MUTLAK SATINALMA GÜCÜ PARİTESİ HİPOTEZİ’NİN TEST EDİLMESİ: TÜRKİYE VE DIŞ TİCARET ORTAKLARI UYGULAMASI

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 259 - 285, 26.12.2018

İsmail Küçükaksoy İsmail Çifçi

Öz

Bu çalışma Türkiye’nin de aralarında bulunduğu 42 dış ticaret ortağı ülke için 1994:M1-2016:M9 aylık verilerini kullanarak “Mutlak Satınalma Gücü Paritesi-Mutlak SGP Hipotezi” nin geçerliliğini test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. SGP hipotezi, belli bir mal ve hizmet sepetinin, aynı para birimi cinsinden fiyatının tüm ülkelerde eşit olması gerektiğini iddia etmektedir. Çalışmada, Türkiye ve Türkiye’nin dış ticaret ortakları için SGP hipotezi, birinci nesil panel birim kök testleri, ikinci nesil panel birim kök testleri ve yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan birim kök testiyle araştırılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgu, incelenen ülkelerden 41 ülke için SGP hipotezinin geçerli olduğudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Satınalma Gücü Paritesi, Reel Döviz Kuru, Panel Birim Kök Testleri, Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı, Yapısal Kırılma

TESTING THE ABSOLUTE PURCHASING POWER PARITY HYPOTHESIS: TURKEY AND FOREIGN TRADE PARTNERS APPLICATION

Öz

This study aims to investigate validity of “Absolute Purchasing Power

Parity-Absolute PPP” for 42 foreign trade partner countries including

Turkey using monthly data 1994:M1-2016:M9. The PPP state that the price

of a fixed basket o f goods a nd services must be equal in all countries in the

same currency. In this paper the PPP hypothesis has been investigated by

first generation panel unit root tests, second generation panel unit root tests

and panel unit root test with structural breaks for Turkish and Turkish

foreign trade partners. The finding is that the PPP hypothesis is valid for the

41 countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Purchasing Power Parity, Real Exchange Rate, Panel Unit Root Tests, Cross Section Dependence, Structural Shift

Kaynakça

• Acaravcı, Songul Kakilli; Acaravcı, Ali (2007a). “Purchasing Power Parity Under The Current Float”. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 10, 167-174.
• Acaravcı, Songul Kakilli; Acaravcı, Ali (2007b). "Nonstationarity and the Level Shift for Turkish Real Exchange Rates”. Empirical Economic Letter, 6, 517-523.
• Adıgüzel, Uğur; Sahbaz, Ahmet; Özcan, Ceyhun Can; Nazlıoğlu, Şaban (2014). “The Behavior of Turkish Exchange Rates: A Panel Data Perspective”. Economic Modelling, 42, 177-185.
• Akçay, Aslı Önay; Erataş, Filiz (2015). “Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Teorisinin Geçerliliği: G7 Örneği”. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 81-100.
• Alba, Joseph D .; Park, Donghyun ( 2005). “ An Empirical Investigation of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) for Turkey”. Journal of Policy Modeling, 27(8), 989-1000.
• Asea, Patrick; Corden, Max W. (1994). “The Balassa‐Samuelson Model: An Overview”. Review of International Economics, 2(3), 191-200.
• Asteriou, Dimitrios; Hall, Stephen G. (2007). Applied Econometrics: A Modern Approach Using EViews and Microfit. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bahmani-Oskoee, Mohsen; Brooks, Taggert J. (2006). “The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle in Developing Countries”. International Macroeconomics: Recent Developments, Amalia Morales-Zumaqero (Ed.), New York: Nova Science Publishers, 53-61.
• Bahmani-Oskooee, Mohsen, (1998). "Do Exchange Rates Follow a Random Walk Process in Middle Eastern Countries?”. Economics Letters, 58(3), 339-344.
• Bahmani-Oskooee, Mohsen; Kandıl, Magda (2007). “Testing the PPP in the Non-Linear STAR Framework: Evidence from MENA Countries”. Scientific Journal of Administrative Development, 5, 19-33.
• Bahmani-Oskooee, Mohsen; Chang, Tsangyao; Lee, Kuei-Chiu (2016). “Purchasing Power Parity in Emerging Markets: A Panel Stationary Test with Both Sharp and Smooth Breaks”. Economic Systems, 40(3), 453-460.
• Bai, J ushan; N G, S erena ( 2004). “ A Panic Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration”. Econometrica, 72.4, 1127-1177.
• Baltagi, Badi, H. (2014). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Chichester: John Wiley&Sons Ltd.
• Bozoklu, Şeref; Yılancı, Veli (2010). “Reel Döviz Kurlarının Durağanlığı: E7 Ülkeleri için Ampirik Bir İnceleme”. Maliye Dergisi, 158, 587-606.
• Breitung, Jörg (2001). “The Local Power of Some Unit Root Tests for Panel Data”. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 161-177.
• Breusch, Trevor Stanley; Pagan, Adrian Rodney; (1980). “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics”. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
• Clarsson, Mikael; Lyhagen, Johan; Osterholm, Par (2007). “Testing for Purchasing Power Parity in Cointegrated Panels”. IMF Working Papers, 7287(200), 1-19.
• Cassel, Gustav (1918). “Abnormal Deviations in International Exchanges”. The Economic Journal, 413-415.
• Choi, In, (2001). “Unit Root Tests for Panel Data”. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272.
• Choi, In, (2006). “Combination Unit Root Tests for Cross-Sectionally Correlated Panels”. Econometric Theory and Practice: Frontiers of Analysis and Applied Research: Essays in Honor of Peter CB Phillips. Cambridge University Press, 311-333.
• Chowdhury, Muhammad K. (2007). “Belassa-Samuelson Effect Approaching Fifty Years: Is It Retiring Early in A ustralia?”. University of Wollongong Economics Working Paper Series, 1-25.
• Çeviş, İsmail; Ceylan, Reşat (2015). “Kırılgan Beşlide Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi (SAGP) Hipotezinin Test Edilmesi”. Journal of Yaşar University, 10(37), 6381- 6393.
• Doğanlar, Murat; Bal, Harun; Özmen, Mehmet (2009). “Testing Long Run Validity of Purchasing Power Parity for Selected Emerging Market Economies”. Applied Economics Letters, 16(14), 1443-1448.
• Doğanlar, Murat; Özmen, Mehmet (2000). “Purchasing Power Parity and Real Exchange Rates in Case of Developing Countries”. Istanbul Stock Exchange Review, 4(16), 91-102.
• Erlat, Haluk, (2003). “The Nature of Persistence in Turkish Real Exchange Rates”. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 39(2), 70-97.
• Erlat, Haluk, (2004). “Unit Roots or Nonlinear Stationarity in Turkish Real Exchange Rates”. Applied Economics Letters, 11(10), 645-650.
• Erlat, H aluk, ( 2009). “ Persistence in Turkish Real Exchange Rates: Panel Approaches”. FIW, No. 029.
• EUROSTAT Database, (2017). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2017).
• Güloğlu, Bülent; Ispır, Serdar; Okat, Deniz (2011). “Testing the Validity of Quasi PPP Hypothesis: Evidence from a Recent Panel Unit Root Test with Structural Breaks”. Applied Economics Letters, 18(18), 1817-1822.
• Hadri, Kaddour (2000). “Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data”. The Econometrics Journal, 3, 148-161.
• Im, Kyung So; Pesaran, M. Hashem; Yongcheol, Shin (2003). “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels”. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53-74.
• Im, Kyung So, Lee, Junsoo; Tieslau, Margie (2005). “Panel LM Unit-Root Tests with Level Shifts”. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 393-419.
• Im, Kyung So, Lee, Junsoo; Tieslau, Margie (2010). “Panel LM Unit Root Tests with Trend Shifts”. FDIC Center for Financial Research Working Paper 2010-1.
• Kalyoncu, Hüseyin (2009). “New Evidence of the Validity of Purchasing Power Parity from Turkey”. Applied Economics Letters, 16(1), 63-67.
• Kalyoncu, Hüseyin; Kula, Ferit; Aslan, Alper (2010). “The Validity of Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis in Middle East And Northern Africa Countries”. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 4(13), 125-131.
• Kasman Saadet; Kasman, Adnan; Ayhan, Duygu (2010). “Testing the Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis for the New Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union: Evidence from Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Tests with Structural Breaks”. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 46(2), 53-65.
• Kocakale, Yahya; Toprak, Hakan Hüsnü (2015). “Türkiye’nin Reel Efektif Döviz Kuru Endekslerinin Güncellenmesi”. No. 1506: Research and Monetary Policy Department, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.
• Korap, H. Levent; Aslan, Özgür (2010). “Re-Examination of the Long-Run Purchasing Power Parity: Further Evidence from Turkey”. Applied Economics, 42(27), 3559-3564.
• Krugman, Paul R.; Obstfeld, Maurice (2003). International Economics Theory and Policy. Boston: Pearson Education.
• Lau, C hi Keung Marco (2009). “A More Powerful Panel Unit Root Test with an Application to PPP”. Applied Economics Letters, 16(1), 75-80.
• Levin, Andrew; Lin, Chien-Fu; Chu, Chia-Shang James (2002). “Unit Root Tests i n P anel D ata: A symptotic a nd F inite-Sample Properties”. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24.
• Lopcu, Kenan; Burgaç, Almila; Dülger, Fikret (2012). “Balassa Samuelson Hipotezi: Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Bir Sınama”. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(4), 1-22.
• Maddala, Gangadharrao S.; Shaowen, Wu, (1999). “A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test”. Oxford Bulletin of Economics And Statistics, 61, 631-652.
• Mankiw, Gregory N. (2008). Principles of Economics. Canada: South-Western. Mladenovic, Zorica; Josifidis, Kosta; Srdıc, Slaðana (2013). “The Purchasing Power Parity in Emerging Europe: Empirical Results Based on Two-Break Analysis”. Panoeconomicus, 60(2), 179-202.
• Moon, Hyungsik Roger; Perron, Benoit (2004). “Testing for a Unit Root in Panels with Dynamic Factors”. Journal of Econometrics, 122(1), 81-126.
• Özdemir, Zeynel Abidin (2008). “The Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis in Turkey: Evidence From Nonlinear STAR Error Correction Models”. Applied Economics Letters, 15(4), 307-311.
• Perron, Pierre (1989). “The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock, and The Unit Root Hypothesis”. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1361-1401.
• Pesaran, M. Hashem (2004). “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229; IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240, 1-39.
• Pesaran, M. Hashem (2007). “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence”. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
• Pesaran, M. Hashem; Ullah, Aman; Yamagata, Takashi (2008). “A Bias‐ Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross‐Section Independence”. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
• Pugel, Thomas A. (2004). International Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
• Salvatore, Dominick (1999). Internatioal Economics. New York: John Willey & Sons.
• Seyidoğlu, Halil (2009). Uluslararası İktisat. İstanbul: Gizem Can Yayınları.
• Tastan, Hüseyin (2005). “Do Real Exchange Rates Contain a Unit Root? Evidence from Turkish Data”. Applied Economics, 37(17), 2037-2053.
• Tatoğlu, Ferda Yerdelen (2009). “Reel Efektif Döviz Kurunun Durağanlığının Yapısal Kırılmalı Panel Birim Kök Testleri Kullanılarak Sınanması”. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2), 310-323.
• Tatoğlu, Ferda Yerdelen (2013). İleri Panel Veri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım.
• Uçan, Okyay (2012). “Açık Ekonomilerde Döviz Kuru Dinamikleri: Türkiye Örneği”, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
• Ünsal, Erdal M. (2005). Uluslararası İktisat Teori, Politika ve Açık Ekonomi Makro İktisadı. Ankara: İmaj Yayıncılık.
• Yazgan, M. Ege (2003). “The Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis for a High Inflation Country: A Re-Examination of the Case of Turkey”. Applied Economics Letters, 10(3), 143-147.
• Žďárek, Václav (2012). “An Empirical Investigation of the Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis in European Transition Countries”. Prague Economic Papers, 21(3), 257-276.
• Zıvot, Eric; Andrews, Donald W. K. ( 1992). “ Further E vidence o n t he Great Crash, The Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis”. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 25-44.