IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Persistence in Turkish Real Exchange Rates: Panel Approaches

  • Haluk Erlat
Registered author(s):

    Testing whether real exchange rates are stationary and, thereby, obtaining evidence of whether the absolute version of the purchasing power parity (PPP) hypothesis holds, have, initially, be done by using the ADF statistic to test for a unit root. Subsequently, to mitigate the low power of the ADF test, several alternatives have been used for the same purpose. Panel unit root testing is one of these alternatives. In Erlat (2003), I had previously considered two other alternatives; namely, introducing multiple structural shifts in the deterministic terms and fractional integration, in the context of the two primary bilateral Turkish real exchange rates; the $US and the German DM based rates. This investigation did indicate that these two rates may, in fact, be taken to be stationary with significant long-memory components. In the present paper, I utilise panel procedures to see if they, also, give corroborating evidence. I used monthly data for the period 1984.01-2001.06 and constructed a panel of 17 bilateral CPI-based real exchange rates corresponding to Turkey's main trading partners for which complete data were available. I implemented seven panel procedures. The first two, Levin, Lin and Chu (LLC) (2002) and Im, Pesaran and Shin (IPS) (2003) are the most commonly used procedures. LLC assumes a common coefficient for the lagged dependent variable in the autoregressions while IPS recognises the full heterogeneity of the coefficients. The third procedure utilised, Hadri (2000), also assumes full heterogeneity but has stationarity as its null hypothesis. These three procedures take account of the dependence between the series that make up the panel by subtracting the means obtained for each time period across cross sections, from the observations. On the other hand, the remaining four procedures, due to Taylor and Sarno (TS) (1998), Breuer, McNown and Wallace (BMW) (2001), Pesaran (P) (2007)and Bai and Ng (BN) (2004a) handle the problem of dependence in a somewhat more elaborate manner. TS and BMW do this by considering the autoregressions corresponding to each series as set of seemingly unrelated regressions. TS consider a joint test of a unit root while BMW consider individual tests, thereby complementing each other. P and BN, on the other hand, assume that there is a common factor in the panel of series. P adds this common factor, proxied by the time-wise mean, as a regressor to the autoregressions and performs the ADF test while BN decompose the series into this common factor and the idiosyncratic components and test for a unit root in both components, thereby enabling us to determine the source of the persistence if it exists. Of these seven procedures, LLC and IPS lead to the rejection of the null hypothesis of a unit root, while Hadri, TS and BMW do not. The LLC result has the, rather sharp, implication that all 17 series are stationary which, obviously, is not realistic. The IPS result, on the other hand, implies that, at least one series is stationary. This is corroborated by individual ADF tests for, say, the UK, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Belgium based series. The same corroboration is, however, lacking from the other panel approaches, implying that the evidence about the stationarity of the Turkish real exchange rate is mixed and not very strong if panel procedures are used alone as an alternative to univariate ADF tests. Structural shifts in the deterministic terms may need to be introduced into these procedures to obtain stronger evidence of stationarity but this is the subject of further research.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: none

    Paper provided by FIW in its series FIW Working Paper series with number 029.

    in new window

    Length: 34
    Date of creation: Feb 2009
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:wsr:wpaper:y:2009:i:029
    Contact details of provider:

    Order Information: Postal: FIW Project Office Austrian Institute of Economic Research Arsenal Objekt 20 A-1030 Vienna

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. " A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-52, Special I.
    2. Banerjee, Anindya & Massimiliano Marcellino & Chiara Osbat, 2002. "Testing for PPP: Should We Use Panel Methods?," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 13, Royal Economic Society.
    3. Christophe Hurlin & Valérie Mignon, 2007. "Second Generation Panel Unit Root Tests," Working Papers halshs-00159842, HAL.
    4. M. Hashem Pesaran, 2004. "Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure," CESifo Working Paper Series 1331, CESifo Group Munich.
    5. Jörg Breitung & Samarjit Das, 2005. "Panel unit root tests under cross-sectional dependence," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 59(4), pages 414-433.
    6. Breuer, Janice Boucher & McNown, Robert & Wallace, Myles S, 2001. "Misleading Inferences from Panel Unit-Root Tests with an Illustration from Purchasing Power Parity," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 482-93, August.
    7. Caner, M. & Kilian, L., 2001. "Size distortions of tests of the null hypothesis of stationarity: evidence and implications for the PPP debate," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 639-657, October.
    8. Kaddour Hadri, 1999. "Testing For Stationarity In Heterogeneous Panel Data," Research Papers 1999_04, University of Liverpool Management School.
    9. Hyungsik Roger MOON & Benoit PERRON, 2002. "Testing For A Unit Root In Panels With Dynamic Factors," Cahiers de recherche 18-2002, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    10. Luintel, Kul B, 2001. "Heterogeneous Panel Unit Root Tests and Purchasing Power Parity," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 69(0), pages 42-56, Supplemen.
    11. Jushan Bai & Serena Ng, 2000. "Determining the Number of Factors in Approximate Factor Models," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1504, Econometric Society.
    12. Breuer, Janice Boucher & McNown, Robert & Wallace, Myles, 2002. " Series-Specific Unit Root Tests with Panel Data," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 64(5), pages 527-46, December.
    13. Jorion, Philippe & Sweeney, Richard J., 1996. "Mean reversion in real exchange rates: evidence and implications for forecasting," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 535-550, August.
    14. Kwiatkowski, D. & Phillips, P.C.B. & Schmidt, P., 1990. "Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of Unit Root : How Sure are we that Economic Time Series have a Unit Root?," Papers 8905, Michigan State - Econometrics and Economic Theory.
    15. Shin, Yongcheol, 1994. "A Residual-Based Test of the Null of Cointegration Against the Alternative of No Cointegration," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(01), pages 91-115, March.
    16. Levin, Andrew & Lin, Chien-Fu & James Chu, Chia-Shang, 2002. "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-24, May.
    17. M. Hashem Pesaran, 2007. "A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 265-312.
    18. Hegwood, Natalie D & Papell, David H, 1998. "Quasi Purchasing Power Parity," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(4), pages 279-89, October.
    19. Pasaran, M.H. & Im, K.S. & Shin, Y., 1995. "Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 9526, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    20. Newey, W.K. & West, K.D., 1992. "Automatic Lag Selection in Covariance Matrix Estimation," Working papers 9220, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    21. Jönsson, Kristian, 2003. "Cross-sectional dependency and size distortion in a small-sample homogeneous panel-data unit root test," Working Papers 2003:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    22. Flores, Renato & Jorion, Philippe & Preumont, Pierre-Yves & Szafarz, Ariane, 1999. "Multivariate unit root tests of the PPP hypothesis," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 335-353, October.
    23. Peter C. B. Phillips & Donggyu Sul, 2003. "Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence *," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 6(1), pages 217-259, 06.
    24. Matthew Higgins & Egon Zakrajsek, 1999. "Purchasing power parity: three stakes through the heart of the unit root null," Staff Reports 80, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    25. James G. MacKinnon, 1995. "Numerical Distribution Functions for Unit Root and Cointegration Tests," Working Papers 918, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
    26. Haluk Erlat, 2004. "Unit roots or nonlinear stationarity in Turkish real exchange rates," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(10), pages 645-650.
    27. Choi, In, 2001. "Unit root tests for panel data," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 249-272, April.
    28. Abuaf, Niso & Jorion, Philippe, 1990. " Purchasing Power Parity in the Long Run," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(1), pages 157-74, March.
    29. Tsung-Wu Ho, 2002. "Searching Stationarity in the Real Exchange Rates: Application of the SUR Estimator," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 275-289, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsr:wpaper:y:2009:i:029. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.