Measuring
Real Exchange Rate Misalignment:
A
Dynamic OLS Approach
Teferi
Mequaninte
tefmeq@yahoo.com
Monetary Policy and Economic Research Directorate
National Bank of
May, 2006
The
paper tries to develop a model for the real exchange rate of
1. Introduction
The Ethiopian economy, with support from the World Bank
and International Monetary Fund (IMF), has since October, 1992 witnessed the
introduction of adjustment program to halt the down turn of the economy and to
move the economy on the path of sustained growth and development. The real exchange rate (RER), by virtue of
its impact on the international competitiveness of an economy, assumed an
overriding importance among the cohort of policy variables (Haile Kibret,
1994). Evidences from Latin America,
Real
exchange rate misalignment as defined by Edwards (1989) refers to a situation
where the real exchange rate diverges from its long-run equilibrium, though the
equilibrium rate is not actually observed.
The main objective of this paper is therefore, to develop
an empirical model for the real exchange rate in
Following
this introductory part, section two reviews the literature and section three
deals with model specification. The data and methodology, Empirical results and
the computation of the real exchange misalignment will be done in section four,
five and six respectively. Finally section seven gives the concluding remark
and policy implications.
2.
Literature Survey
Broadly
speaking, there are three competing literatures on the real exchange rate for
developing countries; a measure based on purchasing power parity (PPP)
(Balassa, 1990), a measure based on using the black market premium (Quirk et
al., 1987), and a model based approach (Edwards, 1988, 1994; Elbadawi 1994).
The discussion of the Orthodox Purchasing Power Parity - PPP theory defines the
real exchange rate as e=E P*/P, where E is the nominal exchange rate, P* and P
are foreign and domestic price indices, respectively. This approach assumes an
unchanged equilibrium exchange rate throughout the period and calculates the
misalignment by deducting the actual real RER from some base year in which case
the RER is believed to be in equilibrium. Edwards (1989) has criticized the
application of the PPP theory on the ground that it gives inadequate
consideration to changes in the equilibrium RER caused by fundamentals.
The
second approach measures the misalignment using the black market exchange rate.
This approach is also criticized by Montiel and Ostry (1994) as the
informational content of the parallel market is limited in terms of capturing
various shocks along the adjustment path. According to Aron (1994a) the
parallel market is seen as a thinly traded market solely used for illicit
activities.
In the modern theory the real exchange rate,
RER is defined as the relative price of tradable goods (PT) to
non-tradable goods (PN) i.e., E PT*/ PN and
uses a formal model for determining the RER. Its principal advantage is the
capability of incorporating changes in the equilibrium real exchange rate and
involves the calculation of the Fundamental Equilibrium Exchange Rate
(Williamson 1994). Despite its advantages, however, there is no direct measure
for the prices of tradable and non-tradable goods in this approach. Therefore, whether to use consumer price
index (CPI) or world wholesale price index (WPI) to substitute price of
non-tradable and tradable respectively or what such choice represents has been
unsettled issues. Elbadawi (1994) and Edwards (1989) for instance, argued WPI
is a good proxy for the price of tradable and the CPI for that of non-tradable. Their reasoning is that WPI contains mainly
tradable and CPI mainly non-tradable.
This study will also use WPI as a measure of tradable and CPI as a proxy
for non-tradable.
Another
dilemma in using the modern theory of real exchange rate is that on the choice
of nominal exchange rate. Whether to use
bilateral exchange rate with respect to the strong US Dollar or the
multilateral exchange rate of the trading partners and what weights and which
country's currencies should be included in the multilateral exchange rate is
still an unresolved issue. This study,
in congruent with other empirical studies, will use the multilateral real
exchange rate and trade weights will be used in the selection of trading
partners.
Various
studies on the determinants of the real exchange rate and the effects of real
exchange rate misalignment have been undertaken. Edwards (1989) for example,
developed a theoretical model of real exchange rate behavior and devised an
empirical equation of how to estimate the real exchange rate dynamics using
pooled data for a group of twelve developing countries. According to him, the
important fundamentals that determine the real exchange rate are; the terms of
trade, level and composition of government consumption, controls on capital
flows, exchange and trade controls, technological progress, and capital
accumulation. The study found that in the short-run, real exchange rate
movements are affected by both real and nominal factors. In the long run
however, only real factors affect the sustainable equilibrium real exchange
rate. Edwards (1989) further investigated weather there was any link between
real exchange misalignment and economic performance. His conclusion was that
the countries whose real exchange rates were closer to equilibrium
out-performed those with misaligned real exchange rates. Similarly Cottani et
al (1990) also argued that in parts of Latin America, unstable real exchange
rates inhibited export growth, while in
Cottani et al's argument was authenticated by other empirical findings. Ghura and Grennes (1993), for example, investigated the impact of real exchange rate misalignment on economic performance using a panel data for sub-Saharan countries. They too found that real exchange rate misalignment negatively affected income growth, export and imports, and investment and savings. In all the above studies, the most common determinants of real exchange rate were found to be terms of trade, openness, capital inflows and nominal devaluation. Other studies employing cointegration analysis in the empirical analysis of the real exchange rate as stated in Mkenda (2001), includes; Baffes et al (1999) for Cote d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso, Elbadawi and Soto (1997) for seven developing countries, Kadenge (1998) for Zimbabwe, Gelband and Nagayasu (1999) for Angola, and Aron et al (1997) for South Africa.
With in
the context of
This study adds to the existing works on the real
exchange rate for
3.
Model Specification
In the
Behavioral equilibrium exchange rate model, the real exchange rate (
) is defined as the domestic relative price of tradable goods
(
) to non-tradable goods (
), that is,
compatible with the attainment of internal and external
equilibrium, and ℮ is the nominal exchange rate. Internal equilibrium
presupposes that the market for non-tradable clears in the current period and
is expected to be so in the future. External equilibrium implies that the
current account balances both in the current and future periods are compatible
with long-run sustainable capital flows (Elbadawi,1994).Thus, using equations
below, the hypothesized relationships can be specified.
Based on the works of Melesse (2001) and Equar (2001), and as observed by Edwards (1989), the dynamics of the behavior of the real exchange rate are given by equation as follows:
![]()
Where
= Deviations of the
actual real exchange rate from its equilibrium level
=
Inconsistency in the macroeconomic policy framework
= Nominal exchange
rate devaluation
= Positive
parameters capturing vital aspects of the adjustment process
Equation (2) gives an indication of the main fundamentals that influence the behavior of the equilibrium real exchange rate:
Where
= The equilibrium
real exchange rate
= External terms of trade
= External
aid inflows (defined as real net ODA to
= Government consumption of non-tradable
(measured by the share of government
consumption in GDP)
= Commercial policy stance (measured by
the black market premium)
= Growth rate of real GDP (used as a
measure of technological progress)
= Investment to GDP ratio.
Edwards (1989) stressed that this equation of equilibrium
RER does not provide an explicit distinction between permanent and temporary
movements in the fundamentals. Thus, it would be necessary to breakdown the
fundamentals in to these components as the long-run equilibrium exchange rate
is determined by the permanent components.
Equation
(2) puts the equilibrium real exchange rate as a function of real fundamentals.
But the actual real exchange rate, as given in equation (1), responds to both
real fundamentals and macroeconomic policies represented by
. Thus, Aron et al (1997) and Mkenda (2001) included central
bank reserve (CBR) and real money supply (M2) to the model of the
real exchange rate to capture the role of macroeconomic policies. Finally, some
measures of nominal devaluation should also be introduced to real exchange rate
model to capture the impact of nominal devaluation.
Incorporating all the above, the model for the real exchange rate (RER) that is used for estimation can be formulated as:
![]()
Stands for nominal
devaluation and Ut for the error term.
The expected theoretical
impacts of the respective fundamentals are as follows:
(?) -
Since terms of trade is defined as the relative price of exports to
imports, its impact on the RER is theoretically ambiguous and depends on the
relative strengths of the direct income effect operating through the demand for
non-tradable and the indirect substitution effects that operates through the
supply of non-tradable. To illustrate the impact of the direct income effect,
let the price of exports increase (improvement in TOT), and the price of
imports stay constant. The increases in the price of exports increases income
and then raises the demand for both imports and non-tradable domestic goods.
Since the price of imports is given, the higher demand would only affect the
price of non-tradable goods and hence a real exchange appreciation will occur.
If a deterioration in the terms of trade occur, it may lead to the opposite
effect (reducing income and the demand for all goods and hence resulting in a
depreciation in the RER). Sometimes, the indirect substitution effect may
dominate the direct income effect. For example, an improvement in terms of
trade may provide sufficient foreign exchange resources to producer of
non-tradable goods in the economy. The increased resources may then enable the
producers to increase their production of non-tradable goods, hence lowering
its price and to a depreciation in the RER. If a deterioration in terms of
trade occurred, it may lead to the opposite effect (an appreciation of the
RER). In Elbadawi and Soto’s (1997) study of seven developing countries, in
three case, an improvement in the term of trade appreciated the real exchange
rate, while in four cases, an improvement in the terms of trade depreciated the
real exchange rate.
(-) - By increasing real incomes and
consequently the demand for both traded and non-traded goods, it tends to cause
the RER to appreciate. In his study of twelve developing countries, Edwards
(1989) found that an increase in capital inflows appreciated the real exchange
rate, as expected.
(?)
- Increases in government
expenditure on non-tradable appreciates
the RER, while those on tradable causes the RER to depreciate. Edwards
(1989) found that an increase in government consumption appreciated the real
exchange rate in four of the equations he estimated for a group of twelve
developing countries, while in the other two equations, an increase in
government consumption depreciated the real exchange rate.
(+) - A reduction, for instance, in an import
tariff can decrease the domestic price of imports, which are a part of tradables.
This can in turn decrease the local currency price of tradables, leading to an
appreciation in the real exchange rate. An increase in import tariffs can have
the opposite effect. That is, it can raise the domestic price of imports, there
by depreciating the real exchange rate. However, the demand for imports and
consequently for foreign exchange will increase, leading to a depreciation in
the real exchange rate. In their study of
(?) - Technological progress appreciates the RER
if gains emanating from productivity enhancement in the tradable Sector overrides those in the
non-tradable sector. Edwards (1989) found that an increase in technological
progress depreciated the real exchange rate in all his regressions. Aron et al
(1997), on the other hand, found that an increase in technological progress
appreciated
(?) - Central Bank reserve intervention indicates
the capacity of the Bank to defend the currency (Aron et al, 1997). An increase
in reserve has the effect of appreciating the real exchange rate, while a
decrease in reserves depreciates the real exchange rate. In their study of the
determinants of the real exchange rate for
(+) - Nominal devaluation tends to depreciate
the RER.
(-) -Increase in real money supply depreciates
the real exchange rate
(?) - Its impact on the real exchange rate
depends on whether an increase in investment changes the composition of
spending on traded and non-traded goods. If an increase in the share of
investment in GDP changes the composition of spending towards traded goods, it
will lead to a depreciation in the real exchange rate (Baffes et al ; Edwards,
1989). On the other hand, a change towards non-traded goods appreciates the
real exchange rate. For example, Baffes et al (1999) found that an increase in
the share of investment in GDP depreciated the real exchange rate in
Following the definition
of the real exchange rate, a negative sign (i.e.,-) represents an appreciation
of the real exchange rate. This is because the real exchange rate is inversely
related to spending (consumption) on non-tradable goods. This happens so because
if we start from a position of internal balance, a rise in spending creates an
excess demand for non-tradable goods at the original real exchange rate. In
order to restore equilibrium, a real appreciation is required, which would
switch supply toward non-tradable goods, and demand toward tradable goods.
4. Data and Methodology
All data used in this study relate to the period 1970/71 to 2003/04 and was obtained from the Macro econometric team of the National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) website for the ODA. The data used is annual and the variables are in logs.
The paper employs the Stock Watson Dynamic OLS estimation procedure in determining the presence of relationship between the real exchange rate and its determinants. DOLS approach has certain advantages over both OLS and the Johansen maximum likelihood procedures. The OLS apriorily categorizes variables as endogenous and exogenous with implication of endogeneity problem and also the error term is not normally distributed (auto-correlation). The Johansen method, being a full information technique is exposed to the problem of misspecification and small data observation. However, the Stock Watson method is a robust single equation approach, which corrects the problem of endogeniety by inclusion of leads and lags of the first difference of the regressors and for serially correlated errors by a GLS procedure. In addition DOLS has the same good property as the OLS for small sample size and it has the same asymptotic optimality property as the Johansen distribution.
5. The Stock-Watson (DOLS) Empirical Results
The Stock-Watson DOLS estimates for the equilibrium
exchange rate in
Table 1: The
Stock-Watson (DOLS) Empirical Results
|
Dependent
Variable: LOG(REER) |
||||
|
Method: Least Squares |
||||
|
Date:
02/16/06 Time: 20:23 |
||||
|
Sample(adjusted):
1972 2002 |
||||
|
Included
observations: 31 after adjusting endpoints |
||||
|
White
Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Standard Errors & Covariance |
||||
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
t-Statistic |
Prob. |
|
C |
7.540841 |
0.937051 |
8.047414 |
0.0000 |
|
LOG(TOT) |
-0.250354 |
0.097467 |
-2.568600 |
0.0199 |
|
LOG(AID) |
-0.356436 |
0.082791 |
-4.305254 |
0.0005 |
|
LOG(CPS) |
0.636917 |
0.098133 |
6.490342 |
0.0000 |
|
LOG(INVGDP) |
0.558694 |
0.270346 |
2.066587 |
0.0544 |
|
DLOG(TOT) |
0.189792 |
0.114774 |
1.653621 |
0.1166 |
|
DLOG(AID) |
0.251486 |
0.111842 |
2.248581 |
0.0381 |
|
DLOG(M2) |
-0.031646 |
0.361526 |
-0.087536 |
0.9313 |
|
DLOG(TOT(-1)) |
0.175415 |
0.107297 |
1.634849 |
0.1205 |
|
DLOG(AID(-1)) |
0.234128 |
0.153819 |
1.522103 |
0.1464 |
|
DLOG(CPS(+1)) |
0.169086 |
0.131477 |
1.286057 |
0.2157 |
|
DLOG(INVGDP(+1)) |
0.597379 |
0.251350 |
2.376687 |
0.0295 |
|
D(NOMDEVAL(1)) |
-0.260052 |
0.142871 |
-1.820192 |
0.0864 |
|
DWAR |
0.149712 |
0.098011 |
1.527501 |
0.1450 |
|
R-squared |
0.878032 |
Mean dependent var |
4.945367 |
|
|
Adjusted
R-squared |
0.784762 |
S.D. dependent var |
0.290335 |
|
|
S.E. of
regression |
0.134697 |
Akaike info criterion |
-0.869122 |
|
|
Sum squared resid |
0.308437 |
Schwarz criterion |
-0.221514 |
|
|
Log likelihood |
27.47138 |
F-statistic |
9.413903 |
|
|
Durbin-Watson
stat |
1.313360 |
Prob(F-statistic) |
0.000023 |
|
Variables
qualified for the long-run model are TOT, AID, CPS and INVGDP and their
respective coefficients are -0.250,
-0.356, 0.637, and 0.559. Except for M2 and Nominal devaluation, all the
variables are significant and the results show that taken together, these
fundamentals explain 78 percent of the variation in the real exchange rate. The
negative parameters on terms of trade, foreign aid and central bank reserve
variables imply a tendency towards real exchange rate appreciation. However,
commercial policy stance and investment to GDP ratio variables exhibit positive
coefficients and, therefore, tend to depreciate the real exchange rate. Given
the fact that macroeconomic policies are intended to have only a temporary
impact on the economy, the insignificant short-run negative coefficients on the
money supply and nominal devaluation also cohorts special attention.
The
negative and significant effect of the terms of trade on the real exchange rate
implies that the indirect substitution effect dominates the direct income
effect in the case of
The
coefficient on external aid is also negative and significant. This result
suggests that a large percentage of foreign aid may have probably been invested
in the non-tradable goods and services such as wages, services and recurrent
expenditure. As has been evidenced in Yohans (1996) "the growth in