Validity of Purchasing Power Parity in Fragile Five Countries: The Bayesyen Unit Root Analysis
The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is one of the most debated issues in international economy. The purchasing power validity of the Fragile Five countries (Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, India and Turkey) for the period 1990:Q1 – 2016: Q2 period was tested using the ADF and Sims (1988) Bayesian unit root test in this study. The analysis showed that the PPP is valid only for India. The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) theory was first introduced to the literature by the Swedish economist Gustav Cassel in 1918, but the idea underlying the PPP dates back to the academic writings of scientists at Salamanca University in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Purchasing Power Parity theory, which is one of the most important and most debated topics of international economy, is based on the Single Price Law. The Purchasing Power Parity is a version of the Single Price Law applied to international markets. The Single Price Law argues that in an environment where transportation costs, trade barriers and taxes do not exist, the prices of similar goods traded in different countries must be equal when expressed in the same currency.
Anahtar Kelimeler:
Bayesian Unit Root Tests, Stationarity, Purchasing Power Parity, Fragile Five Countries
Validity of Purchasing Power Parity in Fragile Five Countries: The Bayesyen Unit Root Analysis
The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is one of the most debated issues in international economy. The purchasing power validity of the Fragile Five countries (Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, India and Turkey) for the period 1990:Q1 – 2016: Q2 period was tested using the ADF and Sims (1988) Bayesian unit root test in this study. The analysis showed that the PPP is valid only for India. The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) theory was first introduced to the literature by the Swedish economist Gustav Cassel in 1918, but the idea underlying the PPP dates back to the academic writings of scientists at Salamanca University in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Purchasing Power Parity theory, which is one of the most important and most debated topics of international economy, is based on the Single Price Law. The Purchasing Power Parity is a version of the Single Price Law applied to international markets. The Single Price Law argues that in an environment where transportation costs, trade barriers and taxes do not exist, the prices of similar goods traded in different countries must be equal when expressed in the same currency.
___
- Akgül, I. (1995). Satınalma Gücü Paritesi: Uzun Dönem Yaklaşımı. Marmara Üniversitesi Ekonometri Dergisi, 61-100.
- Alper, A. E. (2015). Testing the Validity of Purchasing Power Parity for BRICS Countries Using Nonlinear Unit Root Test, Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 7(12): 92-101.
- Atasoy, A. B. (2016). Satınalma gücü paritesi, kırılgan beşli ülkeleri’nde geçerli midir?. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 30, 237-246.
- Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Hegerty, S. W., & Kutan, A. M. (2009). Is PPP sensitive to time-varying trade weights in constructing real effective exchange rates?. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 49(3), 1001-1008.
- Bozoklu, Ş., & Yılancı, V. (2010). Reel döviz kurlarının durağanlığı: E7 ülkeleri için ampirik bir inceleme. Maliye Dergisi, 158, 587-606.
- Büberkökü, Ö. (2014). Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerinde Uluslararası Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi: Panel Koentegrasyon Testlerinden Kanıtlar. Journal of BRSA Banking & Financial Markets, 8(1), 117-139.
- Civcir, I. (2003). Before the fall, was the Turkish lira overvalued?. Eastern European Economics, 41(2), 69-99.
- Çağlayan, E., & Saçaklı, İ. (2006). Satın Alma Gücü Paritesinin Geçerliliğinin Sıfır Frekansta Spektrum Tahmincisine Dayanan Birim Kök Testleri İle İncelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1). 121-137.
- Çeviş, I., & Ceylan, R. (2015). Kırılgan Beşlide Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi (SAGP) Hipotezinin Test Edilmesi. Journal of Yaşar University, 10(37), 6381-6393.
- Güloğlu, B., & İspir, S. (2009). Yeni Gelişmeler Işığında Türkiye’de Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Önsavının Panel Birim Kök Sınaması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İİBF İktisat Bölümü Yayınları.
- Güris, B., & Tirasoglu, M. The Validity of Purchasing Power Parity in BRICS Countries. Prague Economic Papers, 1-10.
- Güriş, B., Tıraşoğlu, B. Y., & Tıraşoğlu, M. (2016). Türkiye’de Satın alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerli mi?: Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testleri. Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(4), 30-42.
- Güriş, B., Yaşgül, Y. S., & Tıraşoğlu, M. (2017). E7 Ülkelerinde Satınalma Gücü Paritesinin Geçerliliğinin Doğrusal ve Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testleri ile Analizi. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 33-46.
- Hakkio, C. S. (1992). Is purchasing power parity a useful guide to the dollar?. Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 77(3), 37.
- Holmes, M. J. (2001). New evidence on real exchange rate stationarity and purchasing power parity in less developed countries. Journal of Macroeconomics, 23(4), 601-614.
- Karakurt, B., Şentürk, S. H., & Mehmet, E. L. A. (2015). Makroekonomik kırılganlık: türkiye ve şangay beşlisi karşılaştırması. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 283-307.
- Lee, C. H., & Chou, P. I. (2013). The behavior of real exchange rate: Nonlinearity and breaks. International Review of Economics & Finance, 27, 125-133.
- Mahdavi, S., & Zhou, S. (1994). Purchasing power parity in high-inflation countries: further evidence. Journal of Macroeconomics, 16(3), 403-422.
- Mishra, T., Ouattara, B., & Parhi, M. (2011). A Note on Shock Persistence in Total Factor Productivity Growth. Economics Bulletin, 31(2), 1869-1893.
- Moosa, I. A., & Bhatti, R. H. (1996). Some evidence on mean reversion in ex ante real interest rates. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 43(2), 177-191.
- Sağlam, Y., & Sönmez, F. E. (2017). Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Hipotezi’nin Panel Çoklu Yapısal Kırılma Testleri ile Analizi: BRICT Örneği. LAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, VIII-I, 19-34.
- Sayyan, H. (2005). Satınalma Gücü Paritesi: Vektör Hata Giderme Modeli Yaklaşımı. Iktisat Isletme ve Finans, 20(232), 96-104.
- Schwert, G. W. (2002). Tests for unit roots: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 5-17.
- Shapiro, A. C. (1983). What does purchasing power parity mean?. Journal of International Money and Finance, 2(3), 295-318.
- Sims, C. A. (1988). Bayesian skepticism on unit root econometrics. Journal of Economic dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 463-474.
- Stanley, M. (2013). FX Pulse Preparing for Volatility. Global Outlook, 1, 2013, 1-37.
- Tıraşoğlu, B. Y. (2014). Yapısal Kırılmalı Birim Kök Testleri İle OECD Ülkelerinde Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Geçerliliğinin Testi. Ekonometri ve İstatistik e-Dergisi, (20), 68-87.
- Umit, A. O. (2016). Stationarity of Real Exchange Rates in the “Fragile Five”: Analysis with Structural Breaks. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 8(4), 254-270.
- Yavuz, N. Ç. (2009). Purchasing Power Parity With Multiple Structural Breaks: Evidence From Turkey. Economics Bulletin, 29(2), 1201-1210.
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
- Yayıncı: Denta Florya ADSM Limited Company
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
İlk Osmanlı Genel Seçim Uygulamalarına Hukuksal Açıdan Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım
Tan BAYKAL, Hülya BAYKAL, Mustafa ÖZBEY
Bülent DEMİR, Gülbeniz AKDUMAN, Zeynep HATİPOĞLU
Gümrük Birliği Sonrası Türkiye’de Reel Döviz Kuru Değişimlerinin Ödemeler Dengesine Etkileri
Malatya’da Katı Atık Yönetimi: Kentleşmenin Yerel Çevre Politikaları Üzerine Etkisi
Validity of Purchasing Power Parity in Fragile Five Countries: The Bayesyen Unit Root Analysis
Burcu YILDIRIM TIRAŞOĞLU, Nilgün ÇİL
İktidar ve Basın İlişkilerinde Yönetsel Güç