S. dollar over the whole period, so that there is just one scatter point for each country. Figure 2 conrms some of the lessons of Figure 1. For small differences in annual ination between the United States and the country concerned, the correlation between relative ination and depreciation in each of the years seems low. Thus, relative PPP certainly does not appear to hold perfectly and continuously in the short run, although it appears to hold more closely for countries experiencing relatively high ination. When we take 29-year averages, however, the scatter plots tend to collapse onto the 45o ray. (This effect is only slightly less marked if we take averages over shorter
1 2
See Lothian and Taylor (1996, 2004) for a guide to the sources for these data series. Data are from the IMFs International Financial Statistics database over the period 1970 1998 (data were not available after 1998 for some countries). The sample included data on consumer price indices for 20 industrialized countries and 26 developing countries, while that based on producer price indices includes 14 industrialized countries and twelve developing countries. The data set is identical to that used in Coakley, Flood, Fuertes and Taylor (2004), which contains more precise details.
139
Figure 1 Dollar-Sterling PPP Over Two Centuries

(a) U.S. and UK CPIs in dollar terms 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1820 CPI U.S. CPI UK
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
(b) U.S. and UK PPIs in dollar terms 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1791 1811 1831 1851 1871 1891 1911 1931 1951 1971 1991 Notes: This gure shows U.S. and UK consumer and producer price indices expressed in U.S. dollar terms over roughly the last two centuries using a log scale with a base of 1900 0. PPI U.S. PPI UK
periods of ten years or so.) Thus, relative PPP seems to hold in a long-run sense. With the longer-run averages, the degree of correlation between relative ination and exchange rate depreciation again seems higher when using PPIs than when using CPIs. So the conclusions emerging from our informal eyeballing of Figures 1 and 2 seem to be the following. Neither absolute nor relative PPP appear to hold closely in the short run, although both appear to hold reasonably well as a long-run average and when there are large movements in relative prices, and both appear to hold better between producer price indices than between consumer price indices.
140
Figure 2 PPP at Various Time Horizons

Annual Consumer Price Ination Relative to the U.S. versus Dollar Exchange Rate Depreciation, 1970 1998 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Annual Producer Price Ination Relative to the U.S. versus Dollar Exchange Rate Depreciation, 1970 1998 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Consumer Price Ination Relative to the U.S. versus Dollar Exchange Rate Depreciation, 29-Year Average, 1970 1998 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Producer Price Ination Relative to the U.S. versus Dollar Exchange Rate Depreciation, 29-Year Average, 1970 1998 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Notes: This gure shows countries cumulative ination rate differentials against the United States in percent (vertical axis) plotted against their cumulative depreciation rates against the U.S. dollar in percent (horizontal axis). The charts on the left show CPI ination, those on the right PPI ination. The charts in the top row show annual rates, those in the bottom row 29-year average rates from 1970 to 1998.
In other words, as far as exchange rates are concerned, the fundamental things relative price levelsapply increasingly as time goes by. These conclusions are in fact broadly in line with the current consensus view on PPP. So where does all the controversy arise?
The PPP Debate: A Tour of the Past Three Decades

The Rise and Fall of Continuous PPP Under the Bretton Woods agreement that was signed after World War II, the U.S. dollar was tied to the price of gold, and then all other currencies were tied, or
141
pegged, to the U.S. dollar. However, in 1971, President Nixon ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold and devalued the dollar relative to gold. After the failure of attempts to restore a version of the Bretton Woods agreement, the major currencies of the world began oating against each other in March 1973. At this time, the dominant approach to determination of exchange rates was called the monetary approach. This approach assumed that the purchasing power parity exchange rate held continuously (Frenkel, 1976; Taylor, 1995; Frankel and Rose, 1995). Advocates of this approach argued that since the exchange rate is the relative price of two monies, that relative price should be determined by the relative balance of supply and demand in the respective money markets in an asset market equilibrium. Exactly how percentage changes in relative money supplies translated, other things equal, into exactly matching exchange rate movements was not immediately obvious, however, unless one resorted to the earlier argument based on goods arbitrage: that is, changes in the relative money supply affect relative prices, including relative traded goods prices, which then leads to international goods arbitrage. A wave of empirical studies in the late 1970s tested whether continuous purchasing power parity did indeed hold, as well as other implications of the monetary approach to the exchange rate, and the initial results were encouraging (Frenkel and Johnson, 1978). With the benet of hindsight, it seems that these early encouraging results arose in part because of the relative stability of the dollar during the rst two or three years or so of the oat (after an initial period of turbulence) and in part because of the lack of a long enough run of data with which to test the theory properly. Toward the end of the 1970s, however, the U.S. dollar did become much more volatile and more data became available to the econometricians, who subsequently showed that both continuous PPP and the simple monetary approach to the exchange rate were easily rejected. One did not have to be an econometrician, however, to witness the collapse of purchasing power parity (Frenkel, 1981): one could simply examine the behavior of the real exchange rate. The real exchange rate is the nominal exchange rate (domestic price of foreign currency) multiplied by the ratio of national price levels (domestic price level divided by foreign price level); since the real exchange rate measures the purchasing power of a unit of foreign currency in the foreign economy relative to the purchasing power of an equivalent unit of domestic currency in the domestic economy, PPP would, in theory, imply a real, relative-price-level-adjusted exchange rate of one (although the nominal ratethe rate that gets reported in the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times could, of course, differ from one even if PPP held). In practice, if we are working with aggregate real exchange rates and hence aggregate price indices with arbitrary base periods, it may be difcult to pin down exactly when PPP held true, in order to normalize the measured real exchange rate to unity. What is clear, however, is that there will be some level of the measured real exchange rate that is consistent with PPP andmost importantlythat variation in the real exchange rate must indicate deviations from PPP (since otherwise it would be constant at the level consistent with PPP). The real trade-weighted value of the
142
U.S. dollar didnt change too much from 1973 to 1976, thus lending a degree of plausibility to the continuous PPP argument. But the real value of the dollar dropped sharply starting in 1977, and from then on it became increasingly clear that continuous PPP could not hold as nominal exchange rates were patently far more volatile than relative national price levels. Formal Tests of (the Failure of) Long-Run PPP: Random Walks and Unit Roots One reaction to the failure of purchasing power parity in the short run was a theory of exchange rate overshooting, in which PPP is retained as a long-run equilibrium while allowing for signicant short-run deviations due to sticky prices (Dornbusch, 1976). However, the search for empirical evidence of long-run PPP also met with disappointment. Formal tests for evidence of PPP as a long-run phenomenon have often been based on an empirical examination of the real exchange rate. If the real exchange rate is to settle down at any level whatsoever, including a level consistent with PPP, it must display reversion toward its own mean. Hence, mean reversion is only a necessary condition for long-run PPP: to ensure long-run absolute PPP, we should have to know that the mean toward which it is reverting is in fact the PPP real exchange rate. Still, since much of this research has failed to reject the hypothesis that even this necessary condition does not hold, this has not in general been an issue. Early empirical studies, such as those by Roll (1979) or Adler and Lehmann (1983), tested the null hypothesis that the real exchange rate does not mean revert but instead follows a random walk, the archetypal nonmean reverting time series process where changes in each period are purely random and independent. Some authors even argued that the random walk property was an implication of the efciency of international markets, in the sense of prices and exchange rates reecting all available information and all arbitrage opportunities being quickly exploited. Under this efcient markets PPP view, Roll (1979), for example, argued that the change in the real exchange rate, since it is effectively a measure of the one-period real return from arbitraging goods between countries, should have an expected value of zero if markets are efcient. However, this early strand of the empirical literature suffered from logical and econometric weaknesses. The theoretical underpinnings of efcient markets PPP failed to adjust the expected return for the real cost of nancing goods arbitrage (Taylor and Sarno, 2004). Once this arbitrage adjustment is made, efciency requires that the expected real exchange rate change be equal to the expected real interest rate differential, and long-run PPP will be implied if the latter differential is stationary.3 On the empirical
3 See Obstfeld and Taylor (2004) for evidence on the stationarity of real interest rate differentials. Under reasonable assumptions, the real interest rate differential will be negatively correlated with the level of the real exchange rate if a loss in international competitiveness (a real appreciation) has a net deationary impact on the economy, reducing ination and, other things equal, raising the real interest rate. This in turn implies mean reversion of the real exchange rate, since it implies that changes in the real exchange rate are negatively correlated with the level of the real exchange rate.
143
side, the evidence in favor of a random walk was at best mixed, and results depended on the criteria employed (Cumby and Obstfeld, 1984). Sharper econometric tools were still being fashioned, butas we discuss belowthey also suffered from low power just like these early tests, so for many years researchers were unlikely to reject the null hypothesis of a random walk even if it were false. In the late 1980s, a more sophisticated econometric literature on long-run PPP developed, at the core of which was the concept of a unit root process. If a time series is a realization of a unit root process, then while changes in the variable may be to some extent predictable, the variable may still never settle down at any one particular level, even in the very long run. For example, suppose we estimated the following regression equation for the real exchange rate qt over time, where t is a random error and and are unknown parameters: qt qt
1 t
If 1, we say that the process generating the real exchange rate contains a unit root. In that case, changes in the real exchange rate would be predictablethey would be equal on average to the estimated value of . The level of the real exchange rate would, however, not be predictable, even in the long run: since the change each period would be equal to a constant plus an unpredictable random element, the long-run level will be equal to the sum of the constant changes each period plus the sum of a large number of random elements. As these random shocks get cumulated, there is no way of telling in advance what they will add up to. (In fact, the real exchange rate would be following a random walk with drift, which is an example of a so-called unit root process.) Thus, testing the null hypothesis that 1 is a test for whether the path of the real exchange rate over time does not return to any average level and thus that long-run PPP did not hold. The urry of empirical studies employing these types of tests on real exchange rate data among major industrialized countries that emerged toward the end of the 1980s were unanimous in their failure to reject the unit root hypothesis for major real exchange rates (for example, Taylor, 1988; Mark, 1990), althoughas we shall seethis result was probably due to the low power of the tests. In any case, at the time, this nding created great uncertainty about how to model exchange rates. At a theoretical level, there was still a consensus belief in long-run PPP coupled with overshooting exchange rate models; now the data were raising the possibility that even long-run PPP was a chimera. Some economists posited theoretical models to explain why the real exchange rate could in fact be nonmean reverting (as in Stockman, 1987). Others questioned the empirical methodology. The Power Problem Frankel (1986, 1990) noted that while a researcher may not be able to reject the null hypothesis of a random walk real exchange rate at a given signicance level, it does not mean that the researcher must then accept that hypothesis. Furthermore, Frankel pointed out that the statistical tests typically employed to
144
examine the long-run stability of the real exchange, at that time based on data covering just 15 years or so since 1973, may have low power to reject the null hypothesis of a unit root even if it is indeed false. This criticism would apply both to the early random walk studies and to the subsequent literature testing more formally for unit roots. It was further taken up and examined by other authors (Froot and Rogoff, 1995; Lothian and Taylor, 1996, 1997). The argument is that even if the real exchange rate tends to revert toward its mean over long periods of time, examination of one real exchange rate over a relatively short period may not yield enough information to detect this mean reversion. Using simulations in which the real exchange rate is assumed to mean revert by about 11 percent per year, the probability of rejecting at the 5 percent level the null hypothesis of a random walk real exchange rate, when in fact the real rate is actually mean reverting, is extremely lowsomewhere between about 5 and 8 percentwhen using 15 years of data (Lothian and Taylor, 1997; Sarno and Taylor, 2002a). With the benet of the additional 10 to 15 years or so of data that are now available, the power of the test increases by only a couple of percentage points, and even with a century of data, there would be less than an even chance of correctly rejecting the unit root hypothesis. Moreover, increasing the sample size by increasing the frequency of observationmoving from, say, quarterly to monthly datawont increase the power because increasing the amount of detail concerning short-run movements can only give you more information about short-run as opposed to long-run behavior (Shiller and Perron, 1985). More Statistical Power: More Years, More Countries If you want to get more information about the long-run behavior of a particular real exchange rate, one approach is to use more years of data. However, long periods of data usually span different exchange rate regimes, prompting questions about how to interpret the ndings. Also, over long periods of time, real factors may generate structural breaks or shifts in the equilibrium real exchange rate. Once these issues are recognized, there are ways to look for possible effects of different regimes and structural shifts. In one early study in this spirit, using annual data from 1869 to 1984 for the dollar-sterling real exchange rate, Frankel (1986) estimates a rst-order autoregressive process for the real exchange rate q of the form qt q qt
1
where q is the assumed constant equilibrium level of q, t is a random disturbance, and is the autocorrelation coefcientan unknown parameter governing the speed of mean reversion. Notice that a proportion of times the random shock at time t 1, t 1 , will still be part of the real exchange rate deviation at time t. Hence, we can say that shocks die out or the real exchange rate reverts toward its mean of qat the rate of (1 ) per period. (If the real exchange rate followed a random walk, then 1 and shocks would never die out.) Frankels point
145
estimate of is 0.86, and he is able to reject the hypothesis of a random walk at the 5 percent level. Similar results to Frankels were obtained by Edison (1987), based on an analysis of data over the period 1890 1978, and by Glen (1992), using a data sample spanning the period 1900 1987. Lothian and Taylor (1996) use two centuries of data on dollar-sterling and franc-sterling real exchange rates, reject the random walk hypothesis and nd point estimates of of 0.89 for dollar-sterling and of 0.76 for franc-sterling. Moreover, they are unable to detect any signicant evidence of a structural break between the pre and postBretton Woods period. Taylor (2002) extends the long-run analysis to a set of 20 countries over the 1870 1996 period and also nds support for PPP and coefcients that are stable in the long run. Studies such as these provide the formal counterpart to the informal evidence of long-run relative PPP like eyeballing Figure 1. Another approach to providing a convincing test of real exchange rate stability, while limiting the timeframe to the postBretton Woods period, is to use more countries. By increasing the amount of information employed in the tests across exchange rates, the power of the test should be increased. In an early study of this type, Abuaf and Jorion (1990) examine a system of 10 rst-order autoregressive regressions for real dollar exchange rates over the period 19731987, where the autocorrelation coefcient is constrained to be the same in every case. Their results indicate a marginal rejection of the null hypothesis of joint nonmean reversion at conventional signicance levels, which they interpret this as evidence in favor of long-run PPP. An academic cottage industry sprang up in the 1990s to apply unit root tests to real exchange rate data on panels of countries for the postBretton Woods period. A number of these studies claimed to provide evidence supporting long-run PPP. Taylor and Sarno (1998), however, issued an important warning in interpreting these ndings. The tests typically applied in these panel-data studies test the null hypothesis that none of the real exchange rates under consideration are mean reverting. If this null hypothesis is rejected, then the most that can be inferred is that at least one of the rates is mean reverting. However, researchers tended to draw a much stronger inference that all of the real exchange rates were mean revertingand this broader inference is not valid. Some researchers have sought to remedy this shortcoming by designing alternative tests; for example, Taylor and Sarno (1998) suggest testing the hypothesis that at least one of real exchange rates is nonmean reverting, rejection of which would indeed imply that they are all mean reverting. However, such alternative tests are generally less powerful, so that their application has not led to clear-cut conclusions (Taylor and Sarno, 1998; Sarno and Taylor, 1998). PPP Puzzles The research on the evolution of exchange rates from the 1970s to the turn of the century has generally been interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that exchange rates adjust to the PPP level in the long run. But the evidence is weak. For example, rejecting at standard levels of statistical signicance the null hypothesis that a unit root exists certainly doesnt prove that a long-run PPP exchange rate
146
exists, either. The long-span studies raise the issue of possible regime shifts and whether the recent evidence may be swamped by history. The panel-data studies raise the issue of whether the hypothesis of nonmean reversion is being rejected because of just a few mean-reverting real exchange rates within the panel. If exchange rates do tend to converge to PPP, economists haveat least so far had a hard time presenting strong evidence to support the claim. Following Taylor, Peel and Sarno (2001), we see the puzzling lack of strong evidence for long-run PPP especially for the postBretton Woods periodas the rst PPP puzzle. A second related puzzle also exists. In the mid-1980s, Huizinga (1987) and others began to notice that even the studies that were interpreted as supporting the thesis that PPP holds in the long run also suggested that the speed at which real exchange rates adjust to the PPP exchange rate was extremely slow. A few years later, Rogoff (1996, p. 647) presented the puzzle this way: The purchasing power parity puzzle then is this: How can one reconcile the enormous short-term volatility of real exchange rates with the extremely slow rate at which shocks appear to damp out? As we noted above, this speed is related to the estimated coefcient in the autoregressive process described earlier: a proportion of of any shock will still remain after one period, 2 of it remains after two periods, and in general, n of the shock will remain after n periods. One way to get a feel for how fast the real exchange rate mean reverts is by asking how long it would take for the effect of a shock to die out by 50 percentin other words, we can compute the half-life of shocks to the real exchange rate. Based on a reading of the panel unit root and long-span investigations of long-run PPP, Rogoff (1996) notes a high degree of consensus concerning the estimated half-lives of adjustment: they mostly tend to fall into the range of three to ve years. Moreover, most such estimates were based on ordinary least squares methods, which may be biased because ordinary least squares will tend to push the estimated autocorrelation coefcient away from one to avoid nonstationarity; using different estimation methods to correct for bias, but still in a linear setting, some authors have argued that half-lives are even longer (for example, Murray and Papell, 2004; Chen and Engel, 2004). Now, although real shocks to tastes and technology might plausibly account for some of the observed high volatility in real exchange rates (Stockman, 1988), Rogoff argues that most of the slow speed of adjustment must be due to the persistence in nominal variables such as nominal wages and prices. But nominal variables would be expected to adjust much faster than a half-life of three to ve years for exchange rates would suggest. The apparently very slow speed of adjustment of real exchange ratesfrom 0 to about 10 percent or so per annum has been the source of considerable theoretical and empirical research in recent years.
Nonlinearity?
One approach to resolving the PPP puzzles lies in allowing for nonlinear dynamics in real exchange rate adjustment. In a linear framework, the adjustment
147
speed of PPP deviations from parity is assumed to be uniform at all times and, in particular, for all sizes of deviation, and implicitly the econometric problem is reduced to the estimation of a single parameterthe half-life. While this framework is very convenient, there are good reasons for suspecting that the speed of convergence toward the PPP exchange rate should be greater as the deviation from PPP rises in absolute value. Indeed, some 90 years ago, Heckscher (1916) suggested that adjustment may be nonlinear because of transactions costs in international arbitrage. For example, if two goods differ in price (expressed in a common currency) in different countries because PPP does not hold, it wont be worth arbitraging and therefore correcting the price difference unless the anticipated prot exceeds the cost of shipping goods between the two locations. This insight began to be expressed more formally in the theoretical literature starting in the late 1980s (for example, Benninga and Protopapadakis, 1988; Williams and Wright, 1991; Dumas, 1992). The qualitative effect of such frictions is similar in all of the proposed models: the lack of arbitrage arising from transactions costs such as shipping costs creates a band of inaction within which price dynamics in the two locations are essentially disconnected. Such transactions costs might take the form of the stylized iceberg shipping costs (iceberg because some of the goods effectively disappear when they are shipped and the transaction cost may also be proportional to the distance shipped), xed costs of trading operations or of shipments or time lags for the delivery of goods from one location to another. In empirical work on mean reversion in the real exchange rate, nonlinearity can be examined through the estimation of models that allow the autoregressive parameter to vary. For example, transactions costs of arbitrage may lead to changes in the real exchange rate being purely random until a threshold equal to the transactions cost is breached, when arbitrage takes place and the real exchange rate reverts back toward the band through the inuence of goods arbitrage (although the return is not instantaneous because of shipping time, increasing marginal costs or other frictions). This kind of model is known as threshold autoregressive. The model applies straightforwardly to individual commodities. Focusing on gold as foreign exchange, Canjels, Prakash-Canjels and Taylor (forthcoming) studied the classical gold standard using such a framework applied to daily data from 1879 to 1913; they found dollar-sterling exchange-rate adjustment consistent with a threshold autoregressive model. Examining subindices of the consumer price index, Obstfeld and Taylor (1997) modeled price adjustment in various international cities in the post-1973 period and also found signicant nonlinearities. The implied transaction cost bands and adjustment speeds were also found to be of a reasonable size (consistent with direct shipping cost measures) and to vary systematically with impediments such as distance, tariffs, quotas and exchange-rate volatility. Sarno, Taylor and Chowdhury (2004) employ this approach with disaggregated data across a broad range of goods in the G-7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States). Zussman (2003) uses a threshold autoregressive model with the postwar Penn World Table data to show nonlinear adjustment speeds for a very wide sample of countries. Using a threshold autoregressive model for real exchange rates as a whole,
148
however, could pose some conceptual difculties. Transactions costs are likely to differ across goods, and so the speed at which price differentials are arbitraged may differ across goods (Cheung, Chinn and Fujii, 2001). Now, the aggregate real exchange rate is usually constructed as the nominal exchange rate multiplied by the ratio of national aggregate price level indices and so, instead of a single threshold barrier, a range of thresholds will be relevant, corresponding to the various transactions costs of the various goods whose prices are included in the indices. Some of these thresholds might be quite small (for example, because the goods are easy to ship) while others will be larger. As the real exchange rate moves further and further away from the level consistent with PPP, more and more of the transactions thresholds would be breached and so the effect of arbitrage would be increasingly felt. How might we address this type of aggregation problem? One way is to employ a well-developed class of econometric models that embody a kind of smooth but nonlinear adjustment such that the speed of adjustment increases as the real exchange rate moves further away from the level consistent with PPP.4 Using a smooth version of a threshold autoregressive model, and data on real dollar exchange rates among the G-5 countries (France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), Taylor, Peel and Sarno (2001) reject the hypothesis of a unit root in favor of the alternative hypothesis of nonlinearly meanreverting real exchange ratesand using data just for the postBretton Woods period, thus solving the rst PPP puzzle. They also nd that for modest real exchange shocks in the 1 to 5 percent range, the half-life of decay is under three years, while for larger shocks the half-life of adjustment is estimated much smallerthus going some way toward solving the second PPP puzzle. While transactions costs models have most often been advanced as possible sources of nonlinear adjustment, other less formal arguments for the presence of nonlinearities have also been advanced. Kilian and Taylor (2003), for example, suggest that nonlinearity may arise from the heterogeneity of opinion in the foreign exchange market concerning the equilibrium level of the nominal exchange rate: as the nominal rate takes on more extreme values, a greater degree of consensus develops concerning the appropriate direction of exchange rate moves, and traders act accordingly. Taylor (2004) argues that exchange rate nonlinearity may also arise from the intervention operations of central banks: intervention is more likely to occur and to be effective when the nominaland hence the real exchange rate has been driven a long distance away from its PPP or fundamental equilibrium. In sum, the nonlinear approach to real exchange rate modeling offers some resolution of the PPP puzzles. Moreover, simulations show that if the true data are
The smoothly adjusting extension of the threshold autoregressive or TAR model is the aptly named smooth-transition autoregressive, or STAR, model (Granger and Terasvirta, 1993) and the exponential STAR or ESTAR has proved very successful in the application to real exchange rates (Michael, Nobay and Peel, 1997; Taylor and Peel, 2000). The ESTAR model can be thought of as a TAR with an innite number of regimes and a continuously varying and bounded adjustment speed; Sarno and Taylor (2002) offer a textbook treatment. Alternative treatments of the goods-aggregation problem are currently being explored, but not without controversy (Imbs, Mumtaz, Ravn and Rey, 2002; Chen and Engel, 2004).
4
149
generated by a nonlinear process, but then a linear unit root or other linear autoregressive model is estimated, problems can easily arise. Standard unit root tests, already weak in power, are further enfeebled in this setting and half-lives can be dramatically exaggerated (Granger and Terasvirta, 1993; Taylor, 2001; Taylor, Peel and Sarno, 2001). The transactions-cost approach to real exchange rates is also generating inuential intellectual spillovers into current research ourishing at the nexus of the two elds of international trade and international macroeconomics. The study of international trade has currently been enlivened by a new focus on the role of physical and other barriers, such as distance, remoteness, borders or various policies (Anderson and van Wincoop, 2004). International macroeconomists are also now making explicit the role of these trading frictions in new models where such renements may yet help us solve some of the major puzzles in the eld (Obstfeld and Rogoff, 2001; Betts and Kehoe, 2001; Bergin and Glick, 2003; Ghironi and Melitz, 2003).
Remaining Puzzles: Short-Run Disturbances, Long-Run Equilibrium

Empirical work that focuses on the path of real exchange rates must grapple with three key factors: the reversion speed; the volatility of the disturbance term; and the long-run, or equilibrium, level of the real exchange rate. Most of our discussion to this point, in keeping with the focus of the literature, has pertained to the reversion speed, which is a medium-run phenomenon. But in the future, we expect to see more attention given to the disturbances, which are a short-run phenomenon measured over months and also to the very long run question of what is the equilibrium real exchange rate. Thus, questions about the real exchange rate are likely to shiftfrom not so much how fast is it reverting? to how did it deviate in the rst place? and what is it reverting to?5 Exchange Rate Disturbances Even if current work can establish that exchange rates do revert to the PPP rate over the medium term at a more reasonable speed, the volatilities present in the data in the short run, at least under oating rate regimes, still cause considerable mystication. Over short periods, nominal exchange rates move substantially and prices do not, so real and nominal exchange rate volatilities in the short term are correlated almost one for one, and the Law of One Price for traded goods is often violated (Flood and Rose, 1995). This pattern holds across different monetary regime types over a wide swathe of historical experience (Taylor, 2002). Despite
Of course, with reference to the PPP puzzle, the literature on real exchange rates has generally been focused on monthly or lower frequencies, since this is where price index data are available. There are plenty of nominal exchange rate puzzles at even higher frequencyweekly, daily, even intraday but these are more properly in the domain of nance than international macroeconomics and are outside the scope of this survey.
150
efforts to explain such phenomena as a result of taste or technology shocks in exible price models, it is implausible that the patterns could be traced wholly to real factors. History shows that volatilities also differ systematically across monetary regimes.6 Instead, it is likely that some combination of monetary policy and price stickiness plays a role in the short-run volatility of exchange rates, mechanisms that could be amplied by other types of frictions. Various new strands in the literature seek to address these issues. One common theme recognizes the important role of frictions in trade, not just for generating no-arbitrage bands for traded goods, but for delineating traded from nontraded varieties. Economies may be more closed than we once thought, since large sectors like retailing, wholesaling and distribution are nontraded even if the price of imports as measured in ofcial data typically includes some element of these domestic costs (Obstfeld, 2001; Obstfeld and Rogoff, 2001; Burstein, Neves and Rebelo, 2003). In an economy with price stickiness and a nontraded sector, small monetary shocks can generate high levels of exchange rate volatility. For example, Burstein, Eichenbaum and Rebelo (2003) model a price sticky nontraded sector with a share of the economy well above 0.5, which yields a large devaluation response of an emerging market country even for a small monetary shock. When the nontraded share of the economy rises, the economy is less open and the Law of One Price assumption applies to a smaller fraction of goods (here, imported varieties), implying a larger role for exchange rate overshooting and other sources of exchange rate volatility (Obstfeld and Rogoff, 2000; Hau, 2000, 2002). Considerable future research remains to be done in this area to establish a general framework that will apply to a wide range of cases. Long-Run Movements of the Real Exchange Rate The PPP exchange rate theory is built on the concept that the exchange rate is based on actual buying power over a basket of goods, and so changes in the nominal exchange rate should reect changes in the price of goodswith the real exchange rate staying xed. But a nations equilibrium real exchange rate may not remain xed forever. One of the textbook explanations for changes in the level of the real exchange rate focuses on the net international asset position. Consider a small, open economy in long-run equilibrium. Now impose a shock in the form of an increase in external debt. The country must run a trade surplus in the future to service the interest payments due. To encourage foreign consumers to import more, and to encourage its own consumers to import less, the countrys competitiveness must improve in equilibrium. With the nominal exchange rate dened as the domestic price of foreign currency, this means that the equilibrium level of the real exchange
6 For example, it is hard to imagine that, say, the real shocks to the Argentine economy were small in the 1960s, suddenly became several times larger during the 1980s hyperinations, then shrank again in the 1990s currency board epoch, only to mysteriously reappear in late 2001. But we do know that to a rst approximation Argentinas turbulent monetary history matches the observed volatilities very closely.
151
rate must rise, making the countrys exports cheaper to foreigners and its foreign imports more expensive to domestic residents. This example supposes differentiated goods at home and abroad, but the logic holds in a wide range of models (like the portfolio balance model of Taylor, 1995; Sarno and Taylor, 2002b). Lane and Milesi-Ferreti (2002) present some empirical conrmation of this argument. They nd that countries with larger positive net asset positions have more negative trade balances and stronger real exchange rates, controlling for other factors and allowing for real return differentials across countries. This result has implications for the study of real exchange rate dynamics. If the equilibrium PPP exchange rate changes as a result of changes in net wealth, and if these shifts are not controlled for in an autoregression, then the exchange rate will appear to deviate from what is falsely assumed to be a xed PPP rate for too much or for too long. The other textbook story for trending real exchange rates is built around nontraded goods. Standard arbitrage arguments may lead PPP to hold for traded goods, but these arguments fail for nontraded goods, so that we must either abandon PPP theory, or else modify it. The Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson model of equilibrium real exchange rates is attracting renewed interest as a desirable modication after languishing for some years in relative obscurity (Harrod, 1933; Balassa, 1964; Samuelson, 1964). In this model, rich countries supposedly grow rich by advancing productivity in traded modern sectors (say, manufacturing). Meantime, all nontraded traditional sectors, in rich and poor countries alike, remain in technological stasis (say, haircuts). Suppose the Law of One Price holds among traded goods and we live in a world where labor is mobile intersectorally, but not internationally. As productivity in the modern sector rises, wage levels rise, so prices of nontraded goods will have to rise (as there has been no rise in productivity in that sector). If we measure the overall price index as a weighted average of traded and nontraded goods prices, relatively rich countries will tend to have overvalued currencies. The example of fast-growing Japan springs to mind, where the trend real exchange rate has steadily appreciated by about 1.5 percent per year since 1880; the opposite trend has sometimes been observed in slow growth eras, for example, in Argentina (Taylor, 2002; Froot and Rogoff, 1995; Rogoff, 1996). Early studies of the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect such as Ofcer (1982) found little support in the data from the 1950s to the early 1970s. But newer research dealing with later periods has often found support for this hypothesis, and it is now textbook material (for example, Micossi and Milesi-Ferreti, 1994; De Gregorio, Giovannini and Wolf, 1994; Chinn, 2000). Why have more recent studies provided stronger evidence of the HarrodBalassa-Samuelson effect? At some level, the reasons reect developments in the PPP literature more broadly: more data, of longer span, for a wider sample of countries, coupled with more powerful univariate and panel econometric techniques, has allowed researchers to take a once-fuzzy relationship in the data and make it tighter. In addition, recent work suggests that the magnitude of the Harrod-Balassa-
152
Figure 3 Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson Effects Emerge: Log Price Level versus Log Per Capita Income
(a) 1995 data (N 1 0 ln(p/pUS) ln(p/pUS) 0 1 2 3 5 4 3 2 1 0 ln(y/yUS) 1 2 4 3 2 1 ln(y/yUS) 0 1 3 1 0 2 ln(y/yUS) 1 ln(p/pUS) 0 142) (b) 1950 data (N 1 53) (c) 1913 data (N 1 24)
Notes: This gure shows countries log price level (vertical axis) against log real income per capita for 1995, 1950 and 1913, with the United States used as the base country.
Samuelson effect has been variable over time certainly in the postwar period and perhaps going back several centuries (Bergin, Glick and Taylor, 2004). Consider the relationships in Figure 3. The horizontal axis shows the per capita income level of countries as a ratio of the U.S. per capita income level, expressed in log terms. The vertical axis shows the common currency Penn World Table Consumer Price Index price level of other countries as a ratio of the U.S. CPI price levelthat is, the real exchange rate levelagain expressed as a log. (Note that most countries have incomes and price levels lower than the United States, so the ratios are less than one, and the logs are negative.) The Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis suggests that as per capita income rises, driven by productivity growth in tradables, then price levels should also rise: there should be a positive correlation in the scatterplot. The graphs show that the cross-country relationship between income per capita and the price level has been intensifying since 1950; once close to zero, and statistically insignicant, the elasticity is now over one half. The null hypothesis of a zero slope can be rejected beginning in the early 1960s when Balassa and Samuelson wrote their seminal papers (albeit with no knowledge of these hypothesis tests). It is not clear why the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect has altered over time. One possible explanation is that the nontraded share has increased over time, but this effect does not seem to have enough magnitude to match the changes that have occurred, nor to match the timing of the changes (remember that global trade in 1950, after world wars and depression, was a lower share of output than in 1913 or in 2000). Perhaps the productivity advances of traded and nontraded goods have differed at various times? This may better help us explain the data, but over long time frames begs the question of which goods are traded and why. Bergin, Glick and Taylor (2004) advance the hypothesis that trade costs determine tradability patterns, which allows a variety of possible productivity shocks to give rise eventually to an endogenous Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect.
153
But the key point here is that if the equilibrium exchange rate is moving gradually over time, and our statistical analysis presupposes that the PPP exchange rate is xed over time, then estimates of the speed of reversion to the PPP will be biased. An allowance for such long-run trends can make a material difference in resolving the puzzles about whether and how fast the exchange rate moves to its PPP level. For example, Taylor (2002) nds relatively low half-lives in a 20-country panel when an allowance is made for long-run trends in the equilibrium exchange rate. Allowing for nonlinear time trends, Lothian and Taylor (2000) suggest that the half-life of deviations from PPP for the U.S.-UK exchange rate may be as low as 1 22 years. Lothian and Taylor (2004) show that the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect may account for about a third of the variation in this real exchange rate. The equilibrium real exchange rate could shift for a number of reasons over the very long run: wealth effects, productivity effects and other forces could all be important. Models that allow for a time-varying equilibrium real exchange rate, and permit an exploration of its causes and consequences, are likely to be a busy area for future research. Coordinated progress on these fronts will not only rene our resolution of the PPP puzzles, they will also help us address related puzzles in the macroeconomic literature. For example, Engel (1999, 2000) decomposed the variance of the real exchange rate into external traded goods prices and internal traded-versus-nontraded goods prices. The component related to external traded goods can be viewed as related to the Law of One Price in the basic version of the PPP theory where the real exchange rate is assumed to be xed, while the component related to traded and nontraded goods can be related to the Harrod-BalassaSamuelson effect or any approach where the real exchange rate has a trend. In looking at postBretton Woods samples of data, Engel found that both of these components have persistence, but the Law of One Price component seems to experience larger shocks. The two insights may also be unied, as in recent models of endogenous tradability (Betts and Kehoe 2001; Bergin and Glick, 2003). The researcher can use nonlinear models with trade costs to understand the volatility related to traded goodsas Parsley and Wei (2003) do with the Engel puzzleand then use some version of the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect to model and estimate the slower and often obscured drift in the prices of nontraded goods.
Conclusion
Since the early 1970s, the purchasing power parity theory of exchange rates has been the subject of an ongoing and lively debate. For much of that period, theoretical work suggested that exchange rates should be linked to relative changes in price levels with deviations that might be only minimal or momentary, while empirical work could nd only the imsiest evidence in support of purchasing power parity, and even these weak ndings implied an extremely slow rate of reversion to PPP of, at best, three to ve years. After a struggle to nd common ground, the gap between theory and empirics is being closed from both directions. After early disappointments with dynamic
154
general equilibrium models, recent applications with nominal price rigidities show how monetary shocks may have large and long-lasting effects on the real exchange rate (Bergin and Feenstra, 2001). When such insights are combined with theoretical work on transactions costs and nonlinearity, we can now better understand the volatility and persistence of the real exchange rate. Going further, the presence of nontraded goods (a manifestation of extreme transaction costs) enriches our models further. A renewed attention to the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect and wealth effects leads to a modied view of PPP where the equilibrium real exchange rate itself may move over time. The idea that transaction costs matter for PPP is an old one. For Hume (17421752 [1987]), goods arbitrage caused countervailing ows of specie, with the analogy that all water, wherever it communicates, remains always at a level, except that if markets are separated by any material of physical impediment. . .there may, in such a case, be a very great inequality of money. Heckscher (1916) developed the idea further, introducing the concept of commodity points. Keynes (1923, pp. 89 90, 9192) highlighted transaction costs as a key substantive issue for the PPP theory: At rst sight this theory appears to be one of great practical utility. . . . In practical applications of the doctrine there are, however, two further difculties, which we have allowed so far to escape our attention, both of them arising out of the words allowance being made for transport charges and imports and export taxes. The rst difculty is how to make allowance for such charges and taxes. The second difculty is how to treat purchasing power of goods and service which do not enter into international trade at all. . . . For, if we restrict ourselves to articles entering into international trade and make exact allowance for transport and tariff costs, we should nd that the theory is always in accordance with the facts. . . . In fact, the theory, stated thus, is a truism, and as nearly as possible jejune. As these venerable ideas start to be incorporated into formal theory and empiricsin particular, via nonlinear adjustmentresults are suggesting more strongly that exchange rates do revert to a certain level determined by the price level in the long run and that the half-life of this reversion is short enough, at perhaps one to three years for moderately sized shocks of more than 1 or 2 percent, to seem theoretically plausible. Several new directions could now be taken. A very general theoretical model could be developed to incorporate all of the above renements simultaneously and its predictions studied. Empiricists could attempt to include both nonlinearities and Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effects to get even tighter estimates of convergence speeds. Introducing trade costs and real shocks into a Clarida and Gal (1994) decomposition might advance the potential for reconciliation even further. In sum, however, our interpretation of the consensus view of the PPP debate that short-run PPP does not hold, that long-run PPP may hold in the sense that there is signicant mean reversion of the real exchange rate, although there may
155
be factors impinging on the equilibrium real exchange rate through timeis highly reminiscent of the consensus view that held sway in the period before the 1970s. In that sense, this paper may be taken as evidence of mean reversion in economic thought.
y For their helpful comments we thank, without implicating, Menzie Chinn, Richard Clarida,
Bradford DeLong, Charles Engel, Jeffrey Frankel, James Hines, James Lothian, Bennett McCallum, Michael Melvin, Peter Neary, Maurice Obstfeld, Lawrence Ofcer, David Papell, David Peel, Phillip Lane, Kenneth Rogoff, Andrew Rose, Lucio Sarno, Timothy Taylor, Eric van Wincoop and Michael Waldman.
References
Abuaf, Niso and Philippe Jorion. 1990. Purchasing Power Parity in the Long Run. Journal of Finance. 45:1, pp. 15774. Adler, Michael and Bruce Lehmann. 1983. Deviations from Purchasing Power Parity in the Long Run. Journal of Finance. 38:5, pp. 1471 487. Anderson, James E. and Eric van Wincoop. 2004. Trade Costs. Journal of Economic Literature. 42:3, pp. 691751. Balassa, Bela. 1964. The Purchasing-Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal. Journal of Political Economy. 72:6, pp. 584 96. Benninga, Simon and Aris A. Protopapadakis. 1988. The Equilibrium Pricing of Exchange Rates and Assets When Trade Takes Time. Journal of International Economics. 7:2, pp. 129 49. Bergin, Paul R. and Robert C. Feenstra. 2001. Pricing-to-Market, Staggered Contracts, and Real Exchange Rate Persistence. Journal of International Economics. 54:2, pp. 33359. Bergin, Paul R. and Reuven Glick. 2003. Endogenous Nontradability and Macroeconomic Implications. Working Paper Series No. 9739, National Bureau of Economic Research, June. Bergin, Paul R., Reuven Glick and Alan M. Taylor. 2004. Productivity, Tradability, and the Long-Run Price Puzzle. Working Paper Series No. 10569, National Bureau of Economic Research, June. Betts, Caroline M. and Timothy J. Kehoe. 2001. Tradability of Goods and Real Exchange Rate Fluctuations. University of Southern California. Burstein, Ariel, Martin Eichenbaum and Sergio Rebelo. 2003. Large Devaluations and the Real Exchange Rate. Photocopy, Northwestern University, September. Burstein, Ariel, Joao Neves, and Sergio Re belo. 2003. Distribution Costs and Real Exchange Rate Dynamics. Journal of Monetary Economics. 50:6, pp. 1189 214. Canjels, Eugene, Gauri Prakash-Canjels and Alan M. Taylor. 2004. Measuring Market Integration: Foreign Exchange Arbitrage and the Gold Standard, 1879 1913. Review of Economics and Statistics. 86:4. Cassel, Gustav. 1918. Abnormal Deviations in International Exchanges. Economic Journal. December, 28, pp. 41315. Cassel, Gustav. 1922. Money and Foreign Exchange After 1914. New York: Macmillan. Chen, Shiu-Sheng and Charles Engel. 2004. Does Aggregation Bias Explain the PPP Puzzle? Working Paper Series No. 10304, National Bureau of Economic Research, February. Cheung, Yin-Wong, Menzie Chinn and Eiji Fujii. 2001. Market Structure and the Persistence of Sectoral Real Exchange Rates. International Journal of Finance and Economics. 6:2, pp. 95114. Chinn, Menzie D. 2000. The Usual Suspects? Productivity and Demand Shocks and AsiaPacic Real Exchange Rates. Review of International Economics. 8:1, pp. 20 43. Clarida, Richard and Jordi Gal. 1994. Sources of Real Exchange rate Fluctuations: How Important are Nominal Shocks? CarnegieRochester Conference Series on Public Policy. 41, pp. 155. Coakley, Jerry, Robert Flood, Ana-Maria
156
Fuertes and Mark P. Taylor. 2004. Long-Run Purchasing Power Parity and the Theory of General Relativity: the First Tests. Photocopy, University of Warwick. Journal of International Money and Finance. Forthcoming. Corbae, P. Dean and Sam Ouliaris. 1988. Cointegration and Tests of Purchasing Power Parity. Review of Economics and Statistics. 70:3, pp. 508 11. Cumby, Robert E. and Maurice Obstfeld. 1984. International Interest Rate and Price Level Linkages under Flexible Exchange Rates: A Review of Recent Evidence, in Exchange Rate Theory and Practice. John F. O. Bilson and Richard C. Marston, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 12151. Davutyan, Nurhan and John Pippenger. 1990. Testing Purchasing Power Parity: Some Evidence of the Effects of Transaction Costs. Econometric Reviews. 9:2, pp. 211 40. De Grauwe, Paul, Marc Janssens and Hilde Leliaert. 1985. Real Exchange-Rate Variability from 1920 to 1926 and 1973 to 1982. Princeton: Princeton Studies in International Finance. De Gregorio, Jose and Holger C. Wolf. 1994. Terms of Trade, Productivity, and the Real Exchange Rate. Working Paper Series No. 4807, National Bureau of Economic Research, July. De Gregorio, Jose, Alberto Giovannini and Holger C. Wolf. 1994. International Evidence on Tradable and Nontradables Ination. European Economic Review. 38:6, pp. 1225244. Dornbusch, Rudiger. 1976. Expectations and Exchange Rate Dynamics. Journal of Political Economy. 84:6, pp. 1161176. Dornbusch, Rudiger and Paul Krugman. 1976. Flexible Exchange Rates in the Short Run. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. 1:3, pp. 537 75. Dumas, Bernard. 1992. Dynamic Equilibrium and the Real Exchange Rate in a Spatially Separated World. Review of Financial Studies. 5:2, pp. 153 80. Edison, Hali J. 1987. Purchasing Power Parity in the Long Run: A Test of the Dollar/Pound Exchange Rate, 1890 1978. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 19:3, pp. 376 87. Engel, Charles. 1999. Accounting for U.S. Real Exchange Rate Changes. Journal of Political Economy. 107:3, pp. 50738. Engel, Charles. 2000. Long-Run PPP May Not Hold After All. Journal of International Economics. 51:2, pp. 24373. Engle, Robert and Clive W. J. Granger. 1987. Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing. Econometrica. 55:2, pp. 25176. Flood, Robert P. and Andrew K. Rose. 1995.
Fixing Exchange Rates: A Virtual Quest for Fundamentals. Journal of Monetary Economics. 36:1, pp. 337. Frankel, Jeffrey A. 1986. International Capital Mobility and Crowding-out in the U.S. Economy: Imperfect Integration of Financial Markets or of Goods Markets? in How Open is the U.S. Economy? R. W. Hafer, ed. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, pp. 33 67. Frankel, Jeffrey A. 1990. Zen and the Art of Modern Macroeconomics: A Commentary, in Monetary Policy for a Volatile Global Economy. W. S. Haraf and T. D. Willett, eds. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, pp. 11723. Frankel, Jeffrey A. and Andrew K. Rose. 1995. Empirical Research on Nominal Exchange Rates, in Handbook of International Economics, Volume 3. G. Grossman and K. Rogoff, eds. Amsterdam, New York and Oxford: Elsevier, NorthHolland, chapter 33. Frankel, Jeffrey A. and Andrew K. Rose. 1996. A Panel Project on Purchasing Power Parity: Mean Reversion Within and Between Countries. Journal of International Economics. 40:1-2, pp. 209 24. Frenkel, Jacob A. 1976. A Monetary Approach to the Exchange Rate: Doctrinal Aspects and Empirical Evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 78:2, pp. 200 24. Frenkel, Jacob A. 1981. The Collapse of Purchasing Power Parity During the 1970s. European Economic Review. 16:1, pp. 145 65. Frenkel, Jacob A. and Harry G. Johnson. 1976. The Monetary Approach to the Balance of Payments. London: Allen & Unwin. Froot, Kenneth A. and Kenneth Rogoff. 1995. Perspectives on PPP and Long-Run Real Exchange Rates, in Handbook of International Economics. G. Grossman and K. Rogoff, eds. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 1647 688. Glen, Jack D. 1992. Real Exchange Rates in the Short, Medium, and Long Run. Journal of International Economics. 33:1-2, pp. 147 66. Granger, Clive W. J. and Timo Terasvirta. 1993. Modelling Nonlinear Economic Relationships. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrod, Roy. 1933. International Economics. London: Nisbet and Cambridge University Press. Hau, Harald. 2000. Exchange Rate Determination under Factor Price Rigidities. Journal of International Economics. 50:2, pp. 421 47. Hau, Harald. 2002. Real Exchange Rate Volatility and Economic Openness: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 34:3, pp. 61130. Heckscher, Eli F. 1916. Vaxelkurens grundval vid pappersmynfot. Economisk Tidskrift. 18, pp. 309 12.
157
Hsieh, David. 1982. The Determination of the Real Exchange Rate: The Productivity Approach. Journal of International Economics. May, 12, pp. 355 62. Huizinga, John. 1987. An Empirical Investigation of the Long-Run Behavior of Real Exchange Rates. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy. 27, pp. 149 215. Hume, David. 17421752 [1987]. Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary. Indianapolis, Ind.: The Liberty Fund. Imbs, Jean, Haroon Mumtaz, Morten Ravn and Helene Rey. 2002. PPP Strikes Back: Aggre ` gation and the Real Exchange Rate. Working Paper Series No. 9372, National Bureau of Economic Research, December, Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming. Ito, Takatoshi, Peter Isard and Steven Symansky. 1999. Economic Growth and Real Exchange Rate: An Overview of the BalassaSamuelson Hypothesis in Asia, in Changes in Exchange Rates in Rapidly Developing Countries: Theory, Practice, and Policy Issues. T. Ito and A. O. Krueger, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 109 28. Keynes, John Maynard. 1923. A Tract on Monetary Reform. London: Macmillan. Kilian, Lutz and Mark P. Taylor. 2003. Why is it So Difcult to Beat the Random Walk Forecast of Exchange Rates? Journal of International Economics. 60:1, pp. 85107. Lane, Philip and Gian Maria Mileri-Ferretti. 2002. External Wealth, the Trade Balance and the Real Exchange Rate. European Economic Review. 46:6, pp. 1049 071. Lothian, James R. 1990. A Century Plus of Japanese Exchange Rate Behavior. Japan and the World Economy. February/March, 2, pp. 4750. Lothian, James R. and Mark P. Taylor. 1996. Real Exchange Rate Behavior: The Recent Float From the Perspective of the Past Two Centuries. Journal of Political Economy. 104:3, pp. 488 509. Lothian, James R. and Mark P. Taylor. 1997. Real Exchange Rate Behavior: The Problem of Power and Sample Size. Journal of International Money and Finance. 16:6, pp. 94554. Lothian, James R. and Mark P. Taylor. 2004. Real Exchange Rates, Nonlinearity and Relative Productivity: The Long and the Short of It. Photocopy, University of Warwick. Mark, Nelson. 1990. Real and Nominal Exchange Rates in the Long Run: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of International Economics. 28:1-2, pp. 11536. Michael, Panos, A. Robert Nobay and David A. Peel. 1997. Transaction Costs and Nonlinear Adjustment in Real Exchange Rates: An Empir-
ical Investigation. Journal of Political Economy. 105:4, pp. 86279. Micossi, Stefano and Gian Maria MilesiFerretti. 1994. Real Exchange Rates and the Prices of Nontradable Goods. Working Papers No. 94/19, International Monetary Fund. Murray, Christian J. and David H. Papell. 2004. The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle is Worse Than You Think. Photocopy, University of Houston, January. Obstfeld, Maurice. 2001. International Macroeconomics: Beyond the Mundell-Fleming Model IMF Staff Papers. Special Issue, 47, pp. 139. Obstfeld, Maurice and Kenneth Rogoff. 2000. The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause? NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000. 115:1, pp. 339 90. Obstfeld, Maurice and Alan M. Taylor. 1997. Nonlinear Aspects of Goods-Market Arbitrage and Adjustment: Heckschers Commodity Points Revisited. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. 11:4, pp. 44179. Obstfeld, Maurice and Alan M. Taylor. 2004. Global Capital Markets: Integration, Crisis, and Growth. Japan-U.S. Center Sanwa Monographs on International Financial Markets Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OConnell, Paul G. J. and Shang-Jin Wei. 2002. The Bigger They are, the Harder They Fall: Retail Price Differences Across U.S. Cities. Journal of International Economics. 56:1, pp. 2153. Ofcer, Lawrence H. 1982. Purchasing Power Parity and Exchange Rates: Theory, Evidence and Relevance. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Papell, David H. 1997. Searching for Stationarity: Purchasing Power Parity Under the Current Float. Journal of International Economics. 43: 3-4, pp. 31332. Parsley, David C. and Shang-Jin Wei. 2003. A Prism into the PPP Puzzles: The MicroFoundations of Big Mac Real Exchange Rates. Working Paper Series No. 10074, National Bureau of Economic Research, November. Redding, Stephen and Anthony J. Venables. 2001. Economic Geography and International Inequality. Discussion Paper No. 0495, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, May. Rogoff, Kenneth. 1996. The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle. Journal of Economic Literature. 34:2, pp. 647 68. Roll, Richard. 1979. Violations of Purchasing Power Parity and their Implications for Efcient International Commodity Markets, in International Finance and Trade, Volume 1. M. Sarnat and
158
G.P. Szego, eds. Cambridge. Mass.: Ballinger, pp. 13376. Samuelson, Paul A. 1964. Theoretical Notes on Trade Problems. Review of Economics and Statistics. 46:2, pp. 14554. Sarno, Lucio and Mark P. Taylor. 2002a. Purchasing Power Parity and the Real Exchange Rate. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers. 49:1, pp. 65105. Sarno, Lucio and Mark P. Taylor. 2002b. The Economics of Exchange Rates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sarno, Lucio, Ibrahim Chowdhury and Mark P. Taylor. 2004. Non-Linear Dynamics in Deviations from the Law of One Price: A BroadBased Empirical Study. Journal of International Money and Finance. 23:1, pp. 125. Sercu, Piet, Raman Uppal and Cynthia Van Hulle. 1995. The Exchange Rate in the Presence of Transaction Costs: Implications for Tests of Purchasing Power Parity. Journal of Finance. 50, pp. 1309 319. Shiller, Robert J. and Pierre Perron. 1985. Testing the Random Walk Hypothesis: Power Versus Frequency of Observation. Economics Letters. 18:4, pp. 381 86. Stockman, Alan C. 1987. The Equilibrium Approach to Exchange Rates. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Review. 73:2, pp. 12 30. Stockman, Alan C. 1988. Real Exchange Rate Variability under Pegged and Floating Nominal Exchange Rate Systems: An Equilibrium Theory. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy. 29, pp. 259 94. Taylor, Alan M. 2001. Potential Pitfalls for the Purchasing-Power Parity Puzzle? Sampling and Specication Biases in Mean-Reversion Tests of the Law of One Price. Econometrica. 69:2, pp. 47398.
Taylor, Alan M. 2002. A Century of Purchasing Power Parity. Review of Economics and Statistics. 84:1, pp. 139 50. Taylor, Mark P. 1988. An Empirical Examination of Long-Run Purchasing Power Parity Using Cointegration Techniques. Applied Economics. 20:10, pp. 1369 381. Taylor, Mark P. 1995. The Economics of Exchange Rates. Journal of Economic Literature. 33:1, pp. 13 47. Taylor, Mark P. 2004. Is Ofcial Exchange Rate Intervention Effective? Economica. 71:1, pp. 112. Taylor, Mark P. and Patrick C. McMahon. 1988. Long-Run Purchasing Power Parity in the 1920s. European Economic Review. 32:1, pp. 179 97. Taylor, Mark P. and Lucio Sarno. 1998. The Behavior of Real Exchange Rates During the PostBretton Woods Period. Journal of International Economics. 46:2, pp. 281312. Taylor, Mark P. and Lucio Sarno. 2004. International Real Interest Rate Differentials, Purchasing Power Parity and the Behaviour of Real Exchange Rates: The Resolution of a Conundrum. International Journal of Finance and Economics. 9:1, pp. 1523. Taylor, Mark P., David A. Peel and Lucio Sarno. 2001. Nonlinear Mean-Reversion in Real Exchange Rates: Towards a Solution to the Purchasing Power Parity Puzzles. International Economic Review. 42:4, pp. 1015 042. Williams, Jeffrey C. and Brian D. Wright. 1991. Storage and Commodity Markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zussman, Asaf. 2003. The Limits of Arbitrage: Trading Frictions and Deviations from Purchasing Power Parity. SIEPR Policy Paper No. 02-012.
This article has been cited by: 1. Guochen Pan, Tsangyao Chang, Chia-Hao Lee, Wen-Chi Liu. 2012. Revisiting purchasing power parity for 18 African countries: sequential panel selection method. Applied Economics Letters 19:9, 877-881. [CrossRef] 2. Guochen Pan, Tsangyao Chang, D.P. Tang, Chia-Hao Lee. 2012. Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity in Latin American countries: the ADL test for threshold cointegration. Applied Economics Letters 19:9, 857-862. [CrossRef] 3. Tsangyao Chang. 2012. Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity in China. Applied Economics Letters 19:9, 843-848. [CrossRef] 4. Tsangyao Chang, Chi-Wei Su, Yu-Shao Liu. 2012. Purchasing power parity with nonlinear threshold unit root test. Applied Economics Letters 19:9, 839-842. [CrossRef] 5. Tsangyao Chang, Yu-Shao Liu, Chi-Wei Su. 2012. Purchasing power parity with nonlinear and asymmetric smooth adjustment for the Middle Eastern countries. Applied Economics Letters 19:5, 487-491. [CrossRef] 6. Tsangyao Chang, Chia-Hao Lee, Pei-I Chou. 2012. Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity in G-7 countries. Applied Economics Letters 19:2, 123-128. [CrossRef] 7. Gawon Yoon. 2011. An empirical demonstration of classical comparative cost theory: a correction to Balassa (1963). Applied Financial Economics 21:23, 1765-1767. [CrossRef] 8. Doo-Yull Choi, Bong-Han Kim, See-Won Kim. 2011. Nonlinear mean-reversion in Southeast Asian real exchange rates. Applied Financial Economics 21:19, 1409-1421. [CrossRef] 9. Salah A. Nusair. 2011. Nonlinear adjustment of Asian real exchange rates. Economic Change and Restructuring . [CrossRef] 10. Jan Marc Berk, Job Swank. 2011. Price level convergence and regional Phillips curves in the US and EMU. Journal of International Money and Finance 30:5, 749-763. [CrossRef] 11. Gabriel Porcile, Alexandre Gomes da Silva, Ricardo Viana. 2011. External debt sustainability and policy rules in a small globalized economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 22:3, 269-276. [CrossRef] 12. Chikashi Tsuji. 2011. Positive return premia in Japan. Quantitative Finance 1-23. [CrossRef] 13. Yang-Cheng Ralph Lu, Tsangyao Chang, Chia-Hao Lee. 2011. Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity in transition countries: the ADL test for threshold cointegration. Applied Economics Letters 1-5. [CrossRef] 14. Hsu-Ling Chang, De-Chih Liu, Chi-Wei Su. 2011. Purchasing power parity with flexible Fourier stationary test for Central and Eastern European countries. Applied Economics 1-8. [CrossRef] 15. Siyue Liu, Tsangyao Chang, Chia-Hao Lee, Pei-I Chou. 2011. Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity: the ADL test for threshold cointegration. Applied Economics Letters 1-5. [CrossRef] 16. Ahmad Zubaidi Baharumshah, Siew-Voon Soon. 2011. Mean reversion in bilateral real exchange rates: evidence from the Malaysian ringgit. Applied Economics 1-13. [CrossRef] 17. Steven Gjerstad. 2011. Price dynamics in an exchange economy. Economic Theory . [CrossRef] 18. Su-Yuan Lin, Horng-Jinh Chang, Tsangyao Chang. 2011. Revisiting purchasing power parity for nine transition countries: a Fourier stationary test. Post-Communist Economies 23:2, 191-201. [CrossRef] 19. Yamin Ahmad, Stuart Glosser. 2011. Searching for nonlinearities in real exchange rates. Applied Economics 43:15, 1829-1845. [CrossRef]
20. Joseph Kargbo. 2011. Capital flows, real exchange rate misalignment and PPP tests in emerging market countries. Applied Economics 43:15, 1883-1897. [CrossRef] 21. Yang-Cheng Lu, Tsangyao Chang. 2011. Long-run purchasing power parity with asymmetric adjustment: further evidence from China. Applied Economics Letters 18:9, 881-886. [CrossRef] 22. Yiguo Sun, Cheng Hsiao, Qi Li. 2011. Measuring correlations of integrated but not cointegrated variables: A semiparametric approach. Journal of Econometrics . [CrossRef] 23. Augustine C. Arize. 2011. Purchasing power parity in LDCs: An empirical investigation. Global Finance Journal . [CrossRef] 24. Philip L. Brock. 2011. The PennBalassaSamuelson effect through the lens of the dependent economy model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control . [CrossRef] 25. Chi-Wei Su, Tsangyao Chang, Hsu-Ling Chang. 2011. Purchasing Power Parity for Fifteen Latin American Countries: Stationary Test with a Fourier Function. International Review of Economics & Finance . [CrossRef] 26. Tsangyao Chang, Han-Wen Tzeng. 2011. Long-run purchasing power parity with asymmetric adjustment: Further evidence from nine transition countries. Economic Modelling . [CrossRef] 27. Chunming Yuan. 2011. The exchange rate and macroeconomic determinants: Time-varying transitional dynamics. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance . [CrossRef] 28. Samira Haddou. 2011. Is Tunisian Real Effective Exchange Rate Mean Reverting? Evidence from Nonlinear Models. Transition Studies Review . [CrossRef] 29. Frederick Wallace. 2011. Purchasing power parity in Mexico: a historical note. Applied Economics Letters 18:4, 349-352. [CrossRef] 30. Su Zhou, Ali M. Kutan. 2011. Is the evidence for PPP reliable? A sustainability examination of the stationarity of real exchange rates. Journal of Banking & Finance . [CrossRef] 31. Yang-Cheng Ralph Lu, Tsangyao Chang, Chi-Chen Chiu, Han-Wen Tzeng. 2011. Revisiting purchasing power parity for 16 Latin American countries: panel SURADF tests. Applied Economics Letters 18:3, 251-255. [CrossRef] 32. Yi-Hua Wu, Eric Lin. 2011. Does purchasing power parity hold following the launch of the euro? Evidence from the panel unit root test. Applied Economics Letters 18:2, 167-172. [CrossRef] 33. Jan Marc Berk, Job Swank. 2011. Price level convergence and regional Phillips curves in the US and EMU. Journal of International Money and Finance 30:5, 749. [CrossRef] 34. Alfred Haug, Syed Basher. 2011. Linear or nonlinear cointegration in the purchasing power parity relationship?. Applied Economics 43:2, 185-196. [CrossRef] 35. Tsangyao Chang, Yang-Cheng Lu, D. P. Tang, Wen-Chi Liu. 2011. Long-run purchasing power parity with asymmetric adjustment: further evidence from African countries. Applied Economics 43:2, 231-242. [CrossRef] 36. Chi-Wei Su, Hsu-Ling Chang, Meng-Nan Zhu, Yi-Chu Lai. 2011. Purchasing power parity in major OPEC countries: nonlinear threshold unit root test. Applied Economics Letters 1-4. [CrossRef] 37. Tsangyao Chang, Yang-Cheng Lu, Wen-Chi Liu, Shu-Chen Kang. 2011. Revisiting purchasing power parity for major oil-exporting countries using panel SURADF tests. Applied Economics Letters 18:1, 63-67. [CrossRef] 38. Kamrul Hassan, Ruhul Salim. 2011. The linkage between relative population growth and purchasing power parity: Cross country evidence. International Journal of Development Issues 10:2, 154-169. [CrossRef]
39. Yukio Fukumoto. 2011. International price dispersions of the Big Mac and economic integration. Applied Economics Letters 1-6. [CrossRef] 40. Yang-Cheng Ralph Lu, Tsangyao Chang, Kuei-Chiu Lee, Han-Wen Tzeng. 2011. An empirical test of the purchasing power parity for transition economies: Panel SURADF tests. Applied Economics Letters 1-6. [CrossRef] 41. Tsung-Hsien Chen, Tsangyao Chang, Yi-Chun Zhang, Chia-Hao Lee. 2011. Purchasing power parity in Mainland China and Taiwan: an empirical note based on threshold unit root test. Applied Economics Letters 1-6. [CrossRef] 42. Tsangyao Chang, Kuei-Chiu Lee, Yang-Cheng Ralph Lu, Guochen Pan. 2011. Revisiting purchasing power parity for G-7 countries using nonparametric rank test for cointegration. Applied Economics Letters 1-6. [CrossRef] 43. Tsangyao Chang, Hsu-Ling Chang, Ken Hung, Chi-Wei Su. 2011. Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity for Germany's real exchange rate relative to its major trading partners. Applied Economics Letters 1-6. [CrossRef] 44. Darja Borsic, Ahmad Zubaidi Baharumshah, Jani Bek#. 2011. Are we getting closer to purchasing power parity in Central and Eastern European economies?. Applied Economics Letters 1-5. [CrossRef] 45. Chi-Wei Su, Tsangyao Chang, Yu-Shao Liu. 2011. Revisiting purchasing power parity for African countries: with nonlinear panel unit-root tests. Applied Economics 1-11. [CrossRef] 46. Chi-Wei Su, Hsu-Ling Chang, Meng-Nan Zhu. 2011. Flexible Fourier stationary test in purchasing power parity for African countries. Applied Economics 1-8. [CrossRef] 47. Jean M. Imbs, Haroon Mumtaz, Morten O. Ravn, Hlne Rey. 2010. One TV, One Price?*. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 112:4, 753-781. [CrossRef] 48. Miguel Lacerda, Johannes W. Fedderke, Linda M. Haines. 2010. TESTING FOR PURCHASING POWER PARITY AND UNCOVERED INTEREST PARITY IN THE PRESENCE OF MONETARY AND EXCHANGE RATE REGIME SHIFTS. South African Journal of Economics 78:4, 363-382. [CrossRef] 49. Helmut Herwartz, Florian Siedenburg. 2010. A New Approach to Unit Root Testing. Computational Economics 36:4, 365-384. [CrossRef] 50. Marjan Senjur. 2010. Differential inflation, Phillips curves, and price competitiveness in a new euro-member country. Economic Change and Restructuring 43:4, 253-273. [CrossRef] 51. Jen-Chi Cheng, Larry Taylor, Wenlong Weng. 2010. The links between international parity conditions and Granger causality: a study of exchange rates and prices. Applied Economics 42:27, 3491-3501. [CrossRef] 52. H. Levent Korap, Ozgur Aslan. 2010. Re-examination of the long-run purchasing power parity: further evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics 42:27, 3559-3564. [CrossRef] 53. Tsangyao Chang, Wen-Chi Liu, Chin-Ping Yu, Shuchen Kang. 2010. Purchasing power parity for 10 Latin American integration association countries: panel SURKSS tests. Applied Economics Letters 17:16, 1575-1580. [CrossRef] 54. Tsangyao Chang, De-Piao Tang, Wen-Chi Liu, Chia-Hao Lee. 2010. Purchasing power parity for 15 COMESA and SADC countries: evidence based on panel SURADF tests. Applied Economics Letters 17:17, 1721-1727. [CrossRef] 55. Catherine Ho, M. Ariff. 2010. Sticky prices and time to equilibrium: evidence from Asia-Pacific trade-related economies. Applied Economics 1-11. [CrossRef] 56. Tsangyao Chang, YiChun Zhang, Wen-Chi Liu. 2010. Purchasing power parity for ASEAN-8 countries: panel SURKSS tests. Applied Economics Letters 17:15, 1517-1523. [CrossRef]
57. Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin, Chi Keung Marco Lau, Ender Demir, Nijol# Astrauskien#. 2010. Rental Price Convergence in a Developing Economy: New Evidence from Nonlinear Panel Unit Root Test. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 14:3, 245-257. [CrossRef] 58. Sren Johansen, Katarina Juselius, Roman Frydman, Michael Goldberg. 2010. Testing hypotheses in an I(2)I(2) model with piecewise linear trends. An analysis of the persistent long swings in the Dmk/$ rate. Journal of Econometrics 158:1, 117-129. [CrossRef] 59. Maxym Chaban. 2010. Cointegration analysis with structural breaks and deterministic trends: an application to the Canadian dollar. Applied Economics 42:23, 3023-3037. [CrossRef] 60. Tsangyao Chang, Chia-Hao Lee. 2010. Revisiting purchasing power parity for East Asian countries: panel SURADF tests. Applied Economics Letters 17:13, 1329-1334. [CrossRef] 61. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee, Scott Hegerty. 2010. Bounds testing cointegration methods and PPP: evidence from 123 Countries. Applied Economics Letters 17:14, 1335-1340. [CrossRef] 62. Alper Aslan, Ferit Kula, Huseyin Kalyoncu. 2010. Additional evidence of long-run purchasing power parity with black and official exchange rates. Applied Economics Letters 17:14, 1379-1382. [CrossRef] 63. Tsangyao Chang, Wen-Chi Liu, Chin-Ping Yu. 2010. Revisiting purchasing power parity for G7 countries: further evidence based on panel SURKSS tests. Applied Economics Letters 17:14, 1383-1387. [CrossRef] 64. Gawon Yoon. 2010. On the performance of a nonparametric measure of convergence towards purchasing power parity in the presence of linearity. Applied Economics Letters 17:14, 1389-1396. [CrossRef] 65. TORBEN IVERSEN, DAVID SOSKICE. 2010. Real Exchange Rates and Competitiveness: The Political Economy of Skill Formation, Wage Compression, and Electoral Systems. American Political Science Review 104:03, 601-623. [CrossRef] 66. Seher Nur Sulku. 2010. Econometric testing of purchasing power parity in less developed countries: fixed and flexible exchange rate regime experiences. Applied Economics 42:20, 2617-2630. [CrossRef] 67. Tsangyao Chang, Wen-Chi Liu, Han-Wen Tzeng, Chin-Ping Yu. 2010. Purchasing power parity for G-7 countries: panel SURADF tests. Applied Economics Letters 17:12, 1223-1228. [CrossRef] 68. Robert A. Jarrow, Philip Protter. 2010. Foreign currency bubbles. Review of Derivatives Research . [CrossRef] 69. Julian Ramajo, Montserrat Ferre. 2010. Purchasing power parity revisited: evidence from old and new tests for an organisation for economic co-operation and development panel. Applied Economics 42:17, 2243-2260. [CrossRef] 70. Venus Khim-Sen Liew, Ricky Chee-Jiun Chia, Tai-Hu Ling. 2010. Long-run validity of purchasing power parity and rank tests for cointegration for Central Asian countries. Applied Economics Letters 17:11, 1073-1077. [CrossRef] 71. Hsu-Ling Chang, Chi-Wei Su. 2010. Revisiting purchasing power parity for major OPEC countries: evidence based on nonlinear panel unit-root tests. Applied Economics Letters 17:11, 1119-1123. [CrossRef] 72. Gawon Yoon. 2010. Nonlinearity in real exchange rates: an approach with disaggregated data and a new linearity test. Applied Economics Letters 17:11, 1125-1132. [CrossRef] 73. Gawon Yoon. 2010. Nonlinear mean reversion in real exchange rates: threshold autoregressive models and stochastic unit root processes. Applied Economics Letters 17:8, 797-804. [CrossRef] 74. Gawon Yoon. 2010. Does nonlinearity help resolve the Fisher effect puzzle?. Applied Economics Letters 17:8, 823-828. [CrossRef]
75. Stefan Norrbin, Aaron Smallwood. 2010. Generalized long memory and mean reversion of the real exchange rate. Applied Economics 42:11, 1377-1386. [CrossRef] 76. Yu Hsing. 2010. Analysis of movements in the AUD/USD exchange rate: comparison of four major models. Applied Economics Letters 17:6, 575-580. [CrossRef] 77. Saadet Kasman, Adnan Kasman, Duygu Ayhan. 2010. Testing the Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis for the New Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union: Evidence from Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Tests with Structural Breaks. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 46:2, 53-65. [CrossRef] 78. ahmad zubaidi baharumshah, evan lau, mudziviri t. nziramasanga. 2010. PURCHASING POWER PARITY IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM PANEL SURADF TEST. South African Journal of Economics 78:1, 40-56. [CrossRef] 79. Guglielmo Maria Caporale, Christoph Hanck. 2010. Are PPP tests erratically behaved? Some panel evidence. International Review of Applied Economics 24:2, 203-221. [CrossRef] 80. Yu Hsing. 2010. Test of the Marshall-Lerner Condition for Eight Selected Asian Countries and Policy Implications. Global Economic Review 39:1, 91-98. [CrossRef] 81. Gawon Yoon. 2010. Nonlinear mean-reversion to purchasing power parity: exponential smooth transition autoregressive models and stochastic unit root processes. Applied Economics 42:4, 489-496. [CrossRef] 82. Poomthan Rangkakulnuwat, Sung Ahn, Holly Wang, Susan He. 2010. Extended generalized purchasing power parity and optimum currency area in East Asian countries. Applied Economics 42:4, 497-513. [CrossRef] 83. Derek Bond, Michael Harrison, Edward O'Brien. 2010. Exploring nonlinearity with random field regression. Applied Economics Letters 17:2, 121-124. [CrossRef] 84. Kenneth W. Clements, Yihui Lan, Shi Pei Seah. 2010. The Big Mac Index two decades on: an evaluation of burgernomics. International Journal of Finance & Economics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] 85. Antnio Afonso, Christophe Rault. 2010. What do we really know about fiscal sustainability in the EU? A panel data diagnostic. Review of World Economics 145:4, 731-755. [CrossRef] 86. Tuomas A. Peltonen, Adina Popescu, Michael Sager. 2010. Can non-linear real shocks explain the persistence of PPP exchange rate disequilibria?. International Journal of Finance & Economics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] 87. Hsu-Ling Chang, Chi-Wei Su, Meng-Nan Zhu, Pei Liu. 2010. Re-examining long-run purchasing power parity for Central and Eastern European countries: nonlinear panel unit root tests. Applied Economics Letters 1-5. [CrossRef] 88. S. H. Hung, M. J. Weng. 2010. Panel unit root tests of purchasing power parity for Central Asian countries. Applied Economics Letters 1-6. [CrossRef] 89. Marc W. Simpson, Axel Grossmann. 2010. Can a relative purchasing power parity-based model outperform a random walk in forecasting short-term exchange rates?. International Journal of Finance & Economics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] 90. M. Hashem Pesaran, Ron Smith, Takashi Yamagata, Lyudmyla Hvozdyk. 2009. Pairwise Tests of Purchasing Power Parity. Econometric Reviews 28:6, 495-521. [CrossRef] 91. Yu Hsing, Bruno S. Sergi. 2009. The Dollar/Euro Exchange Rate and a Comparison of Major Models. Journal of Business Economics and Management 10:3, 199-205. [CrossRef] 92. L. Erdey, P. Fldvri. 2009. Do Purchasing Power and Interest Rate Parities hold for the EUR/ HUF exchange rate?. Acta Oeconomica 59:3, 289-306. [CrossRef]
93. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee, Scott W. Hegerty. 2009. PURCHASING POWER PARITY IN LESSDEVELOPED AND TRANSITION ECONOMIES: A REVIEW PAPER. Journal of Economic Surveys 23:4, 617-658. [CrossRef] 94. Murat Do#anlar, Harun Bal, Mehmet Ozmen. 2009. Testing long-run validity of purchasing power parity for selected emerging market economies. Applied Economics Letters 16:14, 1443-1448. [CrossRef] 95. Fredj Jawadi. 2009. Essay in dividend modelling and forecasting: does nonlinearity help?. Applied Financial Economics 19:16, 1329-1343. [CrossRef] 96. Christoph Hanck. 2009. Cross-sectional correlation robust tests for panel cointegration. Journal of Applied Statistics 36:7, 817-833. [CrossRef] 97. Derek Bond, Michael Harrison, Edward O'Brien. 2009. Nonlinearity and structural breaks in Irish PPP relationships: an application of random field regression. Applied Economics 1-13. [CrossRef] 98. Isabelle Mjean, Cyrille Schwellnus. 2009. Price convergence in the European Union: Within firms or composition of firms?#. Journal of International Economics 78:1, 1-10. [CrossRef] 99. Ahmad Zubaidi Baharumshah, Siti Hamizah Mohd, Sung Ahn. 2009. On the predictive power of monetary exchange rate model: the case of the Malaysian ringgit/US dollar rate. Applied Economics 41:14, 1761-1770. [CrossRef] 100. Yu Hsing. 2009. Modeling the Behavior of the KRW/USD Exchange Rate and Policy Implications. Global Economic Review 38:2, 205-214. [CrossRef] 101. Cheng-Feng Lee, Ching-Chuan Tsong. 2009. Covariate selection for testing purchasing power parity. Applied Economics 1-11. [CrossRef] 102. Andrew K. Rose, Saktiandi Supaat, Jacob Braude. 2009. Fertility and the real exchange rate. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'conomique 42:2, 496-518. [CrossRef] 103. KENNETH W. CLEMENTS, H. Y. IZAN, YIHUI LAN. 2009. A Stochastic Measure of International Competitiveness. International Review of Finance 9:1-2, 51-81. [CrossRef] 104. Nikitas Pittis, Christina Christou, Sarantis Kalyvitis, Christis Hassapis. 2009. Long-Run PPP under the Presence of Near-to-Unit Roots: The Case of the British Pound-US Dollar Rate. Review of International Economics 17:1, 144-155. [CrossRef] 105. Guneratne Wickremasinghe. 2009. Are real exchange rates of Papua New Guinea mean-reverting? Evidence from panel unit root tests. Applied Economics Letters 16:2, 157-161. [CrossRef] 106. Guglielmo Maria Caporale, Andros Gregoriou. 2009. Non-normality, heteroscedasticity and recursive unit root tests of PPP: solving the PPP puzzle?. Applied Economics Letters 16:3, 223-226. [CrossRef] 107. Mark Taylor. 2009. Editorial: Long-run purchasing power parity and real exchange rates: introduction and overview. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 1-4. [CrossRef] 108. Paresh Kumar Narayan, Seema Narayan, Arti Prasad. 2009. Evidence on PPP from a cointegration test with multiple structural breaks. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 5-8. [CrossRef] 109. Gawon Yoon. 2009. Are real exchange rates more likely to be stationary during the fixed nominal exchange rate regimes?. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 17-22. [CrossRef] 110. J. V. Perez-Rodriguez, F. Ledesma-Rodriguez, S. Torra-Porras. 2009. Purchasing power parity and nonlinear adjustment. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 35-38. [CrossRef] 111. Venus Khim-Sen Liew, Hock-Ann Lee, Kian-Ping Lim. 2009. Purchasing power parity in Asian economies: further evidence from rank tests for cointegration. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 51-54. [CrossRef]
112. Gawon Yoon. 2009. Purchasing power parity and long memory. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 55-61. [CrossRef] 113. Huseyin Kalyoncu. 2009. New evidence of the validity of purchasing power parity from Turkey. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 63-67. [CrossRef] 114. Nasip Bolatoglu, Funda Telatar, Erdinc Telatar. 2009. Stochastic behaviour of the real exchange rate for Jordan: a re-examination. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 81-85. [CrossRef] 115. Yu Hsing. 2009. Functional forms and PPP: new evidence for eight Asian countries. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 95-98. [CrossRef] 116. Ruhul Salim, Kamrul Hassan. 2009. Does the relative population growth affect purchasing power parity?. Applied Economics Letters 16:1, 103-107. [CrossRef] 117. Yu Hsing. 2008. Application of Monetary Models of Exchange Rate Determination for Poland. South East European Journal of Economics and Business 3:2, 19-24. [CrossRef] 118. C. O. Vargas-Tellez. 2008. Purchasing power parity across Mexican cities: a panel data analysis. Applied Economics 40:22, 2891-2899. [CrossRef] 119. Yu Hsing. 2008. On the functional form of PPP: the case of nine new EU countries. Applied Financial Economics Letters 4:6, 389-393. [CrossRef] 120. James R. Lothian, Mark P. Taylor. 2008. Real Exchange Rates Over the Past Two Centuries: How Important is the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson Effect?*. The Economic Journal 118:532, 1742-1763. [CrossRef] 121. Rakesh Bissoondeeal. 2008. Post-Bretton Woods evidence on PPP under different exchange rate regimes. Applied Financial Economics 18:18, 1481-1488. [CrossRef] 122. Imed Drine, Christophe Rault. 2008. PURCHASING POWER PARITY FOR DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM NON-STATIONARY PANEL DATA MODELS?. Journal of Economic Surveys 22:4, 752-773. [CrossRef] 123. MICHAEL SAGER, MARK P. TAYLOR. 2008. Commercially Available Order Flow Data and Exchange Rate Movements: Caveat Emptor. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 40:4, 583-625. [CrossRef] 124. Nikolaos Mylonidis, Dimitrios Sideris. 2008. Home bias and purchasing power parity: evidence from the G-7 countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics 13:2, 199-204. [CrossRef] 125. David O. Cushman. 2008. Real exchange rates may have nonlinear trends. International Journal of Finance & Economics 13:2, 158-173. [CrossRef] 126. Paresh Kumar Narayan, Biman Chand Prasad. 2008. Are shocks to real effective exchange rates permanent or transitory? Evidence from Pacific Island countries. Applied Economics 40:8, 1053-1060. [CrossRef] 127. Roberto Frenkel, Martn Rapetti. 2008. Five years of competitive and stable real exchange rate in Argentina, 2002-2007. International Review of Applied Economics 22:2, 215-226. [CrossRef] 128. Zeynel Abidin Ozdemir. 2008. The purchasing power parity hypothesis in Turkey: evidence from nonlinear STAR error correction models. Applied Economics Letters 15:4, 307-311. [CrossRef] 129. Vishal Jaunky. 2008. The real exchange rate and productivity differentials: a panel cointegration approach. Applied Economics Letters 15:4, 313-318. [CrossRef] 130. Lein-Lein Chen, Seungmook Choi, John Devereux. 2008. Have Absolute Price Levels Converged for Developed Economies? The Evidence since 1870. Review of Economics and Statistics 90:1, 29-36. [CrossRef] 131. Katja Funke, Isabell Koske. 2008. Does the Law of One Price Hold within the EU? A Panel Analysis. International Advances in Economic Research 14:1, 11-24. [CrossRef]
132. Lukas Menkhoff, Rafael Rebitzky, Michael Schroder. 2008. Do dollar forecasters believe too much in PPP?. Applied Economics 40:3, 261-270. [CrossRef] 133. Jyh-Lin Wu, Chien-Chiang Lee. 2008. A revisit to the nonlinear stationarity of real exchange rates. Applied Economics Letters 15:2, 155-159. [CrossRef] 134. Olivier Darn, Jean-Franois Hoarau. 2008. The purchasing power parity in Australia: evidence from unit root test with structural break. Applied Economics Letters 15:3, 203-206. [CrossRef] 135. Tsangyao Chang, Wen-Chi Liu. 2008. Long-run purchasing power parity with asymmetric adjustment: evidence from nine major oil-exporting countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] 136. Duo Qin. 2008. Uncover Latent PPP by Dynamic Factor Error Correction Model (DF-ECM) Approach: Evidence from Five OECD Countries. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal . [CrossRef] 137. Ahmad Zubaidi Baharumshah, Chan Tze-Haw, Stilianos Fountas. 2008. Re-examining purchasing power parity for East-Asian currencies: 1976-2002. Applied Financial Economics 18:1, 75-85. [CrossRef] 138. Jani Bek#, Darja Borsic. 2007. Purchasing Power Parity in Transition Economies: Does It Hold in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia?. Post-Communist Economies 19:4, 417-432. [CrossRef] 139. Gabriel Rodriguez, Indira Romero. 2007. The role of permanent and transitory components in the fluctuations of Latin-American real exchange rates. Applied Economics 39:21, 2713-2722. [CrossRef] 140. Bernd Schnatz. 2007. Is reversion to PPP in euro exchange rates non-linear?. International Economics and Economic Policy 4:3, 281-297. [CrossRef] 141. Lukas Menkhoff, Mark P. Taylor. 2007. The Obstinate Passion of Foreign Exchange Professionals: Technical Analysis. Journal of Economic Literature 45:4, 936-972. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links] 142. Olivier Darn, Jean-Franois Hoarau. 2007. FURTHER EVIDENCE ON MEAN REVERSION IN THE AUSTRALIAN EXCHANGE RATE. Bulletin of Economic Research 59:4, 383-395. [CrossRef] 143. Mario Cerrato, Nicholas Sarantis. 2007. Does purchasing power parity hold in emerging markets? Evidence from a panel of black market exchange rates. International Journal of Finance & Economics 12:4, 427-444. [CrossRef] 144. Paresh Kumar Narayan, Seema Narayan. 2007. Are real exchange rates nonlinear with a unit root? Evidence on PPP for Italy: a note. Applied Economics 39:19, 2483-2488. [CrossRef] 145. Mohsen Bahmani Oskooee, Magda Kandil. 2007. Real and nominal effective exchange rates in MENA countries: 1970-2004. Applied Economics 39:19, 2489-2501. [CrossRef] 146. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee, Hanafia Harvey. 2007. Real and Nominal Effective Exchange Rates for LDCs: 1971-2004. The International Trade Journal 21:4, 385-416. [CrossRef] 147. Yu Hsing. 2007. Exchange rate fluctuations in Croatia: test of uncovered interest rate parity and the open economy model. Applied Economics Letters 14:11, 785-788. [CrossRef] 148. Lean Hooi Hooi, Russell Smyth. 2007. Are Asian real exchange rates mean reverting? Evidence from univariate and panel LM unit root tests with one and two structural breaks. Applied Economics 39:16, 2109-2120. [CrossRef] 149. Jaehun Chung, Yongmiao Hong. 2007. Model-free evaluation of directional predictability in foreign exchange markets. Journal of Applied Econometrics 22:5, 855-889. [CrossRef]
150. Ming-Yuan Leon Li. 2007. Purchasing power parity under high and low volatility regimes. Applied Economics Letters 14:8, 581-589. [CrossRef] 151. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee, Abera Gelan. 2007. Real and nominal effective exchange rates for African countries. Applied Economics 39:8, 961-979. [CrossRef] 152. Pr Sjlander. 2007. Unreal exchange rates: a simulation-based approach to adjust misleading PPP estimates. Journal of Economic Studies 34:3, 256-288. [CrossRef] 153. Chikashi Tsuji. 2007. Explaining the dynamics of the NIKKEI 225 stock and stock index futures markets by using the SETAR model. Applied Financial Economics Letters 3:2, 77-83. [CrossRef] 154. Charalambos Pattichis, Marios Maratheftis, Stavros Zenios. 2007. Is the Cyprus Pound Real Effective Exchange Rate Misaligned? A BEER Approach. International Economic Journal 21:1, 133-154. [CrossRef] 155. Tsangyao Chang, Hsu-Ling Chang, Hsiao-Ping Chu, Chi-Wei Su. 2006. Is per capita real GDP stationary in African countries? Evidence from panel SURADF test. Applied Economics Letters 13:15, 1003-1008. [CrossRef] 156. Yu Hsing. 2006. Responses of output in Poland to shocks to the exchange rate, the stock price, and other macroeconomic variables: a VAR model. Applied Economics Letters 13:15, 1017-1022. [CrossRef] 157. Tsangyao Chang, Hsu-Ling Chang, Hsiao-Ping Chu, Chi-Wei Su. 2006. Does PPP hold in African countries? Further evidence based on a highly dynamic non-linear (logistic) unit root test. Applied Economics 38:20, 2453-2459. [CrossRef] 158. C. Simon Fan, Xiangdong Wei. 2006. The Law of One Price: Evidence from the Transitional Economy of China. Review of Economics and Statistics 88:4, 682-697. [CrossRef] 159. Sang-Kuck Chung. 2006. The out-of-sample forecasts of nonlinear long-memory models of the real exchange rate. International Journal of Finance & Economics 11:4, 355-370. [CrossRef] 160. Yu Hsing. 2006. Analysis of Short-term Exchange Rate Movements in Korea: Application of an Extended MundellFleming Model. Global Economic Review 35:2, 145-151. [CrossRef] 161. Daiki Maki. 2006. Variance ratio tests for a unit root in the presence of a mean shift: small sample properties and an application to purchasing power parity. Applied Financial Economics 16:8, 607-615. [CrossRef] 162. Marie Arneberg, Einar Bowitz. 2006. Who Is the Big Spender? Price Index Effects in Comparisons of Educational Expenditures Between Countries and Over Time. Peabody Journal of Education 81:2, 33-46. [CrossRef] 163. Paresh Kumar Narayan. 2006. Are bilateral real exchange rates stationary? Evidence from Lagrange multiplier unit root tests for India. Applied Economics 38:1, 63-70. [CrossRef] 164. Jerry Coakley, Stuart Snaith. 2006. Testing for symmetry and proportionality in a European panel. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 63-71. [CrossRef] 165. Philip Hans Franses, Dick van Dijk. 2006. A simple test for PPP among traded goods. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 19-27. [CrossRef] 166. Mohammad S. Hasan. 2006. A century of Purchasing Power Parity: evidence from Canada and Australia. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 145-156. [CrossRef] 167. Michael J. Sager, Mark P. Taylor. 2006. Under the microscope: the structure of the foreign exchange market. International Journal of Finance & Economics 11:1, 81-95. [CrossRef] 168. Dimitrios Sideris. 2006. Purchasing Power Parity in economies in transition: evidence from Central and East European countries. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 135-143. [CrossRef]
169. Mark P. Taylor. 2006. Real exchange rates and Purchasing Power Parity: mean-reversion in economic thought. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 1-17. [CrossRef] 170. Jean-Francois Villeneuve, Jagdish Handa. 2006. Purchasing Power Parity as a long-term memory process: evidence from Canada. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 109-117. [CrossRef] 171. Pan A. Yotopoulos, Yasuyuki Sawada. 2006. Exchange rate misalignment: a new test of long-run PPP based on cross-country data. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 127-134. [CrossRef] 172. Michael Sager. 2006. Explaining the persistence of deviations from PPP: a non-linear HarrodBalassa-Samuelson effect?. Applied Financial Economics 16:1-2, 41-61. [CrossRef] 173. Guneratne B. Wickremasinghe. 2005. Purchasing Power Parity of Papua New Guinea: evidence from the floating exchange rate regime. Applied Financial Economics Letters 1:6, 335-338. [CrossRef] 174. Lucio Sarno. 2005. Viewpoint: Towards a solution to the puzzles in exchange rate economics: where do we stand?. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'<html_ent glyph="@eacute;" ascii="e"/>conomique 38:3, 673-708. [CrossRef] 175. Jerry Coakley, Stuart Snaith. 2005. Testing for symmetry and proportionality in a European panel. Applied Financial Economics 15:11, 745-752. [CrossRef] 176. Paresh Kumar Narayan. 2005. New evidence on purchasing power parity from 17 OECD countries. Applied Economics 37:9, 1063-1071. [CrossRef] 177. Imed Drine, Christophe Rault. 2005. Can the Balassa-Samuelson theory explain long-run real exchange rate movements in OECD countries?. Applied Financial Economics 15:8, 519-530. [CrossRef] 178. Guglielmo Maria Caporale, Mario Cerrato, Nicola Spagnolo. 2005. Measuring half-lives: using a non-parametric bootstrap approach. Applied Financial Economics Letters 1:1, 1-4. [CrossRef]

The Purchasing Power Parity Debate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Purchasing Power Parity Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 18, Number 4 Fall 2004 Pages 135158