Does purchasing power parity hold sometimes? Regime switching in real exchange rates

Standard unit root tests are not very powerful in drawing conclusions regarding the validity of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Rather than asking whether PPP holds throughout the whole sample period, we examine, in this study, if PPP holds sometimes by employing Hamilton-type (1989) Markov regime switching models. When at least one of multiple regimes is stationary, PPP holds locally within the regime. There are indeed various reasons that we should expect that the persistence of real exchange rates changes over time. Employing five real exchange rates spanning more than 100 years, we find herein strong evidence that the strength of PPP varies during the sample periods and that there exist stationary regimes in which PPP holds. Throughout the article, we also make comparisons to previous Markov regime switching estimation results by Kanas (2006) on the same data series. The new Markov switching model selection criterion of Smith et al. (2006), which is devised especially for discriminating Markov regime switching models, unambiguously indicates a preference for the Hamilton-type Markov regime switching model employed in this study. We also find that the evidence for PPP is not much different across different nominal exchange rate arrangements.     

The ‘real’ explanation of the PPP puzzle

This article shows that global financial markets cannot, by themselves, achieve net transfers of financial capital and real interest rate equalization across countries and that the integration of both global financial markets and global goods markets is needed to achieve net transfers of capital and real interest rate equalization across countries. Thus, frictions (barriers to mobility) in one or both of these markets can impede the net transfer of capital between countries, produce the Feldstein and Horioka (1980) finding of high-saving-investment correlations and prevent real interest rates from being equalized across countries. Moreover, frictions in global goods markets can explain why real exchange rates deviate from purchasing power parity (PPP) for extended periods of time and can therefore also explain the PPP puzzle. Consequently, we are able to resolve two of Obstfeld and Rogoff’s (2000) ‘6 major puzzles in macroeconomics’ with essentially the same explanation.     

A time‐series approach to the determination of savings rates

Time series analysis is used to study the savings rate and its determinants. The real effective exchange rate is introduced as a new independent variable in the savings function. Borrowing constraints, the current account balance, real rate of interest, macroeconomic stability, and age dependency are shown to be significant determinants of the savings rate. In addition, the real effective exchange rate is found to be significant across countries. Violations of Purchasing Power Parity are shown to explain some of the differences in savings rates between Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.     

FURTHER EVIDENCE ON MEAN REVERSION IN THE AUSTRALIAN EXCHANGE RATE

In this paper we re‐examine the purchasing power parity (PPP) in Australia for the period February 1970 to April 2005 using an alternative method relative to the previous studies. We underlined large shocks due to depreciations that affected the Australian exchange rate, using outlier methodology. Once we adjusted the data of these outliers that had large, but either temporary or permanent effects on the series, our results show that there is no tendency for PPP in Australia to hold in the long run during this period.     

Pricing-to-market in Swedish Exports

Fluctuations in prices of Swedish exports to five countries are investigated in this paper. We test whether there are systematic differences between prices to different markets and whether relative export prices are affected by macroeconomic conditions in destination countries. The test results indicate that deviations from no pricing-to-market and neutrality of money are quite common and persistent. Over a sample of 15 years, long-run monetary neutrality is rejected in almost half of the cases. In most cases, the degree of pricing-to-market is also affected by aggregate demand in export markets.     

汇率传递：模型说明及文献综述

汇率是开放经济环境下的核心工具变量,在维持一国内部平衡和外部平衡时起着重要的作用。对于汇率传递问题的关注开始于世界由固定汇率体系向浮动汇率体系转变的时期,目前它仍然是关于外部调整研究的重要内容。本文分析了汇率传递与一价定律、依市场定价之间的关系,使用一个汇率传递模型阐明了汇率变动对价格体系的传导机制。汇率变动对商品出口价格和进口价格传递应该是一个连续的过程。当获知汇率发生变动时,出口商在不完全竞争的市场结构下,出于经营目的会调整其对价格的加成,这反应到进口国的进口价格上已经是一种“不完全”的传递;而进口商品由于存在分销过程,在最终销售价格上包含了相当程度的国内不可贸易的服务成本,这部分成本由于不受汇率变动的影响,因此汇率变动对进口价格的传递会进一步被削弱。     

Foreign market conditions and export performance: does ‘crowdedness’ reduce exports?

Abstract This paper analyzes the link between firm exports and the competitive environment in foreign markets. We derive a theory‐based econometric specification linking market‐specific exports to foreign demand and the degree of a market’s ‘crowdedness,’ which depends on the number and efficiency of firms competing there and the barriers impeding their access. Estimates on a large sample of Italian firms indicate that increased crowdedness has reduced Italian exports, but only by 0.2%–0.3% per year. This is substantially less than the contribution of other factors such as higher unit labour costs or weak demand growth in the EU15.     

国际购买力平价和简化净出口函数:中国实证

文章从国际交换价值的角度研究了一价定律的内涵,提出了国际购买力平价理论,并且证明了国际购买力平价是严格意义上的均衡汇率。2009年人民币贸易品购买力平价为6.70元人民币/美元,而国际购买力为5.49元人民币/美元,后者可作为确定人民币汇率处于均衡水平的参考。文章还简化了净出口函数,得出如下主要结论:(1)近年我国的贸易顺差大幅增长,主要是因为价格贸易条件恶化,其次是因为J曲线效应;(2)当前的首要任务是改善我国的价格贸易条件以提高国际购买力平价,而不是调整人民币汇率。     

Location of vertically linked industries: agglomeration versus comparative advantage

This paper analyses the effects of trade liberalisation on the location of manufacturing firms that are vertically linked and differ in factor intensities. I extend the new economic geography literature, by embedding a model with vertical linkages within a Heckscher-Ohlin framework. I show that lower trade costs can lead to an agglomeration of all upstream and downstream firms in one country, even when they differ in factor intensities. These industrial location patterns do not always lead to factor price convergence; and may result in an increase in returns to both factors in the country where the agglomeration locates.     

Fixed export cost heterogeneity, trade and welfare

Recent literature on the workhorse model of intra-industry trade has explored heterogeneous cost structures at the firm level. These approaches have proven to add realism and predictive power. This paper presents a new and simple heterogeneous-firms specification. We develop a symmetric two-country intra-industry trade model where firms are of two different marginal cost types and where fixed export costs are heterogeneous across firms. This model traces many of the stylized facts of international trade. However, we find that with heterogeneous fixed export costs there exists a positive bilateral tariff that maximizes national and world welfare.     

Globalization and labor market outcomes: Wage bargaining, search frictions, and firm heterogeneity

We introduce search unemployment into Melitz's trade model. Firms' monopoly power on product markets leads to strategic wage bargaining. Solving for the symmetric equilibrium we show that the selection effect of trade influences labor market outcomes. Trade liberalization lowers unemployment and raises real wages as long as it improves average productivity. We show that this condition is likely to be met by a reduction in variable trade costs or by entry of new trading countries. Calibrating the model shows that the long-run impact of trade openness on the rate of unemployment is negative and quantitatively significant.     

SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IN A THREE‐COUNTRY MODEL*

Using a simple monopoly model, we examine the effects of economic integration. We show that the number of markets and the shapes of marginal revenue curves, are crucial in evaluating economic integration when the marginal cost is not constant. The effects of tariff reductions in a three‐country model contrast with those found in a two‐country model. Effects also depend on which trade policy the non‐member country adopts. When both importing countries simultaneously lower their tariffs, the Metzler paradox may arise.