IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277194.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing the Central Market Hypothesis: A Multivariate Analysis of Global Markets of Pistachios

Author

Listed:
  • Nabieian, S.
  • Sepahvand, E.

Abstract

The central market hypothesis is important in analyzing market integration, because it implies a specific market structure while avoiding a simultaneity problem. The aim of this study is to investigate the central market hypothesis for global markets of pistachio over the period of 1988 to 2013.In this study central market hypothesis was tested by Johansson method of integration. The results implied the existence of two markets for pistachios. The first market consists of Iran, United States of America and China, and second market contains Italy, Greece, Germany, Turkey, France and Luxembourg. The results of the first and the second markets indicate that Iran and Turkey acted independently and showed to be price leadership in their market respectively. The law of one price was also established on the markets. According to intense competition of America and China (especially America) with Iran, the role of government is to have appropriate policy in identifying the target markets, branding and encourage exports, in the global market. Acknowledgement : The central market hypothesis is important in analyzing market integration, because it implies a specific market structure while avoiding a simultaneity problem. The aim of this study is to investigate the central market hypothesis for global markets of pistachio over the period of 1988 to 2013.In this study central market hypothesis was tested by Johansson method of integration. The results implied the existence of two markets for pistachios. The first market consists of Iran, United States of America and China, and second market contains Italy, Greece, Germany, Turkey, France and Luxembourg. The results of the first and the second markets indicate that Iran and Turkey acted independently and showed to be price leadership in their market respectively. The law of one price was also established on the markets. According to intense competition of America and China (especially America) with Iran, the role of government is to have appropriate policy in identifying the target markets, branding and encourage exports, in the global market.

Suggested Citation

  • Nabieian, S. & Sepahvand, E., 2018. "Testing the Central Market Hypothesis: A Multivariate Analysis of Global Markets of Pistachios," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277194, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277194
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277194/files/1293.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277194?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weitzel, Enno-Burghard & Bayaner, Ahmet, 2007. "Non-Linear Spatial Price Transmission on the Turkish Wheat Market," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9420, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Peng, Xuehua & Marchant, Mary A., 2003. "Spatial Price Linkages Between Chinese Regional Beef Markets," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35077, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), 1995. "Handbook of International Economics," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    4. Frank Asche & Ole Gjølberg & Atle G. Guttormsen, 2012. "Testing the central market hypothesis: a multivariate analysis of Tanzanian sorghum markets," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 115-123, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin X. D. Huang & Zheng Liu, 2004. "Multiple stages of processing and the quantity anomaly in international business cycle models," Working Papers 04-8, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    2. Karen K. Lewis, 2011. "Global Asset Pricing," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 435-466, December.
    3. Antonia López Villavicencio & Josep Lluís Raymond Bara, 2006. "The short and long-run determinants of the real exchange rate in Mexico," Working Papers wpdea0606, Department of Applied Economics at Universitat Autonoma of Barcelona.
    4. Perron, Pierre & Wada, Tatsuma, 2016. "Measuring business cycles with structural breaks and outliers: Applications to international data," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 281-303.
    5. repec:onb:oenbwp:y::i:29:b:1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Webber, A., 1999. "Newton's Gravity Law and Import Prices in the Asia Pacific," Economics Working Papers WP99-12, School of Economics, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
    7. Kollmann, Robert, 2003. "Monetary Policy Rules in an Interdependent World," CEPR Discussion Papers 4012, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Heng, Dyna, 2011. "Capital flows and real exchange rate: does financial development matter?," MPRA Paper 48553, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2012.
    9. Mr. Jacques A Miniane & Benoît Mercereau, 2004. "Challenging the Empirical Evidence From Present Value Models of the Current Account," IMF Working Papers 2004/106, International Monetary Fund.
    10. Stacie Beck & Cagay Coskuner, 2007. "Tax Effects on the Real Exchange Rate," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 854-868, November.
    11. Nelson, Edward, 2017. "Reaffirming the Influence of Milton Friedman on U.K. Economic Policy," Working Papers 2017-01, University of Sydney, School of Economics, revised Feb 2017.
    12. Richard Harris & John Moffat, 2011. "R&D, Innovation and Exporting," SERC Discussion Papers 0073, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Hong, Seung Hyun & Phillips, Peter C. B., 2010. "Testing Linearity in Cointegrating Relations With an Application to Purchasing Power Parity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 28(1), pages 96-114.
    14. Polito, Vito & Wickens, Michael, 2015. "Sovereign credit ratings in the European Union: A model-based fiscal analysis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 220-247.
    15. Robert Kelm, 2017. "The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle and Imperfect Knowledge: The Case of the Polish Zloty," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 9(1), pages 1-27, March.
    16. Jonathan Haskel & Holger Wolf, 2001. "The Law of One Price—A Case Study," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 103(4), pages 545-558, December.
    17. Barbara Rossi, 2013. "Exchange Rate Predictability," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1063-1119, December.
    18. Zhang, Yin & Wan, Guanghua, 2007. "What accounts for China's trade balance dynamics?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 821-837.
    19. Dewit, Gerda & Leahy, Dermot, 2004. "Rivalry in uncertain export markets: commitment versus flexibility," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 195-209, October.
    20. Philippe Andrade & Catherine Bruneau, 2002. "Excess returns, portfolio choices and exchange rate dynamics. The yen/dollar case, 1980–1998," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 64(3), pages 233-256, July.
    21. repec:cty:dpaper:10/09 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Farley Grubb, 2008. "Testing for the Economic Impact of the U.S. Constitution: Purchasing Power Parity across the Colonies versus across the States, 1748-1811," NBER Working Papers 13836, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.