Quality & Quantity

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 867–877 | Cite as

Globalization and inflation nexus: further evidence based on bootstrap panel causality

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Recent empirical studies find the effect of globalization on the inflation differ in sign and size across countries. These findings call attention to control cross-country heterogeneity. In order to account for both dependency and heterogeneity across countries, this study investigates the causal linkages between globalization and inflation in 21 OECD countries by using panel causality analysis for the period 1970–2010. In this study, we find globalization has significantly changed some major industrialized countries’ inflation and the effect of globalization on the inflation exhibits a high degree of heterogeneity. Consistent with the view of negative impact of globalization on inflation, we find that the coefficient is negative and significant in most of the cases. Regarding the direction of inflation-globalization nexus, we find one-way Granger causality running from inflation to globalization for Hungary and Poland. Furthermore, we find a feedback between globalization and inflation for Italy only.

Keywords

Globalization Inflation Dependency and heterogeneity  Panel causality test OECD countries 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alfaro, L.: Inflation, openness, and exchange-rate regimes: the quest for short-term commitment. J. Dev. Econ. 77, 229–249 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breitung, J.: A parametic approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data. Econ. Rev. 24, 151–173 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breusch, T., Pagan, A.: The LM test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 47, 239–254 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campillo, M., Miron, J.A.: Why does inflation differ across countries? In: Romer, C.D., Romer, D.H. (eds.) Reducing Inflation : Motivation and Strategy, pp. 335–362. NBER 30, Chicago (1997)Google Scholar
  5. Dreher, A.: Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Appl. Econ. 38, 1091–1110 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Granger, C.W.J.: Some aspects of causal relationships. J. Econ. 112, 69–71 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gruben, W.C., Mcleod, D.: The openness-inflation puzzle revisited. Appl. Econ. Lett. 11, 465–468 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jin, J.C.: Openness and growth: an interpretation of empirical evidence from East Asian countries. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. 9, 5–17 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kacowicz, A.M.: Regionalization, globalization and nationalism: convergent, divergent or overlapping? Altern. Soc Transform. Hum. Govern. 24, 527–556 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Kim, M., Beladi, H.: Is free trade deflationary? Econ. Lett. 89, 343–349 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kónya, L.: Export and growth: granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Econ. Model. 23, 978–992 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin, H.Y.: Openness and inflation. Int. Res. J. Financ. Econ. 37, 40–45 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. Park, B.G.: Political of scale and the globalization of the south Korean automobile industry. Econ. Geogr. 79, 173–194 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pesaran, M.H.: General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  15. Pesaran, M.H.: Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74, 967–1012 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A., Yamagata, T.: A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econ. J. 11, 105–127 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. Pesaran, M.H., Yamagata, T.: Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J. Econ. 142, 50–93 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Romer, D.: Openness and inflation: theory and evidence. Quart. J. Econ. 104, 869–930 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Romer, D.: A new assessment of openness and inflation: reply. Quart. J. Econ. 113, 649–652 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sachsida, A., Carneiro, F.G., Loureiro, P.R.A.: Does greater trade openness reduce inflation? Further evidence using panel data techniques. Econ. Lett. 81, 315–319 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samimi, A.J., Ghaderi, S., Hosseinzadeh, R., Nademi, Y.: Openness and inflation: new empirical panel data evidence. Econ. Lett. 117, 573–577 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarafidis, V., Yamagata, T., Robertson, D.: A test of cross section dependence for a linear dynamic panel model with regressors. J. Econ. 148, 149–161 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swamy, P.A.V.B.: Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica 38, 311–323 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Temple, J.: Openness, inflation, and the phillips curve: a puzzle. J. Money Credit Bank. 34, 450–468 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Terra, C.T.: Openness and inflation: a new assessment. Quart. J. Econ. 113, 641–648 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomas, C.: Trade openness and inflation: pane; data evidence for the Caribbean. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 11, 507–516 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. World Developmen Indicators: World Development Report. World Bank, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  28. Wu, C.S., Lin, J.L.: The relationship between openness and inflation in NIEs and the G7. In: Ito, T., Rose, A.K. (eds.) ternational Financial Issues in the Pacific Rim: Global Imbalances Financial Liberalization, and Exchange Rate Policy, pp. 109–137. NBER-EASE 17, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zakaria, M.: Openness and inflation: evidence from time series data. Pak. Dev. Rev. 11, 313–322 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of FinanceFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations