Testing for PPP in the Mean-Group Panel Regression Framework: Further Evidence

Noman, Abdullah (2008): Testing for PPP in the Mean-Group Panel Regression Framework: Further Evidence.

Abstract

The paper investigates the validity of PPP by using 15 OECD countries data of monthly frequency from 1980:01 to 2005:12 and tests for the symmetry and proportionality hypotheses. The test for PPP is conducted in the framework of the General Relative PPP (RPPP) as proposed by Coakley et al. (2005) using the Mean-Group (MG) estimators of Pesaran and Smith (1995). We apply two variants of the MG estimators, namely MG and CMG, where the latter takes into account the problem of cross-sectional dependence (CSD). The symmetry null is unequivocally accepted for both estimators in CPI as well as PPI panels. The proportionality null, however, is rejected in the CPI panel with MG procedure but accepted with CMG. In the PPI panel, the MG estimate cannot reject the null while the CMG estimate marginally rejects it. Our findings are only partially supportive of the general RPPP.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Purchasing Power Parity, Mean-Group Regression, Symmetry and Proportionality, OECD, General Relative PPP
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C23 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models; F - International Economics > F3 - International Finance > F31 - Foreign Exchange

References

1. Abuaf, N. and Jorion, P. (1990). “Purchasing power parity in the long run”, Journal of Finance, 45, pp. 157–74. 2. Breitung, J. and Candelon, B. (2005). “Purchasing power parity during currency crises: A panel unit root test under structural breaks”, Review of World Economics, Vol. 141, No. 1, pp. 124–140. 3. Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1980). “Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to spatial econometrics”, in A. Ullah and D. E. A. Giles (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics, New York: Marcel Dekker. 4. Coakley, J. and Snaith, S. (2006). “Testing for symmetry and proportionality in a European panel”, Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 63 – 71. 5. Coakley, J., and. Fuertes, A. M (1997) “New panel unit root tests of PPP”, Economics Letters, Vol. 57, pp. 17–22. 6. Coakley, J., Flood, R., Fuertes, A. and Taylor, M. (2005). “Purchasing power parity and the theory of general relativity: the first tests”, Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 24, pp. 293–316. 7. Coakley, J., Fuertes, A. and Smith, R. (2001). “Small sample properties of panel time-series estimators with I(1) errors”, Birkbeck College Discussion Paper No. 03/2001. 8. Coakley, J., Fuertes, A. and Smith, R. (2005). “Unobserved heterogeneity in panel time series”, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, forthcoming. 9. Coakley, J., Kellard, N. and Snaith, S. (2005). “The PPP debate: price matters!”, Economics Letters, Vol. 88, 209–13. 10. Drine, I. and Rault, C. (2007). “Purchasing power parity for developing and developed countries: what can we learn from non-stationary panel data methods?”, IZA Discussion Paper Series No. 2887, Institute for the Study of Labour 11. Enders, W. (2004). Applied Econometric Time Series, Second Edition. United States: John Wiley & Sons. 12. Flood, R. P. and Taylor, M. P. (1996). “Exchange rate economics: What’s wrong with the conventional macro approach?” in J. A. Frankel, G. Galli, and A. Giovannini, (Eds.), The Microstructure of Foreign Exchange Markets, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 13. Frankel, J. A. and Rose, A. (1996). “A panel project on purchasing power parity: mean reversion within and between countries”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 209–224. 14. Granger, C. and Newbold, P. (1974). “Spurious regressions in econometrics”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 2, pp. 111–20. 15. Hakkio, C. S. (1984). “A re-examination of purchasing power parity: a multi-country and multi-period study”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 265–77. 16. Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition. 17. Kao, C. (1999). “Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 90, pp. 1–44. 18. Li, K. (1999). “Testing symmetry and proportionality in PPP: A panel-data approach”, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 409-418. 19. Macdonald, R. (1996). “Panel unit root tests and real exchange rates”, Economics Letters, Vol. 50, pp. 7–11. 20. O’Connell, P. (1998). “The overvaluation of purchasing power parity”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 44, pp. 1–19. 21. Pedroni, P. (2001). “ Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 727–731. 22. Pesaran, M. and Smith, R. (1995). “Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 68, pp.79–113. 23. Pesaran, M. H. (2004a). “Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure”, Cambridge Working Paper in Economics No. 0305. University of Cambridge. 24. Pesaran, M. H. (2004b). “General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels”, Cambridge Working Paper in Economics No. 0435. University of Cambridge. 25. Pesaran, M. H., Shin Y. and Smith, R. P. (1999). “Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 94, No. 446. pp. 621-634. 26. Phillips, P. and Moon, H. (1999). “Linear regression theory for non-stationary panel data, Econometrica, Vol. 67, pp.1057–112. 27. Rogoff, K. (1996). “The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 647–668. 28. Sarno, L. and Taylor, M. P. (2002). “Purchasing power parity and the real exchange rate”, International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 49, pp. 65–105. 29. Taylor, A. M. and Taylor, M. P. (2004). “The purchasing power parity debate”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, pp.135–58. 30. Taylor, M. P. (2003). “Purchasing power parity”, Review of International Economics, 11, pp. 436–52. 11