III Equilibrium Real Exchange Rate Approach
Author:
Mr. Luca A Ricci
Search for other papers by Mr. Luca A Ricci in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Mr. Jonathan David Ostry
Search for other papers by Mr. Jonathan David Ostry in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Mr. Jaewoo Lee
Search for other papers by Mr. Jaewoo Lee in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Mr. Alessandro Prati
Search for other papers by Mr. Alessandro Prati in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Mr. Gian M Milesi-Ferretti
Search for other papers by Mr. Gian M Milesi-Ferretti in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

Abstract

The reduced-form equilibrium real exchange rate (ERER) approach to exchange rate assessment consists of three steps. First, panel regression techniques are used to estimate an equilibrium relationship between real exchange rates and a set of fundamentals. Second, equilibrium real exchange rates are computed as a function of the medium-term level of the fundamentals. Third, the magnitude of the exchange rate adjustment that would restore equilibrium is calculated directly as the difference between each country’s actual real exchange rate and the equilibrium value identified in the second step.

The reduced-form equilibrium real exchange rate (ERER) approach to exchange rate assessment consists of three steps. First, panel regression techniques are used to estimate an equilibrium relationship between real exchange rates and a set of fundamentals. Second, equilibrium real exchange rates are computed as a function of the medium-term level of the fundamentals. Third, the magnitude of the exchange rate adjustment that would restore equilibrium is calculated directly as the difference between each country’s actual real exchange rate and the equilibrium value identified in the second step.

Since 2003, the IMF’s CGER assessments have used the ERER approach for 11 advanced economies. This section presents an updated methodology for estimating equilibrium real exchange rates for 48 countries over 1980–2004, which, as discussed below, also includes factors specific to emerging markets. For a more extensive presentation of the methodologies, see Ricci, Milesi-Ferretti, and Lee (2008).18

Theoretical Background and Variable Definitions

The literature on the determinants of real exchange rates is very extensive (see, for example, the surveys by Froot and Rogoff, 1995; Rogoff, 1996; and, for developing countries, Edwards, 1989; Hinkle and Montiel, 1999; and Edwards and Savastano, 2000).19 Empirical analyses differ in the choice of underlying real exchange rate fundamentals, in part because of data availability considerations. In the econometric analysis of this section, the CPI-based real effective exchange rate, defined as the ratio of domestic consumer prices to a weighted index (exchange-rate-adjusted) of consumer prices in trading partners, is expected to depend on the following six fundamentals:20

  • Net foreign assets. Standard intertemporal macroeconomic models predict that debtor countries will need a more depreciated real exchange rate to generate the trade surpluses necessary to service their external liabilities. Conversely, economies with relatively high NFA can “afford” more appreciated real exchange rates—and the associated trade deficits—while remaining solvent.21 The stock of net foreign assets is scaled by each country’s trade (the sum of exports and imports).

  • Productivity differential. According to the so-called Balassa-Samuelson effect, if productivity in the tradables sector grows faster than in the nontradables sector, the resulting higher wages in the tradables sector will put upward pressure on wages in the nontradables sector, resulting in a higher relative price of nontradables (i.e., a real appreciation). The productivity differential used in the specification below is the difference in output per worker in tradables and nontradables production (relative to trading partners), and is expected to have a positive effect on the ERER.22

  • Commodity terms of trade. Higher commodity terms of trade should appreciate the real exchange rate through real income or wealth effects.23 The variable used below is a weighted average of the main commodity export prices (where country-specific weights reflect the share of particular commodities in a country’s overall exports) divided by a weighted average of the main commodity import prices. All commodity prices are calculated relative to the price of manufacturing exports of advanced economies.

  • Government consumption. Higher government consumption (as a ratio to GDP) is likely to appreciate the real exchange rate to the extent that such consumption falls more on nontradables than tradables, thereby raising the relative price of the former (Ostry, 1994; and De Gregorio, Giovannini, and Wolf, 1994).

  • Trade restriction index. Trade restrictions may lead to higher domestic prices and more appreciated real exchange rates (Edwards and Ostry, 1990; Ostry, 1991; and Goldfajn and Valdes, 1999). The trade restriction index used below is a dummy variable that takes a value of 1 before liberalization and a value of 0 after liberalization, according to the liberalization years coded by Sachs and Warner (1995) and Wacziarg and Welch (2003).24

  • Price controls. The share of administered prices in the consumer price index (CPI) basket is a proxy for the deviation of prices from their market value in transition economies. As price controls are removed, the rise in administered prices toward market levels—and hence the rise in the consumer price index— would tend to be accompanied by a real appreciation. A lower share of administered prices in the consumer price index is thus expected to be associated with a more appreciated real exchange rate in transition economies.

Estimation Results

The first column in Table 3 reports the estimated equilibrium long-run (cointegrating) relationship between the real exchange rate and the aforementioned set of explanatory variables, including a set of country-specific constant terms (the estimation methodology and robustness tests are described in Appendix 3.1).25 The specification in column 2 also includes a parsimonious set of coefficients and dummy variables, which help control for country/region-specific factors or structural breaks (see Appendix 3.1 for details).

  • The estimated coefficient on the net foreign asset variable scaled by trade is about 0.04. A deterioration of the ratio of net foreign assets to trade of about 50 percentage points (as experienced by the United States between 2001 and 2005) would imply a depreciation of the equilibrium exchange rate by about 2 percent.

  • A 10 percent increase in the domestic productivity of tradables relative to nontradables (relative to the corresponding variable for trading partner countries) tends to appreciate a country’s equilibrium exchange rate by about 1 to 2 percent in most countries, and up to 13 percent in Central and Eastern European countries.26

  • A 10 percent increase in the commodity terms of trade implies an equilibrium appreciation of about 4 to 6 percent. As an example, between 2001 and 2005 Venezuela’s terms of trade improved by about 50 percent, implying an appreciation in its equilibrium real effective exchange rate of about 20 to 30 percent.

  • An increase in the government consumption to GDP ratio of 1 percentage point is associated with an appreciation of the equilibrium real exchange rate of 2½ to 3 percent.

  • A move to a liberalized trade regime, as in the example of Brazil around 1990, would depreciate the equilibrium real exchange rate by 12.14 percent.

  • The elimination of administered prices in 7 percent of the price basket (one unit of the index on the share of administrative prices) is associated with an appreciation of the real exchange rate by about 2 to 4 percent. As an example, the Slovak Republic experienced a liberalization of prices accounting for about 20 percent of the price basket between 1997 and 2004, which would be associated with an equilibrium appreciation of the real exchange rate of about 6 to 12 percent.

Table 3.

Equilibrium Real Exchange Rate Approach: Regressions

article image
Note: Column (2) includes a parsimonious set of coefficients and dummy variables, which help control for country/region-specific factors or structural breaks (see Appendix 3.1 for details).*,**, and *** indicate significance at the 10, 5, and 1 percent level, respectively, based on standard errors robust to serial correlation.

Equilibrium Real Exchange Rates

Equilibrium real exchange rates are computed by evaluating the relationship between the real exchange rate and the fundamentals at an appropriate level of those fundamentals. The ERER approach computes twosets of equilibrium real exchange rates based, respectively, on the current value of fundamentals and their projected medium-term value (WEO projections).27

Equilibrium real exchange rates also reflect the estimated value of the country-specific constants, which are equal to the average of each country’s real exchange rate over the sample period. Whenever the sample period is short, as in the case of the Central and Eastern European countries, or there is a “peso problem” (i.e., systematic overvaluation or undervaluation for a prolonged period of time), caution is warranted in interpreting the estimates of the country-specific constants as the average value anchoring each country’s equilibrium real exchange rate.

Exchange Rate Assessments

The magnitude of the exchange rate adjustment that would restore equilibrium is calculated directly as the difference between each country’s current real exchange rate and two possible equilibrium values, corresponding to current or medium-term fundamentals. A final step in the ERER approach—like in the MB approach—is to impose multilateral consistency of the estimated exchange rate adjustments by applying a common correction factor, as explained in Section II.

The ERER approach does not yield in and of itself any indication of how quickly the exchange rate would adjust to restore equilibrium. To gain some insight into this issue, the long-run model was estimated with an error-correction specification. The results suggest that, on average, two and a half years are enough to halve the gap between actual and equilibrium exchange rates for both advanced and emerging economies (or, equivalently, the gap closes by about one-fourth within a year).

While the econometric model captures the broad trends in real exchange rate behavior, estimates of equilibrium real exchange rates are unavoidably subject to significant uncertainty. In particular, the forecast standard error of the real exchange rate is about 12 percent, which is reduced to 7–8 percent if one accounts for factors driving the real exchange rate in the short run through an error-correction specification.

Appendix 3.1. ERER Approach: Data and Methodology

Data Description

The sample includes 48 countries for the period 1980 to 2004. From the 54 countries used in the MB approach, the following six countries were excluded from the ERER approach owing to data availability: Algeria, Croatia, Egypt, Israel, Luxembourg, and Tunisia. This subsection describes in detail the construction of the variables used in the ERER approach.
  • Real effective exchange rate is based on consumer price index (CPI) and new competitiveness weights constructed from 1999–2001 data (Bayoumi, Lee, and Jayanthi, 2006). The nominal exchange rate and CPI were obtained from IFS, and the euro area aggregate exchange rate (prior to 1999) was obtained from the European Central Bank.

  • Productivity of tradables and nontradables relative to trading partners. Productivity, measured as output per worker, is calculated on the basis of a newly constructed data set for output and employment for a six-sector classification (or three-sector when the six-sector data were not available). In the six-sector classification, the tradable sector includes agriculture, hunting, forestry, and fishing; mining, manufacturing, and utilities; and transport, storage, and communication, whereas the nontradable sector includes construction; wholesale and retail trade; and other services. In the three-sector classification, the tradable sector includes agriculture and industry. The sources are the United Nations Statistics Division, International Labor Office Bureau of Statistics, Eurostat, World Bank, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, CEIC database, IMF country desks, and national authorities.28

    A few missing observations were filled using the sectoral shares for adjacent years and aggregate data. Series for trading partners were constructed by applying the competitiveness weights to productivity series that were extended when data were missing for a few early or late years (using the trends over the adjacent three-year period). Robustness checks were undertaken using relative productivity measures that either exclude the volatile agricultural sector for some countries (Chile, Colombia, Morocco, Peru, South Africa, Turkey, Poland, Thailand, Malaysia, Mexico, and New Zealand) or are constructed from employment series smoothed with a Hodrick-Prescott filter.

  • Commodity-based terms of trade is the ratio of a weighted average price of the main commodity exports to a weighted average price of the main commodity imports. The index is constructed from the prices of six commodity categories (food, fuels, agricultural raw materials, metals, gold, and beverages), measured against the manufacturing unit value index (MUV) of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook. These relative commodity prices of six categories are weighted by the time average (over 1980–2001) of export and import shares of each commodity category in total trade (exports and imports of goods and services). The terms of trade index is the ratio of aggregate indexes of commodity exports and imports, as follows:

TOTj=i(Pi/MUV)Xji/i(Pi/MUV)Mji,
article image

where i represents the six commodity categories; Xji is the share of exports of commodity i in country j’ s total trade, averaged over 1980–2001; and Mji is the share of imports of commodity i in country j’ s total trade, averaged over 1980–2001.

The prices (Pi) of the six commodity categories are obtained from the database of the RES Commodities Unit. Exports and imports by commodity category are obtained from the United Nations Common Format for Transient Data Exchange (COMTRADE) data at SITC two-digit level; South Africa’s gold export series is obtained from national sources.

Trade data are obtained from the IFS and extended using WEO data. Pre-1998 merchandise trade for the euro area are constructed on the basis of COMTRADE data.29 Singapore’s exports are adjusted for re-exports.

  • Net foreign assets to trade is the ratio of net foreign assets at the end of the previous period to the average exports and imports (in goods and nonfactor services) of the previous period. The net foreign asset data are from Lane and Milesi-Ferretti (2007b).

  • Government consumption—to-GDP ratio is defined as the ratio of government consumption (purchases of goods and services plus government wages) to GDP. The main source is OECD, Annual National Income Accounts, and missing observations are spliced using the IFS or WEO data.

  • Trade restriction index takes the value of 0 during years of liberalization and 1 during years of restriction. It is constructed on the basis of the liberalization years suggested by Sachs and Warner (1995), and extended for recent years by Wacziarg and Welch (2003).

  • Share of administered prices (for transition economies only) is constructed by the EBRD as the number of categories with administered prices out of a basket of 15 categories (EBRD, 2005). Hence a unit increase in this variable corresponds to an increase in the share of administered prices corresponding to about 7 percent of the CPI basket. This variable is available for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia, and takes a value of 0 for the other countries.

  • Additional terms in Table 3 regressions. The regression in column 2 includes coefficients and dummy variables that help control for several country/region-specific factors or structural breaks. In particular, it includes four additional dummies to account for significant breaks in the real exchange rate series that are not captured in the Sachs and Warner index as episodes of major liberalization: three dummies (equal to 1 before 1986 and 0 otherwise) for Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand; and one dummy (equal to 1 in 1991–2001 and 0 otherwise) for Argentina. It also allows for an heterogeneous slope for China for the Balassa-Samuelson effect (with an estimated coefficient of about 0.5). Finally, the government spending variable is dropped for Central and Eastern European countries. The regression in column 1 accounts only for the 1982 devaluation in Indonesia (associated with import liberalization) and for the Argentina dummy.

The set of real exchange rate fundamentals of this analysis is broader than that used in previous studies, and includes novel measures of productivity differentials and net foreign assets. Nevertheless, most variables capture the underlying economic effect only imperfectly. For example, the split between tradable and nontradable sectors is bound to be arbitrary to some extent. Similarly, the net external position is the appropriate measure of the “transfer problem” only to the extent that rates of return on external assets and liabilities are broadly the same (Lane and Milesi-Ferretti, 2002). Finally, commodity terms of trade are calculated for a given (fixed) composition of a country’s exports and imports, which is likely to have changed during the sample period. However, data availability issues prevent us from addressing some of these concerns. For example, while interest payments on net foreign assets are available, the appropriate measure of the “transfer effect” requires the calculation of rates of return (which include capital gains and losses). These calculations are fraught with measurement problems, especially for the early years of the sample.

Econometric Methodology

This appendix describes the estimation of the long-run relationship between the real effective exchange rate and macroeconomic fundamentals. Given the limited length of the sample (25 years), estimating separate real exchange rate equations for each country gives very imprecise results. This shortcoming can be reduced by pooling the data. Over the sample period the variables exhibit unit root behavior, when tested via the Levin, Lin, and Chu (2002) and Im, Pesaran, and Shin (2003) panel unit root tests. We find evidence of panel cointegration among our variables using the Kao (1999) test—there appears to be a long-run relationship between the real effective exchange rate and the set of fundamentals.30

The estimation is thus undertaken using the dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) methodology developed by Stock and Watson (1993), applied to a panel of countries with fixed country effects. Fixed effects are necessary because the real effective exchange rate measures are index numbers, making their levels not comparable across countries. They also account for timeinvariant country-specific factors, thus reducing the omitted variable bias. The DOLS methodology has been widely used in panel analysis with nonstationary data. The results were also checked with an alternative panel cointegration estimation procedure (FMOLS; see Kao and Chiang, 2000; Pedroni, 2000; and Phillips and Hansen, 1990) and results were similar.31

The estimated cointegrating relationship is imposed in an error-correction formulation, to assess the speed of adjustment of the real exchange rate toward its long-run equilibrium relation. The long-run relationship should be interpreted as an equilibrium relationship rather than a causal one. One might expect the presence of reverse causality, particularly between the real exchange rate and the productivity or the net foreign asset indicators.

The forecast standard error of the real exchange rate is estimated at about 12 percent (mostly due to the standard error of the regression at about 11 percent, hence with little variation across countries and years). This is mainly because the real exchange rate estimation is tailored to capturing the long-run relationship between the real exchange rate and the fundamentals and neglects short term exchange rate dynamics, which are notoriously volatile. If one accounts for short-term effects, for example when imposing the cointegrating vector in an error-correction mechanism, the forecast standard error of the real exchange rate is estimated at about 7–8 percent.

Several robustness tests were performed and yielded similar estimation results. First, alternative series were employed for the net foreign assets ratio (to GDP, to imports, and to exports), the relative productivity measures (see the data description subsection in this appendix), and the government consumption ratio (from IFS rather than OECD). Second, OLS regressions were performed on three-year averages of the data. Third, different slopes of the relative productivity variable were allowed during crisis times (as defined by a 20 percent depreciation): the coefficient during crisis times were larger, but the coefficients during noncrisis times were overall unaffected.

Cited By

  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Ahmed, Shaghil 1986, “Temporary and Permanent Government Spending in an Open Economy: Some Evidence for the United Kingdom,Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 197224.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bayoumi, Tamim, Hamid Faruqee, and Jaewoo Lee, 2005, “A Fair Exchange? Theory and Practice of Calculating Equilibrium Exchange Rates,IMF Working Paper 05/229 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bayoumi, Tamim, Jaewoo Lee, and Sarma Jayanthi, 2006, “New Rates from New Weights,IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 53 (June), pp. 272305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bernanke, Ben, and Refet Gurkaynak, 2001, “Is Growth Exogenous? Taking Mankiw, Romer, and Weil Seriously,NBER Macroeconomics Annual (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bernheim, B. Douglas, 1987, “Ricardian Equivalence: An Evaluation of Theory and Evidence,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual, Vol. 2, ed. by Fischer Stanley (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research), pp. 263304.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blanchard, J. Olivier, Francesco Giavazzi, and Filipa Sa, 2005, “International Investors, the U.S. Current Account, and the Dollar,Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, Brookings Institution, pp. 149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Canzoneri, Matthew B., Robert E. Cumby, and Behzad Diba, 1999, “Relative Labor Productivity and the Real Exchange Rate in the Long Run: Evidence for a Panel of OECD Countries,Journal of International Economics, Vol. 47 (April), pp. 24566.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cashin, Paul, Luis F. Céspedes, and Ratna Sahay, 2004, “Commodity Currencies and the Real Exchange Rate,Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 75 (October), pp. 23968.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, Yu-Chin, and Kenneth Rogoff, 2003, “Commodity Currencies,Journal of International Economics, Vol. 60 (May), pp. 13360.

  • Chinn, Menzie, 2005, “Getting Serious About the Twin Deficits,Council Special Report No. 10 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chinn, Menzie, and Hiro Ito, 2005, “Current Account Balances, Financial Development and Institutions: Assaying the World ‘Savings Glut,’NBER Working Paper 11761 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chinn, Menzie, and Eswar Prasad, 2003, “Medium-Term Determinants of Current Accounts in Industrial and Developing Countries: An Empirical Exploration,Journal of International Economics, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 4776.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Choudhri, Ehsan, and Mohsin Khan, 2005, “Real Exchange Rates in Developing Countries: Are Balassa-Samuelson Effects Present?IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 52 (December), pp. 387409.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Debelle, Guy, and Hamid Faruqee, 1996, “What Determines the Current Account? A Cross-Sectional and Panel Approach,IMF Working Paper 96/58 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • De Gregorio, José, Alberto Giovannini, and Holger Wolf, 1994, “International Evidence on Tradables and Non-tradables Inflation,European Economic Review, Vol. 38 (June), pp. 122544.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, and Enrica Detragiache, 2005, “CrossCountry Empirical Studies of Systemic Bank Distress: A Survey,IMF Working Paper 05/96 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edwards, Sebastian, 1989, Real Exchange Rates, Devaluation and Adjustment: Exchange Rate Policy in Developing Countries (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edwards, Sebastian, and Jonathan D. Ostry, 1990, “Anticipated Protectionist Policies, Real Exchange Rates, and the Current Account: The Case of Rigid Wages,Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 9 (June), pp. 20619.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edwards, Sebastian, and Jonathan D. Ostry, 1992, “Terms of Trade Disturbances, Real Exchange Rates, and Welfare: The Role of Capital Controls and Labor Market Distortions,Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 44, pp. 2034.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edwards, Sebastian, and Miguel Savastano, 2000, “Exchange Rates in Emerging Economies: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know?” in Economic Policy Reform: The Second Stage, ed. by Anne O. Krueger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), 2005, Transition Report (London).

  • Faruqee, Hamid, 1995, “Long-Run Determinants of the Real Exchange Rate: A Stock-Flow Perspective,IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 42 (March), pp. 80107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2004, “Global Demographic Change: Economic Impacts and Policy Challenges,” proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming (Aug. 26–28).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Froot, Kenneth A., and Kenneth S. Rogoff, 1995, “Perspectives on PPP and Long-Run Real Exchange Rates,” in Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 3, ed. by Gene M. Grossman Kenneth Rogoff (Amsterdam: Elsevier), pp. 164788.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gagnon, Joseph, 1996, “Net Foreign Assets and Equilibrium Exchange Rates: Panel Evidence,U.S. Federal Reserve Board International Finance Discussion Paper No. 574 (Washington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ghosh, Atish R., and Jonathan D. Ostry, 1997, “Macroeco-nomic Uncertainty, Precautionary Saving, and the Current Account,Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 12139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goldfajn, Ilan, and Rodrigo Valdes, 1999, “The Aftermath of Appreciations,Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 114 (February), pp. 22962.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gonzalo, Jesus, and Clive Granger, 1995, “Estimation of Common Long-Memory Components in Cointegrated Systems,Journal of Business and Economic Statistics Vol. 13, No. 1 (January), pp. 2735.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gruber, Joseph, and Steven Kamin, 2005, “Explaining the Global Pattern of Current Account Imbalances,U.S. Federal Reserve Board International Finance Discussion Paper No. 846 (Washington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hayashi, Fumio, 1997, Understanding Saving: Evidence from the United States and Japan (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

  • Higgins, Matthew, 1998, “Demography, National Savings, and International Capital Flows,International Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 34369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hinkle, Lawrence E., and Peter J. Montiel, 1999, Exchange Rate Misalignment: Concepts and Measurement for Developing Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Im, Kyung So M. Hashem Pesaran and Yongcheol Shin, 2003, “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels,Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 115 (July), pp. 5374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, 2006, World Economic Outlook (Washington, April).

  • Isard, Peter, and Hamid Faruqee, 1998, Exchange Rate Assessment: Extension of the Macroeconomic Balance Approach, IMF Occasional Paper No. 167 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Isard, Peter, Russell Kincaid, and Martin Fetherston, 2001, Methodology for Current Account and Exchange Rate Assessment, IMF Occasional Paper No. 209 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kao, Chihwa, 1999, “Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 90 (May), pp. 144.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kao, Chihwa, Min-Hsien Chiang 2000, “On the Estimation and Inference of a Cointegrated Regression in Panel Data,Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 15, pp. 179222.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lane, Philip, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 2001, “LongTerm Capital Movements,” in NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2001 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lane, Philip, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 2002, “External Wealth, the Trade Balance, and the Real Exchange Rate,European Economic Review, Vol. 46 (June), pp. 104971.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lane, Philip, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 2004, “The Transfer Problem Revisited: Net Foreign Assets and Real Exchange Rates,Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 86 (November), pp. 84157.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lane, Philip, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 2007a, “A Global Perspective on External Positions,” in G7 Current Account Imbalances: Sustainability and Adjustment, ed. by Clarida Richard (Chicago: Chicago University Press for NBER).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lane, Philip, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 2007b, “The External Wealth of Nations Mark II: Revised and Extended Estimates of Foreign Assets and Liabilities, 1970–2004,Journal of International Economics, Vol 73, No. 2 (November), pp. 22350.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, Jaewoo, and Menzie D. Chinn, 2007, “Current Account and Real Exchange Rate Dynamics in the G7 Countries,Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 25774.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, Jaewoo, and Man-Keung Tang, 2007, “Does Productivity Growth Appreciate the Real Exchange Rate?Review of International Economics, Vol. 15 (February), pp. 16487.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Levin, Andrew, Chien-Fu Lin, and Chia-Shang James Chu, 2002, “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties,Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 108 (May), pp. 124.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MacDonald, Ronald, and Luca Antonio Ricci, 2005The Real Exchange Rate and the Balassa-Samuelson Effect: The Role of the Distribution Sector,Pacific Economic Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 2948.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MacDonald, Ronald, and Luca Antonio Ricci, 2007, “Real Exchange Rates, Imperfect Substitut-ability, and Imperfect Competition,Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 29, No.4, pp. 63964.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Maeso-Fernandez, Francisco, Chiara Osbat, and Bernd Schnatz, 2004, “Towards the Estimation of Equilibrium Exchange Rates for CEE Acceding Countries: Methodological Issues and a Panel Cointegration Perspective,ECB Working Paper 353 (Frankfurt: European Central Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meese, Richard A., and Kenneth Rogoff, 1983, “Empirical Exchange Rate Models of the Seventies: Do They Fit out of Sample?Journal of International Economics, Vol. 14 (February), pp. 324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Obstfeld, Maurice 2004, “External Adjustment,Review of World Economics, Vol. 140, No. 4, pp. 54168.

  • Obstfeld, Maurice Kenneth Rogoff, 1996, Foundations of International Macroeconomics (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

  • Ostry, Jonathan D., 1988, “The Balance of Trade, the Terms of Trade, and the Real Exchange Rate: An Intertemporal Optimizing Framework,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 54173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ostry, Jonathan D., 1991, “Tariffs, Real Exchange Rates, and the Trade Balance in a Two-Country World,European Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 112742.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ostry, Jonathan D., 1994, “Government Purchases and Relative Prices in a Two-Country World,Economic Record, Vol. 70, No. 209 (June), pp. 14961.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ostry, Jonathan D., Carmen M. Reinhart, 1992, “Private Saving and Terms of Trade Shocks: Evidence from Developing Countries,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, Vol. 39 (September), pp. 495517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pedroni, Peter 2000, “Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels,Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 15, pp. 93130.

  • Phillips, Peter C.B., and Bruce E. Hansen, 1990, “Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes,Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 57, pp. 99125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ricci, Luca Antonio, Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, and JaeWoo Lee, 2008, “Real Exchange Rates and Fundamentals: A Cross-Country Perspective,IMF Working Paper 08/13 (Washington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rogoff, Kenneth, 1996, “The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle,Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34 (June), pp. 64768.

  • Sachs, Jeffrey D., and Andrew Warner, 1995, “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: 1, Brookings Institution, pp. 1118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stock, James, and Mark Watson, 1993, “A Simple Estimator of Cointegrating Vectors in Higher Order Integrated Systems,Econometrica, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 783820.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taylor, Alan, 2001, “A Century of Current Account Dynamics,Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 21 (November), pp. 72548.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wacziarg, Romain, and Karen H. Welch, 2003, “Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence,” NBER Working Paper 10152 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation