OECD ÜLKELERİNDE REEL DÖVİZ KURU HAREKETLERİNİN AÇIKLANMASINDA BALASSA-SAMUELSON ETKİSİ

Öz

Balassa-Samuelson hipotezine göre reel döviz kuru hareketleri, ticarete konu olan ve ticarete konu olmayan sektörlerin verimlilik farklılıklarından kaynaklanmakta, ticarete konu olan sektörlerdeki göreli verimlilik artışları ülke parasının reel olarak değer kazanmasına yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, ülkelerin reel döviz kuru hareketlerinin açıklanmasında Balassa-Samuelson hipotezinin geçerli olup olmadığı, 25 OECD ülkesi ve 1990-2016 dönemi için güncel panel veri yöntemleri kullanılarak incelenmektedir. Bu amaçla, sektörel göreli verimliliğin reel döviz kuru üzerindeki etkisi, ülkeler arasındaki heterojenliği, dinamik yapıyı ve yatay-kesit bağımlılığını dikkate alan panel veri tahmin yöntemlerinden yararlanılarak incelenmiştir. Havuzlanmış Ortalama Grup (Pooled Mean Group) tahmin sonuçları OECD ülkelerinde B-S hipotezini destelemektedir. Diğer yandan, ülkelerin maruz kaldığı ortak küresel şokların neden olduğu yatay-kesit bağımlılığı Kesitsel Olarak Genişletilmiş panel ARDL modeli (Chudik ve Pesaran, 2015) kullanılarak dikkate alındığında ise göreli verimliliğin reel döviz kuru üzerindeki etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamsız hale gelmektedir. Dolayısıyla, Balassa-Samuelson hipotezini OECD ülkeleri için destekleyen güçlü sonuçlara ulaşılamamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Balassa-Samuelson Hipotezi
• Reel döviz kuru
• sektörel verimlilik
• panel veri analizi

BALASSA-SAMUELSON EFFECT IN EXPLAINING THE REAL EXCHANGE RATE MOVEMENTS OF OECD COUNTRIES

Öz

According to Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis which explains real exchange rate movements by productivity differences between tradable and non-tradable sectors, an increase in the relative productivity of tradable sector leads to a real appreciation of domestic currency. In this study, we analyze whether the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis is valid employing recent panel data tehniques for a panel data set covering 25 OECD countries and the period 1990-2016. To this aim, the effect of sectoral relative productivity on real exchange rate is examined employing panel data estimators considering country heterogeneity, dynamic behavior and cross-section dependency. Results of Pooled Mean Group estimations support the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis for OECD countries. However, the effect of relative productivity on real exchange rate becomes statistically insignificant when we control the cross-section dependency that arises due to common global shocks by employing Cross-sectionally Augmented Panel ARDL estimator (Chudik and Pesaran, 2015). Consequently, Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis cannot be robustly supported for OECD countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Balassa-Samueslon Hypothesis
• real exchange rate
• sectoral productivity
• panel data analysis

Kaynakça

1. Asea, P. ve Mendoza, E. (1994). “The Balassa-Samuelson Model: A General Equilibrium Appraisal”, Review of International Economics, 2/3, 244-267.
2. Bahmani‐Oskooee, M., ve Nasir, A. B. M. (2004). “ARDL approach to test the productivity bias hypothesis”, Review of development Economics, 8/3, 483-488.
3. Bai J. ve Ng S. (2004). “A Panıc Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration”, Econometrica, 72, 1127–1177.
4. Balassa, B. (1964). “The Purchasing-Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal”, The Journal of Political Economy, 72/6, 584-596.
5. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). “Econometric Analysis of Panel Data ”, 3. Baskı, John Wiley & Sons Ltd , Chichester.
6. Banerjee A. ve Silvestre J. (2013). “Testing for Panel Cointegration Using Common Correlated Effects Estimators”, 38, 610-636.
7. Bergvall A. (2005). “Exchange Rate Regimes and Macroeconomic Stability: The Case of Sweden”, Oxford University Press, 57/3, 422-446.
8. Bordo, M., Choudri, E., Fazio G. ve MacDonald R. (2017). “The Real Exchange Rate in The Long Run: Balassa-Samuelson Effects Reconsidered”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 75, 69-92.

9. Branson, W. H. ve Love, J. P. (1986). “Dollar Appreciation and Manufacturing Employment And Output”, NBER Working Paper No: 1972, 1-23.
10. Breusch, T.S ve Pagan, A.R. (1980). “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification Tests in Econometrics”, Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-53.
11. Burgaç, A. (2012). “İktisat Teorisinde Balassa-Samuelson Hipotezi ve Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Bir Sınama”, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
12. Cassel, G. (1918). “Abnormal Deviations in International Exchanges”, The Economic Journal, 28/112, 413-415.
13. Choudhri, E. U., ve Schembri, L. L. (2010). “Productivity, the terms of trade, and the real exchange rate: Balassa–Samuelson Hypothesis Revisited”, Review of International Economics, 18/5, 924-936.
14. Choudhri, E. U. ve Khan, M. S. (2005). “Real Exchange Rates in Developing Countries: Are Balassa-Samuelson Effects Present?”, IMF Staff Papers, 52/3, 387-409.
15. Chowdhury, K. (2011). “Modelling the Balassa-Samuelson Effect in Australia”, Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 5/1, 77-91.
16. Chowdhury, K. (2012). “The real exchange rate and the Balassa–Samuelson hypothesis in SAARC countries: an appraisal”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 17/1, 52-73.
17. Chudik, A. ve Pesaran, M. H. (2015). “Common Correlated E¤ects Estimation of Heterogeneous Dynamic Panel Data Models with Weakly Exogenous Regressors”, Journal of Econometrics, 188 /2, 393-420.
18. Çiftçi İ. (2016). “Balassa-Samuelson Hipotezi: Türkiye ve Dış Ticaret Ortakları Uygulaması” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kütahya.
19. De Gregorio, J. ve Wolf, H. C. (1994). “Terms of Trade, Productivity and The Real Exchange Rate”, NBER Working Paper, No: 4807, 1-17.
20. Dedu, V. ve Dumitrescu B. A. (2010). “The Balassa-Samuelson Effect in Romania”, Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting , 4, 44-53.
21. Dornbusch, R. (1980). “Exchange Rate Economics: Where Do We Stand?”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 144-205.
22. Edwards, S. ve Ng F. (1985). “Trends in Real Exchange Rate Behavior in Selected Developing Countries”, Trade and Adjustment Policy Division, CPD, No:16, 1-48.
23. Égert, B., Drine, I., Lommatzsch, K. ve Rault, C. (2002). “The Balassa-Samuelson Effect in Central and Eastern Europe: Myth or Reality”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 31, 552–572.
24. Engel, C. ve Rogers, J. H. (2000). “Deviations From Purchasing Power Parity: Causes and Welfare Costs”, International Finance Discussion Papers, No:666, 1-24.
25. Everaert, G. ve Groote T. (2016). “Common Correlated Effects Estimation of Dynamic Panels with Cross-Sectional Dependence”, Econometric Reviews, 35(3), 428-463.
26. Frees, E. W. (1995). “Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data”, Journal of Econometrics, 1995, 69/2, 393-414.
27. Friedman, M. (1937). “The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32 /200, 675- 701.
28. Gubler, M. ve Sax C. (2019). “The Balassa-Samuelson effect reversed: new evidence from OECD countries”, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 155/3, 1-21.
29. Hausman, J. (1978). "Specification Tests in Econometrics”, Econometrica, 46, 1251-1271.
30. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. ve Shin, Y. (2003). “Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 115/1, 53-74.
31. Ito, T., Isard, P. ve Symansky S. (1997). “Economic Growth and Real Exchange Rate: an Overview of the Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis in Asia”, NBER Working Paper No. 5979, 1-28.
32. Iyke B. ve Odhiambo N. (2017). “An empirical test of the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis: Evidence from eight middle-income countries in Africa”, Deakin University, Economic Systems, 41 , 297-304.
33. Jabeen, S., Malik, W., S. ve Haider, A. (2011). “Testing the Harrod Balassa Samuelson Hypothesis: The Case of Pakistan”, Pakistan Development Review, 50/4, 379-399.
34. Krugman, P. ve Taylor, L. (1976). “Contractionary Effects Of Devaluation”, Library of The Massachusets Institute of Technology, Boston.
35. Lee J. ve Tang M. (2003). “Does Productivity Growth Lead to Appreciation of the Real Exchange Rate?”, International Monetary Fund Working paper No. 03/154.
36. Loayza, N., ve Ranciere, R. (2005). “Financial development, financial fragility, and growth”,IMF Working Paper No. 05/170.
37. Lopçu, K., Burgaç, A. ve Dülger, F. (2011). “Balassa Samuelson Hipotezi: Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Bir Sınama”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12/4, 1-22.
38. MacDonald, R. ve Ricci, L. A. (2001). “PPP and Balassa-Samuelson Effect: The Role of the Distribution Sector”, CESifo Working Paper, No. 442, Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich.
39. MacDonald, R., ve Ricci, L. A. (2007). “Real exchange rates, imperfect substitutability, and imperfect competition”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 29(4), 639-664.
40. Maddala, G. S. ve Wu, S. (1999). “A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and A New Simple Test”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61/1, 631-652.
41. Mkenda, B. K. (2001). “Long-run and Short-run Determinants of the Real Exchange Rate in Zambia”, Working Papers in Economics No: 40, 1-67.
42. Moon, H.R. ve Perron, B. (2004). “Testing for a Unit Root in Panels with Dynamic Factors”, Journal of Econometrics, 122, 81-126.
43. Oktayer, N. ve N. Susam (2008). “Kamu Harcamaları-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: 1970-2005 Yılları Türkiye Örneği”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22/1, 145-164.
44. Omojimite, B. U. ve Oriavwote, V. E. (2012). “Real Exchange Rate and Macroeconomic Performance: Testing for the Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis in Nigeria”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4/2, 127-134.
45. Öztürk, E. (2013). “Türkiye Ekonomisi Temelinde Balassa Hipotezinin Geçerliliğinin Test Edilmesi”, Yükseklisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
46. Pesaran, M. H. ve Smith, R. (1995). “Estimating Long-Run Relationships from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 68/1, 79-113.
47. Pesaran, M., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R., P. (1999). “Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94/446, 621–634.
48. Pesaran, M. H. , Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). “Bound Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Long-Run Relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326.
49. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 1240, 1-39.
50. Pesaran, M.H., (2006). “Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure”, Econometrica, 74/4, 967-1012.
51. Pesaran, M.H., (2007). “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross‐Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22/2, 265-312.
52. Phillips, P. C. ve Sul, D. (2003). “Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence”, The Econometrics Journal, 6/1, 217-259.
53. Ram, R. (1986). “Government Size and Economic Growth: A New Framework and Some Evidence from Cross-Section and Time-Series Data: Reply”, American Economic Association, 79/1, 281-284.
54. Robertson, D., and Symons, J. (2000). “Factor residuals in SUR regressions: estimating panels allowing for cross sectional correlation”, Centre for Economic Performance, No. 473, London School of Economics and Political Science.
55. Rodrik, D. (2008). “The Real Exchange Rate and Economic Growth”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall, 365-412.
56. Samuelson, P. A. (1964). “Theoretical Noteson Trade Problems”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 46/2, 145-154.
57. Smith, R. P. and Fuertes, A. M. (2010). Panel Time Series. Cemmap course notes.
58. Sonora, R. J. ve Tica, J. (2009). “Harrod, Balassa and Samuelson (Re) Visit Eastern Europe”, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, 9/7, 1-20.
59. Stock, J. H. ve Watson, M. W. (2002). “Forecasting Using Principal Components from a Large Number of Predictors”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97/460, 1167-1179.
60. Tintin, C. (2009). “Testing the Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis: Evidence from 10 OECD Countries”, Master’s Thesis, Lund University, School of Economics and Management.
61. Uslu, E. (2012). “Reel Kurun Denge Değerinden Sapmasında Balassa-Samuelson Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Uzmanlık Yeterlilik Tezi, TCMB.
62. Wang, W., Xue, J., ve Du, C. (2016). “The Balassa–Samuelson hypothesis in the developed and developing countries revisited”, Economics Letters, 146, 33-38.
63. Yıldırım, A. (2007). “Samuelson-Balassa Hipotezi ve Reel Döviz Kuru: Türkiye, ABD, İngiltere, Fransa ve Almanya İçin Sınanması”, Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 44/509, 9-20.