RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    비물가 요인은 원,달러 환율에 대한구매력 평가 불균형의 느린 조정을 설명할 수 있는가? = Dissecting the Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle through Bubble Trend and Arbitrage Barrier

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101457124

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is a theory that relative price level between countries determines the exchange rate which is based upon an extension of intuitive law of one price. It is doing a role of key linkage to the monetaristic approach of long run exchange rate determination and open macro-economic analysis. Therefore its rigorous test and understanding are critical for modern economic theory evolution. However, according to Rogoff (1996), Obstfeld and Rogoff (2000), the variability of real exchange rate is larger than the level that is expected by the present models explaining the PPP deviation. According to Frankel and Rose (1996), Cheung and Lai (1998, 2000a, 2000b), Papell (1997), Wu and Wu (2001), the half life from PPP deviation to equilibrium adjustment is roughly 3~5 and thus disequilibrium adjustment speed is quite slow. Obviously this adjustment time is too much long than it expected by the speed is price rigidity models; i.e., 1~2 years. Therefore it is regarded as an important puzzle of international economic theory which demands fundamentally different sight to explain the connection of exchange rate with the price. With respect to this issue, remarkable hypothesis/evidences have been suggested to explain slow purchasing power adjustment. Firstly, Engel and Morley (2001), asserts that the root of the PPP puzzle may be resolved by allowing different speeds of convergence for nominal exchange rates and prices. In contrast to usual rational-expectations sticky-price models, which impose equivalent reversion speed for nominal exchange rates and prices, they examine an empirical model that supposes those variables to adjust at different speeds. Empirical evidences from state-space model estimation show that while prices converge relatively fast, nominal exchange rates converge slowly. It suggests that the lethargic rate of PPP reversion may come largely from slow nominal exchange rate adjustment rather than from slow price adjustment. Engel and Morley (2001, 24) conjectured that “bubbles or herding might temporarily send the exchange rate off on disequilibrium paths that result in the appearance of slow convergence to the equilibrium.” Cheung et al. (2004), using vector error correction model, estimated the speeds at which the individual variables revert to their long-run values. Their results confirmed those of Engel and Morley (2001) that nominal exchange rates do converge at a much slower rate than prices. Half-lives of nominal exchange rates are estimated to be from 3 to 6 years, while half-lives of prices are found to be just about 1 to 2 years. They also found that about 60~90% of PPP disequilibrium adjustment takes place through nominal exchange rate adjustment. They conclude that if nominal exchange rates converge much more slowly than prices, the PPP reversion speed can be slower than the price convergence speed, as described by the PPP puzzle. Wu et al. (2011) also found that main findings of Cheung et al. (2004) are robust to possible misspecifications in the true data-generating process (DGP). They examined the source of a real exchange-rate adjustment based on the impulse-response function constructed from local projections proposed by Jorda (2005) when the DGP is unknown. They showed that nominal exchange-rate adjustments dominate in the reversion toward PPP regardless of a nominal exchange-rate shock or a price shock. This paper examines these view that not the price but the bubble in the exchange rate mainly explains the slow adjustment of exchange rate to the PPP equilibrium especially focusing on the conjecture of Engel and Morley (2001, 24) through following two fold approaches. Firstly, following Kim (2014), we test whether there is an I(1) stochastic bubble trend, which is independent with an I(1) trend of price in exchange rate. For this, we exploit a transformed error correction model and Beveridge-Nelson decomposition. Secondly, the shock of aforementioned bubble trend may induce a longrun/sustainable response of the PPP disequilibrium error when the cointegration vector is different from it implied by the PPP (possibly due to the barrier/frictions for trade such as tariff, transportation costs which hinders the PPP arbitrage.) We theoretically expect the response of PPP disequilibrium error from which the part induced by the barrier/frictions for trade are deleted may be mainly affected by the ‘sticky’ price as conventional approach explains.
    번역하기

    The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is a theory that relative price level between countries determines the exchange rate which is based upon an extension of intuitive law of one price. It is doing a role of key linkage to the monetaristic approach of lo...

    The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is a theory that relative price level between countries determines the exchange rate which is based upon an extension of intuitive law of one price. It is doing a role of key linkage to the monetaristic approach of long run exchange rate determination and open macro-economic analysis. Therefore its rigorous test and understanding are critical for modern economic theory evolution. However, according to Rogoff (1996), Obstfeld and Rogoff (2000), the variability of real exchange rate is larger than the level that is expected by the present models explaining the PPP deviation. According to Frankel and Rose (1996), Cheung and Lai (1998, 2000a, 2000b), Papell (1997), Wu and Wu (2001), the half life from PPP deviation to equilibrium adjustment is roughly 3~5 and thus disequilibrium adjustment speed is quite slow. Obviously this adjustment time is too much long than it expected by the speed is price rigidity models; i.e., 1~2 years. Therefore it is regarded as an important puzzle of international economic theory which demands fundamentally different sight to explain the connection of exchange rate with the price. With respect to this issue, remarkable hypothesis/evidences have been suggested to explain slow purchasing power adjustment. Firstly, Engel and Morley (2001), asserts that the root of the PPP puzzle may be resolved by allowing different speeds of convergence for nominal exchange rates and prices. In contrast to usual rational-expectations sticky-price models, which impose equivalent reversion speed for nominal exchange rates and prices, they examine an empirical model that supposes those variables to adjust at different speeds. Empirical evidences from state-space model estimation show that while prices converge relatively fast, nominal exchange rates converge slowly. It suggests that the lethargic rate of PPP reversion may come largely from slow nominal exchange rate adjustment rather than from slow price adjustment. Engel and Morley (2001, 24) conjectured that “bubbles or herding might temporarily send the exchange rate off on disequilibrium paths that result in the appearance of slow convergence to the equilibrium.” Cheung et al. (2004), using vector error correction model, estimated the speeds at which the individual variables revert to their long-run values. Their results confirmed those of Engel and Morley (2001) that nominal exchange rates do converge at a much slower rate than prices. Half-lives of nominal exchange rates are estimated to be from 3 to 6 years, while half-lives of prices are found to be just about 1 to 2 years. They also found that about 60~90% of PPP disequilibrium adjustment takes place through nominal exchange rate adjustment. They conclude that if nominal exchange rates converge much more slowly than prices, the PPP reversion speed can be slower than the price convergence speed, as described by the PPP puzzle. Wu et al. (2011) also found that main findings of Cheung et al. (2004) are robust to possible misspecifications in the true data-generating process (DGP). They examined the source of a real exchange-rate adjustment based on the impulse-response function constructed from local projections proposed by Jorda (2005) when the DGP is unknown. They showed that nominal exchange-rate adjustments dominate in the reversion toward PPP regardless of a nominal exchange-rate shock or a price shock. This paper examines these view that not the price but the bubble in the exchange rate mainly explains the slow adjustment of exchange rate to the PPP equilibrium especially focusing on the conjecture of Engel and Morley (2001, 24) through following two fold approaches. Firstly, following Kim (2014), we test whether there is an I(1) stochastic bubble trend, which is independent with an I(1) trend of price in exchange rate. For this, we exploit a transformed error correction model and Beveridge-Nelson decomposition. Secondly, the shock of aforementioned bubble trend may induce a longrun/sustainable response of the PPP disequilibrium error when the cointegration vector is different from it implied by the PPP (possibly due to the barrier/frictions for trade such as tariff, transportation costs which hinders the PPP arbitrage.) We theoretically expect the response of PPP disequilibrium error from which the part induced by the barrier/frictions for trade are deleted may be mainly affected by the ‘sticky’ price as conventional approach explains.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 홍승제, "마코프-스위칭 GARCH모형을 이용한 외환위기 전후 경제레짐변화시점 추정" 한국은행 금융경제연구원 (172) : 2004-, 2004

    2 Watson, M. W, "Univariate Detrending Methods with Stochastic Trends" 18 (18): 49-75, 1986

    3 Samuelson, P. A, "Theoretical Notes on Trade Problem" 46 (46): 145-154, 1964

    4 Balassa, B, "The purchasing power parity doctrine: a reappraisal" 72 : 584-596, 1964

    5 Diba, B. T, "The Theory of Rational Bubbles in Stock Prices" 98 (98): 746-754, 1988

    6 Rogoff, K. S, "The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle" 34 : 647-668, 1996

    7 LeRoy, S. F, "The Present-Value Relation: Tests Based on Implied Variance Bounds" 49 (49): 555-574, 1981

    8 Engel, C, "The Adjustment of Prices and the Adjustment of the Exchange Rate" NBER 2001

    9 Phillips, P, "Testing for multiple bubbles" Cowles Foundation 2011

    10 Meese, R. A, "Testing for Bubbles in Exchange Markets: A Case of Sparkling Rates" 94 (94): 345-373, 1986

    1 홍승제, "마코프-스위칭 GARCH모형을 이용한 외환위기 전후 경제레짐변화시점 추정" 한국은행 금융경제연구원 (172) : 2004-, 2004

    2 Watson, M. W, "Univariate Detrending Methods with Stochastic Trends" 18 (18): 49-75, 1986

    3 Samuelson, P. A, "Theoretical Notes on Trade Problem" 46 (46): 145-154, 1964

    4 Balassa, B, "The purchasing power parity doctrine: a reappraisal" 72 : 584-596, 1964

    5 Diba, B. T, "The Theory of Rational Bubbles in Stock Prices" 98 (98): 746-754, 1988

    6 Rogoff, K. S, "The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle" 34 : 647-668, 1996

    7 LeRoy, S. F, "The Present-Value Relation: Tests Based on Implied Variance Bounds" 49 (49): 555-574, 1981

    8 Engel, C, "The Adjustment of Prices and the Adjustment of the Exchange Rate" NBER 2001

    9 Phillips, P, "Testing for multiple bubbles" Cowles Foundation 2011

    10 Meese, R. A, "Testing for Bubbles in Exchange Markets: A Case of Sparkling Rates" 94 (94): 345-373, 1986

    11 Kim, Y.-Y, "Stationary Vector Autoregressive Representation of Error Correction Models" 2 (2): 152-156, 2012

    12 Obstfeld, M, "Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause?" 2000

    13 Papell, D. H, "Searching for stationarity: purchasing power parity under the current float" 43 : 313-332, 1997

    14 Lothian, J. R, "Real exchange rates over the past two centuries: how important is the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect?" 118 (118): 1742-1763, 2012

    15 Evans, G. E, "Pitfalls in Testing for Explosive Bubbles in Asset Prices" 81 (81): 922-930, 1991

    16 Cheung, Y. W, "Parity reversion in real exchange rates during the post-Bretton Woods period" 17 : 597-614, 1998

    17 Cheung, Y. W, "On the purchasing power parity puzzle" 52 : 321-330, 2000

    18 Diba, B. T, "On the Inception of Rational Bubbles" 102 (102): 697-700, 1987

    19 Cheung, Y. W, "On cross-country differences in the persistence of real exchange rates" 50 : 375-397, 2000

    20 Wu, J.-L, "Is purchasing power parity overvalued?" 33 : 804-812, 2001

    21 김윤영, "Inference for Stochastic Bubble Trend in Stock Price Under the Error Correction Model" 한국증권학회 43 (43): 384-406, 2014

    22 Pesaran, H. H, "Generalized Impulse Response Analysis in Linear Multivariate Models" 58 (58): 17-29, 1998

    23 Pesaran, H, "Generalised Impulse Response Analysis in Linear Multivariate Models" 58 : 17-29, 1998

    24 Diba, B. T, "Explosive Rational Bubbles in Stock Prices?" 78 (78): 520-530, 1988

    25 Phillips, P. C. B, "Explosive Behavior in the 1990s Nasdaq: When did Exuberance Escalate Asset Values?" 2011

    26 Jorda, O, "Estimation and Inference of Impulse Responses by Local Projections" 95 (95): 161-182, 2005

    27 Johansen, S, "Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Co-integration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models" 59 (59): 1551-1580, 1991

    28 Shiller, R. J, "Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to Be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?" 71 (71): 421-436, 1981

    29 Kim, Y.-Y, "Dissecting the purchasing power parity puzzle through bubble trend and arbitrage barrier"

    30 Cheung, Y.-W, "Dissecting the PPP puzzle: the unconventional roles of nominal exchange rate and price adjustments" 64 : 135-150, 2004

    31 Hall, S, "Detecting Periodically Collapsing Bubbles: A Markov-Switching Unit Root Test" 14 : 143-154, 1999

    32 Wu, Y, "Are there rational bubbles in foreign exchange markets?” Evidence from an alternative test" 14 (14): 27-46, 1995

    33 Wu, J, "A re-examination on dissecting the purchasing power parity puzzle" 30 (30): 572-586, 2011

    34 Frankel, J. A, "A panel project on purchasing power parity: mean reversion within and between countries" 40 (40): 224-, 1996

    35 West, K. D, "A Specification Test for Speculative Bubbles" 102 (102): 553-580, 1987

    36 Beveridge, S, "A New Approach to Decomposition of Economic Time Series into Permanent and Transitory components with Particular Attention to Measurement of the Business Cycle" 7 (7): 151-174, 1981

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 학술지 통합 (기타)
    2008-03-28 학술지명변경 한글명 : 금융학회지 -> 금융연구
    외국어명 : Korean Journal of Money & Finance -> Journal of Money & Finance
    KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.57 0.57 0.64
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.61 0.62 1.431 0.06
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼