Abstract
This paper tests for long-run purchasing power (PPP) among a sample of six Latin American economies. The key contribution of this paper is in terms of the econometric methodology where non-stationarity of the real exchange rate is tested within a Markov regime-switching framework. In contrast to existing studies, this paper defines two new concepts of PPP where one allows for the possibility that real exchange behaviour either switches between stationary and non-stationary regimes (partial PPP), or switches between stationary regimes characterised by differing degrees of persistence (varied PPP). Whereas standard univariate unit root testing suggests that Latin American real exchange rates are generally non-stationary, employment of the regime-switching methodology indicates that most of the sample is characterised by the existence of two distinct stationary regimes. Further analysis indicates that the high rates of inflation and exchange rate volatility experienced in Latin American have given some impetus towards facilitating long-run PPP.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An exception may be productivity shocks as described by Balassa (1964).
Furthermore, Copeland (2000) argues that high inflation penalizes agents for maintaining sticky prices and so attempts to fix the nominal exchange rate may be undermined.
Studies on PPP for developed countries have generally provided ambiguous results without a conclusive answer, for example Balassa (1964) and Hakkio (1984) find evidence in favor of PPP while Dornbusch (1980) and Frenkel (1981) find no evidence in favor of PPP. However, Frenkel (1978) suggests that PPP holds during periods of high inflation.
Mahdavi and Zhou (1994) apply the Johansen technique to investigate PPP in a sample of LDCs using quarterly data for 1973Q2 onwards. They conclude that incidences of PPP are more frequently observed among high inflation countries. Indeed, further evidence on PPP in LDCs based on tests for unit roots and cointegration can be found in Conejo and Shields (1993) and Hoque (1995). While the latter study rejects PPP, Conejo and Shields find evidence in favor of PPP with respect to the US in the cases of Brazil and Mexico.
See Crownover et al. (1996) for an elaboration on this point.
More formally, the volatility of the nominal exchange rate is measured as \( \Omega _{t} = {\left| {e_{t} - e_{{t - 1}} } \right|} \).
References
Alba JD, Papell DH (2007) Purchasing power parity and country characteristics: evidence from panel data tests. J Dev Econ 83(1):240–251
Alves D, Cati R, Fava V (2001) Purchasing power parity in Brazil: a test for fractional integration. Appl Econ 33:1175–1185
Bahmani-Oskooee M (1993) Purchasing power parity based on effective exchange rate and cointegration: 25 LDCs’ experience with its absolute formulation. World Dev 21:1023–1031
Bahmani-Oskooee M (1995) Real and nominal effective exchange rates for 22 LDCs. Appl Econ 27:591–604
Balassa B (1964) The purchasing power doctrine: a reappraisal. J Polit Econ 72:584–596
Breitung J, Candelon B (2005) Purchasing power parity during currency crises: a panel unit root test under structural breaks. Weltwirtsch Arch 141:124–140
Calderon C, Duncan R (2003) Purchasing power parity in an emerging market economy: a long-span study for Chile. Estud Econ 30:103–132
Campa J (2001) Exchange rate crises and bilateral trade flows in Latin America. IESE Business School, mimeograph
Cheung Y-W, Lai K (2000) On cross-country differences in the persistence of real exchange rates. J Int Econ 50:375–397
Conejo C, Shields MP (1993) Relative PPP and the long-run terms of trade for 5 Latin-American countries: a cointegration approach. Appl Econ 25:1511–1515
Copeland LS (2000) Exchange rates and international finance. Addison-Wesley, New York
Crownover C, Pippenger J, Steigerwald DC (1996) Testing for absolute purchasing power parity. J Int Money Financ 15:783–796
Davies RB (1987) Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Biometrika 74:33–43
Diamandis PF (2003) Market efficiency, purchasing power parity, and the official and parallel markets for foreign currency in Latin America. Int Rev Econ Finance 12:89–110
Dornbusch R (1980) Exchange rate economics: Where do we Stand? Brookings Pap Econ Act 1:143–185
Frenkel JA (1978) Purchasing power parity: doctrinal perspective and evidence from the 1920s. J Int Econ 8:169–191
Frenkel JA (1981) The collapse of purchasing power parities during the 1970s. Eur Econ Rev 16:145–165
Hakkio KC (1984) A re-examination of purchasing power parity: a multi-country and multi-period study. J Int Econ 17:265–277
Hamilton JD (1989) A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica 57:357–384
Holmes MJ (2001) New evidence on real exchange rate stationarity and PPP in less developed countries. J Macroecon 23:601–615
Hoque A (1995) A test of the purchasing power parity hypothesis. Appl Econ 27:311–315
Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegrating vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12:231–254
Kanas A, Genius M (2005) Regime (Non)stationarity in the US/UK real exchange rate. Econ Lett 87:407–413
Liu P (1992) Purchasing power parity in Latin America: a cointegration analysis. Weltwirtsch Arch 128:662–680
Mahdavi S, Zhou S (1994) Purchasing power parity in high inflation countries: further evidence. J Macroecon 16:403–422
McNown R, Wallace M (1989) National price levels, purchasing power parity, and cointegration: a test of four high inflation economies. J Int Money Financ 8:533–545
Papell DH (2002) The great appreciation, the great depreciation, and the purchasing power parity. J Int Econ 57:51–82
Zumaquero A, Urea RP (2002) Purchasing power parity: error correction models and structural breaks. Open Econ Rev 13:5–26
Acknowledgement
I am grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions made by an anonymous referee and the Editor. The usual disclaimer applies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holmes, M.J. Real Exchange Rate Stationarity in Latin America and Relative Purchasing Power Parity: A Regime Switching Approach. Open Econ Rev 19, 261–275 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-007-9020-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-007-9020-1