La condition de Marshall-Lerner-Robinson est-elle stable ? Approche par le test GLS cointégration à niveau et puissance améliorés

Ghassan, Hassan B. (2007): La condition de Marshall-Lerner-Robinson est-elle stable ? Approche par le test GLS cointégration à niveau et puissance améliorés. Published in: Revue des Economies Nord Africaines , Vol. 5, No. 1 (15 January 2008): pp. 21-48.

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to test the Marshall-Lerner-Robinson condition by using the unit-root test of Ng-Perron (2001) and cointegration test of Perron-Rodriguez (2001). These tests are based on procedures for removing the trend using the GLS, leading to remove no-stochastic components. By examining the existence of LR relationship between the exchange rate and net-exports using the Moroccan quarterly data, it appears that there is no complementary relationship between the two variables. The rigidity of nominal and real behaviors of both private and public sectors explains to some extent the absence of a long-run equilibrium in the temporal evolution of the exchange rate. These discrepancies related in particular to markets mechanism and economic policies of the government.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: Does the Marshall-Lerner-Robinson condition verify the stability? Evidence from GLS-cointegration test with Good Size and Power
• Language: French
• Keywords: Critical elasticity, Deficit trade, Effective exchange rate, Cointegration.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling; F - International Economics > F4 - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance

References

1. Artus P., A. Cartapanis et F. Legros, 2003. Towards a macroeconomics of exchange rate regimes. Revue Economique 53(4).

2. Bahmani-Oskooee M. et F. Niroomand, 1998. Long-run price elasticities and the Marshall-Lerner condition revisited. Economics Letters 61, 101-109.

3. Bahmani-Oskooee M., 2001. Nominal and real effective exchange rates of Middle Eastern countries and their trade performance. Applied Economics 33, 103-111.

4. Boyd D., Caporale G.M. et R. Smith, 2001. Real exchange rate effects on the balance of trade: cointegration and the Marshall-Lerner Condition. International Journal of Finance and Economics 6, 187-200.

5. Buluswar M.D., Thompson H. et K.P. Upadhyaya, 1996. Devaluation and the Trade Balance in India: Stationarity and Cointegration. Applied Economics 28, 429-432.

6. Blough S.R., 1992. The Relationship between Power and Level for Generic Unit Root Tests in Finite Samples. Journal of Applied Econometrics 7, 295-308.

7. Campbell J. et P. Perron, 1991. Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots. Blanchard O.J. et S. Fischer (eds.), NBER Economics Annual 1991, MIT Press.

8. Clarida R. et J. Gali, 1994. Sources of real exchange rate fluctuations : how important are nominal shocks? Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 41, 1-56.

9. Edwards S., 1989. Real Exchange Rates, Devaluation and Adjustment: Exchange Rate Policy in Developing Countries. MIT Press.

10. Elliott G., T.J. Rothenberg et J.H. Stock, 1996. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64(4), 813-836.

11. Fisher S., 2001. Exchange rate regimes: is the bipolar view correct?. The International Monetary Fund [on-line].

12. Ghassan H., 2003. Relations de long terme entre investissement, déficit extérieur et autofinancement sur un panel sectoriel. Revue Droit et Economie 20, 147-158.

13. Hallwood C.P. et R. MacDonald, 2000. International Money and Finance, third edition, Oxford: Blackwell.

14. Himarios D., 1989. Do Devaluations Improve the Trade Balance? The Evidence Revisited. Economic Inquiry, 143-68.

15. Kale P., 2001. Turkey’s Trade Balance in the Short and Long run: Error Correction Modelling and Cointegration. The International Trade Journal XV(1), 27-56.

16. Kapetanios G., Y. Shin and A. Snell, 2003. Testing for unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of Econometrics 112, 359-379.

17. Krugman P.R. et R.E. Baldwin, 1987. The Persistence of the U.S. Trade Deficit. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 1-43.

18. Lin C., 1997. The Trade Balance and the Real Exchange Rate: the US Evidence from 1973:3 to 1994:9. Applied Economics Letters 4, 517-520.

19. Masson P., 2001. Exchange rate regime transitions. Journal of Development Economics 64.

20. Ng S. et P. Perron, 2001. Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69(6), 1519-1554.

21. Obstfeld M. et K. Rogoff, 1996. Foundations of International Macroeconomics. MIT Press.

22. Palley T.I., 2003. The Overvalued Dollar and the US Slump. In Bergsten C.F. et J. Williamson (eds.), Dollar Overvaluation and the World Economy, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

23. Perron P. et G. Rodriguez, 2001. Residual based tests for cointegration with GLS detrended data. Manuscript, Boston University.

24. Perron P. et G. Rodriguez, 1998. GLS-Detrending, Efficient Unit Root Tests and Structural Change. Cahier1298, Manuscript, Boston University and Montreal University.

25. Phillips P.C.B. et S. Ouliaris, 1990. Asymptotic Properties of Residual Based Tests for Cointegration. Econometrica 58, 165-193.

26. Rapach D.E. et CH.E. Weber, 2004. Are real interest rates really non-stationary? New evidence from tests with good size and power. Journal of Macroeconomics 26, 409-430.

27. Rose A.K., 1990. Exchange Rates and the Trade Balance: Some Evidence from Developing Countries. Economic Letters 34, 271-275.

28. Rose A.K., 1991. The Role of Exchange Rates in a Popular Model of International Trade: Does ‘Marshall-Lerner’ Condition Hold?. Journal of International Economics 30, 301-316.

29. Sarikaya C., 2004. Export Dynamics in Turkey. Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, manuscript.

30. Taylor L., 2004. Exchange Rate Indeterminacy in Portfolio Balance, Mundell-Fleming, and Uncovered Interest Parity Models. Cambridge Journal of Economics 28(2), March, 205-27.

31. Upadhyaya K.P. et D. Dhakal, 1997. Devaluation and the Trade Balance: Estimating the Long Run Effect. Applied Economic Letters 4, 343-345.