Himanshu Joshi*
The problem of judging whether
the real exchange rate is undervalued or overvalued in relation to its long-run
equilibrium path is of potential interest to policy makers responsible for the
exchange rate management policy of any country. This paper attempts an estimation
of the real equilibrium exchange rate for India for the period in the latter half
of the 1990s using fundamental economic variables by decomposing a structural
VAR vested with appropriate restrictions consistent with open economy assumptions.
The model identifies the permanent impact of three fundamental structural shocks,
viz., real demand, supply and nominal shocks, and evaluates their relative
contribution to the forecast error variance in the real exchange rate. The empirical
results support the finding that the variability in the real exchange rate in
India is explained predominantly by permanent real demand shocks followed by nominal
and supply shocks, respectively. The significance of real demand shocks underpin
the importance of the efforts of the Reserve Bank aimed at sterilizing capital
inflows and maintaining stable conditions in the foreign exchange market. Since
the aggregate nominal shocks explain just about 30 per cent of the forecast error
variance of the real effective exchange rate, it is appropriate that under or
overvaluation may not be judged solely on the basis of the relative purchasing
power parity (PPP) condition.
JEL Classification : F31, F32
Keywords :
Equilibrium exchange rate, structural VAR, forecast error decomposition, Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson
(HBS) effect.
Introduction
The exchange rate
management policy of a country is very often seized with an important question
whether or not the actual real exchange rate is appropriately aligned vis-à-vis
its long run equilibrium path. Notably, ';the appropriateness of the exchange
rate is determined by the criteria of whether the current level of the exchange
rate is appropriate given the level of the exchange rate that is associated with
the equilibrium situation, which is defined in terms of the goods and labor market
equilibrium and the external balance being sustainable, which on the other hand
is determined by the condition of the real economic variables found in equilibrium';(Omerbegivic,2005).
Hence a proper assessment of the deviation of the real exchange rate from its
equilibrium path can go a long way in helping policy makers to design an exchange
rate policy for the purpose of achieving long term sustainability of the balance
of payments.
A common method of determining the extent
of misalignment of the exchange rate is based on the principle of relative uncovered
purchasing power parity (PPP) theory for open economies which assumes that exchange
rates adjust to offset the changes in relative prices. The PPP theory considers
that the actions of importers and exporters, motivated by cross country price
differences, induce changes in the spot exchange rates. In the long run, however,
arbitrage ensures that the ';law of one price'; exists - that is identical
goods denominated in a common currency must sell for the same price in two separate
markets without transportation costs and differential taxes thus causing, as it
were, intra national price convergence. In this process, because the adjustment
in exchange rates takes place through the microeconomics of commodity market arbitrage,
relative exchange rates based on relative price ratios continue to remain in a
state of stable equilibrium, thus reducing the need for deliberate policy directed
interventions in nominal exchange rates. In practice, however, it is an empirical
question to ask if such automatic market adjustments in exchange rate exist –
especially, considering the fact that the presence of non traded goods, for which
no international arbitrage exists, can lead to systematic movements in real exchange
rates inconsistent with PPP (Balassa,1964; Samuelson, 1964). Besides, even though
deviations from the PPP may be considered to provide a meaningful ground for assessing
misalignment and, therefore, for the appropriate management of the exchange rate
policy, it is experienced that except in high inflation countries where nominal
shocks dominate real shocks or for countries that continued with pegged exchange
rates, the PPP condition is observed more in breach than agreement with the empirical
record.
The veracity of the PPP condition has been disputed
particularly in the case of developing countries for the post Bretton Woods period,
suggesting that the influence of other real shocks with permanent effects may
be far more significant for the determination of the real exchange rate than relative
prices alone. In summarising the results from studies using long-horizon data,
Froot and Rogoff (1995) and Rogoff (1996) report the current consensus in the
literature that the half-life of a shock (the time it takes for the shock to dissipate
by 50 per cent) to the real exchange rate is about three to five years, implying
a slow parity reversion rate of between 13 to 20 per cent year. Whereas the slow
speed of reversion to purchasing power parity is difficult to reconcile with nominal
rigidities, it is also difficult to reconcile with the observed large short-term
volatility of real exchange rates (Rogoff, op cit). The failure of PPP
to account for variations in the real exchange rate has been reported by many
other studies using formal statistical tests that failed to reject the null hypothesis
of a unit root in the real exchange rate against the alternative of a stationary
stochastic process. If the unit root model can characterise real exchange rate
behavior, then PPP does not hold because there is no propensity to revert back
to any equilibrium level (Cashin et. al, 2003). The failure to validate
the PPP condition means that empirical models may have to be appropriately redesigned
to incorporate other sources of permanent shocks attributed to various economic
fundamentals for the determination of the real exchange rate.
Whereas
the PPP condition constitutes one of the fundamental but testable theoretical
benchmarks against a set of other financial market conditions such as interest
rate differentials that become important in a world of dynamic cross border capital
flows in the determination of near term exchange rate adjustments, the issue of
evaluating the fundamental equilibrium exchange rate must nonetheless necessarily
contend with the working of the fundamental economic factors such as supply, demand
and nominal factors which govern the eventual outcomes (deficits/surplus) of the
external account of any country. Furthermore, while day to day movements in the
nominal exchange rate may be influenced sometimes by financial market conditions
(such as those determined by relative/ excess rates on return available
in alternative markets in managed exchange rate regimes) that may themselves serve
as a source of distortion of the real exchange rate against its fundamental equilibrium
level; the importance of finding the equilibrium nonetheless remains at the heart
of exchange rate management policy aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of
disequilibrium in the exchange rate market in the long term.
The subject matter is also contextual in terms of the recommendations made by
the Committee on Fuller Capital Account Convertibility (Chairman: S.S Tarapore)
emphasizing on the need to undertake a periodic review of the ';neutral';
(or equilibrium) REER which could be changed as warranted by fundamentals. The
emphasis on the importance of economic fundamentals in the determination of the
equilibrium real exchange rate has been fully recognised although much of the
discussion in the Indian context has so far been based on adhoc generalisations
not supported by empirical judgment. This paper, therefore, attempts to fill this
void in the empirical work relating to the determination of the fundamental real
equilibrium exchange rate in India.
This research, as alluded
to above, is focused on the task of evaluating the applicability of PPP in the
Indian context, while also positing a broader framework incorporating fundamental
economic factors to estimate the equilibrium real exchange rate and to identify
factors that could have determined its movements lately during the post reforms
years. The empirical method employed here owes to the seminal work of Blanchard
and Quah(1989) which offers a methodology for distinguishing temporary and permanent
shocks based on a unique characterization of structural VAR. The B-Q estimation
procedure can be used to estimate the equilibrium real exchange rate as also the
extent of misalignment of the actual real exchange rate in relation to its equilibrium
value. Although the VAR methodology permits a number of analytical insights, the
main objective of the present effort is aimed at estimation of the real equilibrium
exchange rate to serve as one of the several helpful tools for the purpose of
exchange rate management. Furthermore, with a view to supporting appropriate inference
making, estimates of forecast error variance decompositions have also been obtained
to elicit the components accounted for by innovations in the forecast error variance
of individual economic variables specified in the model. The paper is schematised
in four Sections. Section I contains a brief survey of literature pertaining to
exchange rate determination relevant to the subject. Section II explains the data
employed in the study and Section III describes the empirical methodology. Section
IV offers the estimate of the real equilibrium exchange rate and other associated
empirical evidence for India and, finally, Section V offers concluding observations.
Section
I Review of Literature
The review of literature in the
context of the developing countries is related by and large to the empirical body
of research devoted to testing the applicability or otherwise of the PPP concept
for exchange rate determination. In regard to the conclusions reached by numerous
analytical papers related to developing countries, the consensus on PPP is hardly
fully supported given the weight of technical shortcomings such as low power of
univariate unit root tests highlighted by more recent studies on the subject.
Besides even in the case of developed countries where the PPP condition has been
validated on the basis of long time series samples or panels of data, evidence
in favor of the PPP condition has been acceded only in the case of traded goods.
Needless to mention, comprehensive research on the subject, especially, in the
case of developing countries is rather scarce, and many studies are limited in
their focus on traditional testing of the PPP condition for exchange rate determination(Annexure
I). As alluded to above, because ex hypothesi the PPP seeks merely to address
the limited question whether or not relative prices determine relative exchange
rate positions, it leaves aside the more engrossing issue of identifying fundamental
economic factors that could be incorporated in the overall theoretical framework
for proper characterization and explanation of exchange rates. The latter approach
for determining exchange rate parities is of relatively recent origin and with
limited empirical evidence in the context of developing countries.
As mentioned above, in the recent years efforts has been made to incorporate information
on real fundamental economic factors for estimating the long-run exchange rate
equilibrium and, in that context, suitable measures of misalignment of the actual
exchange rate with the equilibrium exchange rate. In fact, the origin of this
approach is traced to the large body of the work which emphasized the importance
of real shocks in the determination of the underlying the real equilibrium exchange
rate. The idea that productivity shocks may affect the equilibrium real exchange
rate (Harod-Balassa-Samuelson(HBS) effect) has left an impressive imprint on the
history of economic thought, even though evidence based on early empirical work
on the subject is somewhat indeterminate. In the more recent work especially,
in Taylor and Taylor (2004), the possibility of time varying HBS effect has been
tested by allowing for linear and non linear deterministic trends as there may
be a tendency for the real equilibrium exchange to shift over time due to inter-temporal
variations in relative productivity differentials. The inclusion of linear or
non linear deterministic trends offer substantial support in resolving the puzzles
about how fast the exchange rate reverts to its mean level. Using data since 1820
for the US, the UK and France, and a nonlinear framework, Lothian and Taylor (2006)
found statistically significant HBS effect for sterling-dollar real exchange rate.
The
estimation of the fundamental equilibrium exchange rate has been an issue of ongoing
interest and a number approaches and explanatory variables have been considered
in modeling frameworks. An assortment of relevant macroeconomic and financial
indicators, for example, are explicitly included in the behavioral equilibrium
exchange rate (BEER) approach which takes into account factors such as productivity,
real interest rate differentials (the interest parity condition), government expenditures
and net forex assets in determining the equilibrium exchange rate.
The fundamental equilibrium exchange rate (FEER) of Williamson (1983,1994) is
yet another approach that takes into account variables such as unemployment and
inflation as determinants of equilibrium exchange rate. On the other hand, in
studies particularly in the context of EU member states in transition, the exchange
rate misalignment has been evaluated taking into account, inter alia, factors
such as changes in the quality of goods and services and dismantling of administered
price controls.
In another intuitive empirical inquiry,
the real exchange rate is determined using fundamental macroeconomic relationships/factors.
For example, Vlaar (2002) estimated a portfolio balance model that incorporated
an output gap equation, a Phillips curve, a Taylor rule and an equation for the
balance of payments. Bjornland (2004) estimated a measure of real equilibrium
exchange rate and identified the extent of misalignment of the real exchange rate
in Venezuela using a structural VAR between the period 1985 and 1999. Including
four structural shocks namely real demand, supply, nominal and oil prices shocks
in the model consistent with open economy assumptions of economic fluctuations,
the empirical results rejected the PPP hypothesis and instead underscored the
relative importance of the permanent real demand shocks in determining the real
exchange rate. Bjornland’s (op.cit) research is distinguished in its approach
because of its attempt to identify the significance of the key building blocks/fundamentals
of the basic macroeconomic foundation relevant for the determination of the real
exchange rate while not merely limiting the objective to the testing the PPP condition.
Ozlale
and Yeldan (2002) developed a state space model to estimate the equilibrium exchange
rate using exchange rate volatility, short term capital movements, industrial
production, inflation, budget balance of public sector, openness and lags of explanatory
variables. In efforts made since the mid-1990s, many studies have also been employing
micro founded general equilibrium open economy models for the determination of
real exchange rate, although empirical usefulness of these types of models is
yet to be fully established given parameter approximations and uncertainties,
viz., associated standard errors and the lack of accountability of the
structure of stochastic shocks.
Mohsin Khan (2004) investigated
the applicability of the Balassa-Samuelson effect on the long-run behavior of
real exchange rates in developing countries based on a panel data sample of 16
developing countries. The empirical evidence obtained underscored the significance
of the traded-nontraded productivity differential in determining the relative
price of nontraded goods, and hence the relative price ratio which in turn exerted
a significant effect on the real exchange rate thereby providing a robust verification
of Balassa-Samuelson effects for developing countries.
Using
fundamental determinants of terms of trade, openness of the economy, relative
productivity differentials between home and trading partners, share of investment
in total consumption and trade balance, Omerbegovic (2005) developed a cointegrating
model for the determinants of the real exchange rate for Bosnia and Herzgovnia.
As
far as research in India is concerned, the study by Kohli (2002) appears somewhat
broad based than earlier works which were primarily limited to the testing of
PPP. Using unit root and cointegration tests, Kohli (2002) found mean reverting
tendencies in the real exchange rate series for India constructed using the consumer
price index as the deflator, as well as for series constructed using ratio of
wholesale and consumer price indices thereby suggesting that monetary policy impulses
were the main cause of disturbance in real exchange rate. On the other hand, the
evidence of non stationarity of the relative differential of tradable and non
tradable goods suggested that real shocks such as permanent changes in productivity
or government spending were important for the determination of the real exchange
rate movements. The findings are based on statistical data generating properties
but do not either explicitly account for or identify various underlying factors
contributing to the movements in the real exchange rate series.
The
computation of real equilibrium exchange rate is an important feature of the advanced
empirical effort undertaken in the recent years. Various approaches for the determination
of the equilibrium exchange rate are based on the different types of underlying
hypotheses - but all nonetheless in the search of that important model of equilibrium
exchange rate determination in different country settings.
Section
II
Selection of System Variables
The
quarterly data for India and industrial countries for the period 1996:Q1 to 2005:Q4
was collected from IMF’s International Financial Statistics(IFS) database. The
IFS data base is distinguished by its presentation of different data series/indices
with a common base year which helps in making appropriate cross country comparisons.
In particular, data series retrieved from IFS database include indices of industrial
production and consumer price indices. Data on 36 country bilateral trade weighted
real exchange rate (REER, base 1993-94) was taken from various issues of the RBI
Bulletin. The data have been transformed into the following system variables for
the structural VAR : (i) annual rate of change of 36 country trade weighted REER(base
1993-94=100), (ii) annual growth in the relative indices of industrial production
of India and that of industrial countries(composite, 2000=100), (iii) annual growth
in the wholesale Price Index (WPI) of India relative to that of the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) of industrial countries(composite, 2000=100) and (iv) relative rates
of inflation in China and India. The choice of index of industrial production
of industrial countries and that of India is taken as representing a relative
supply variable as both imports and exports comprise predominantly of both intermediate
and final industrial goods that serve to determine a significant portion of trade
and thereby have implications for the real exchange rate. Besides, since factor
productivities also constitute a part of the overall growth in output, the relative
supply variable helps in capturing the impact of HBS effect which avers that the
exchange rate of countries with higher relative productivity tends to appreciate.
The relevance of industrial production in industrial countries in relation to
the real exchange rate also arises from the fact that the growth and volatility
of the output in these countries affects the output of other countries including
those of the emerging market economies because of their growing trade and investment
relationship with the rest of the world. The nominal shocks in the model are taken
as relative inflation indices in India and industrialised countries since inflation
differentials (PPP) impact the real exchange rate notwithstanding the presence
of market rigidities which slow down adjustments in nominal wages. Finally, the
impact of real demand effect on the real exchange rate is captured by factors
that generate demand such as money supply and/or fiscal deficit. Notably, all
the three factors included in the model that serve as explanatory variables are
essential for any meaningful characterization of an economic framework.
Section III Empirical Methodology
The interpretation
of the structural VAR is made in terms of four shocks, namely, real demand(εsup),
supply( εrdem) and nominal( εnom) shocks
related to system equations for changes in REER, relative industrial output and
relative nominal prices. The algebraic form of the VAR model is presented below.
Including stationary variables in the structural VAR, and ordering the vector
as zt=(Δsup,Δrd,Δnom), the model is as follows
where
K(L) has finite order and where et form independent white noise errors corresponding
to the individual equations in the structural VAR with a covariance matrix .
Assuming that the orthogonal structural shocks ( below) can be written
as t = Ro where linear combinations of the structural errors (1) esp.,
et t Ro is a non singular matrix. The moving average (MA) form of system (1)
containing the original residuals then can be written in terms of the orthogonal
disturbances with each of the normalized to have t unit variance.
Following Bjornland (2004),
the following restrictions needed for the identification of R(L) matrix consistent
with the standard open economy assumptions are placed on the long run multipliers
to identify the three structural shocks namely real demand, supply and nominal
shocks.
(a) There is no long run effect of nominal shocks
on the real exchange rate. The short run restriction on nominal shocks is consistent
with the most open economy models of short run variability in the exchange rate.
This implies that
(b) There is no long run effect
of real demand and nominal shocks on supply viz.,
the restriction that long run real demand shock does not
affect supply is according to the widely received wisdom in macroeconomic literature.
(c)
Real demand shocks can have a long run effect on itself and can be impacted by
supply shocks and as above there is no impact of nominal shocks.
(c) finally,
nominal shocks are influenced both by long run real demand and supply shocks.
Forecast
error variance decompositions have also been obtained alongside a measure of the
real equilibrium exchange rate which is presented in a graph. Measure of misalignment
is computed by comparing the actual real exchange rate with the estimated trajectory
for the equilibrium real exchange rate obtained from the model.
From the results presented in Table 1 on the decomposition
of forecast error variance it is obvious that for a country like India with a
diversified economic structure, the real exchange rate is determined by a combination
of stochastic shocks pertaining to real demand, supply and nominal factors. Notably,
the permanent real demand shock accounts for the bulk of explanation (63 percent)
followed by nominal and supply shocks. The innovations in the permanent nominal
shocks and supply shocks explain about 30 percent and 7.0 percent of the forecast
error variance of real exchange rate, respectively. The contributions made by
different shocks are expected to change depending on the changing weights of constituent
shocks over time and the time sample taken for the empirical analysis. It may
be mentioned that the contribution of constituent shocks towards the explanation
of the forecast error variance of effective real exchange rate remains by and
large unchanged even if the model is augmented with relative price ratio of China
and India as an additional explanatory variable.
For the
present context, given the fact that factors other than nominal shocks alone are
responsible for the determination of the real exchange rate, the multiple indicator
approach for conducting monetary/exchange rate policies therefore appears to be
an ideal strategy to follow for ensuring long term stabilization of the external
account. It may be recalled that from 1950 to 1980, when the Indian economy was
growing at a relatively slower speed of 3.6 percent, domestic investment exceeded
domestic savings by only a small fraction. During this period, the gap was easily
met by foreign borrowing. However, later during the period 1980 to 1990, when
the growth rate of GDP accelerated to 5.8 percent, the wedge between savings and
investment widened considerably, requiring large foreign borrowings for capital
expenditures on imports of machinery and raw materials, including oil to give
a fillip to the increase in aggregate demand. As a consequence, the gross foreign
debt shot up from US $ 22.6 billion in 1980 to US $ 83.80 billion in 1991. At
the same time the reduction in internal savings rate was accounted mainly by expanding
fiscal deficit of the government which rose from an average of 7.72 percent of
GDP during the Seventh Five-Year Plan to 7.85 percent by 1990-91. Large fiscal
deficits were caused by a number of reasons namely exorbitant expenditures on
subsidies of fertilizers, food, exports, power, transport and irrigation. Apart
from the current account deficit, mounting capital expenditures by the government
and public enterprises were financed through public borrowing. By 1990, internal
debt liabilities increased to 49.8 percent of GDP compared with 33.7 percent in
1980. In addition to the aforementioned factors, the sharp rise in import prices
of oil and the downgrading of India’s credit rating, led to a loss of confidence
resulting into drying up of short-term credit and foreign borrowings besides an
outflow of non-resident Indian deposits led to the crisis of 1991. Clearly as
the experience of the nineties shows, the balance of payments of crisis was caused
by a mix of factors esp., high demand and supply mismatches coupled with exogenous
oil price shocks that eventually culminated in the institution of a wide
ranging macroeconomic, structural and stabilization program encompassing monetary
and financial sectors and public finance, trade, industry, foreign investment
and exchange rate. The exchange rate regime was itself made increasingly more
flexible over time to accommodate appropriate adjustments in keeping with the
forces of demand and supply.
As the stability of the real
exchange rate hinges on factors indicated above, policies aimed at addressing
relevant issues in these areas would serve to foster stability in the external
sector. On the demand side, for example, the need for fiscal rectitude and appropriate
money supply to enable sustainable growth in a climate of stable inflationary
expectations may be considered as ongoing priorities to limit the spillovers from
macroeconomic imbalances to the external deficit. On the supply side, facilitating
infrastructure development and improving incentives to encourage increased resource
investment, capacity creation and technological absorption in supply constrained
sectors may play a key role.
Having captured the contributions
of the factors causing the real exchange rate, the real equilibrium exchange
rate calculated using real demand shocks(added to the drift) from the MA representation
of the VAR is plotted along with the actual real exchange rate.
The
comparative positions of the actual REER (REERTRD36 in Chart 1) and equilibrium
REER (BQESTREER1 in Graph I) plotted against the current account to GDP (CAYGDP)
on the right scale indicate some form of empirical regularity. During the sample
period taken for consideration, the actual REER remained above (overvalued) the
equilibrium REER until early 1998 where after it was seen as clearly undervalued
(except for a few quarters in between 2000 and the first half of 2001) in comparison
with the equilibrium REER till early 2003 and then yet again shifted upwards embracing
its fundamental level quite closely. From the perspective of the present analysis,
the changing magnitudes of the current account to GDP ratio posited against the
degree of alignment of the real exchange rate with the corresponding equilibrium
(determined by fundamentals) offer some insight into the dynamics of the external
account in India.
Illustratively, when the actual
REER was perched higher (overvalued) than the equilibrium REER, the current account
to GDP ratio was negative between 1996 and 1998 but gradually started improving
from 2001 onwards as the actual REER gradually moved below its fundamental equilibrium
path until early 2003. Subsequently, as the actual REER increased and began following
its fundamental level, this period saw the gradual emergence of current account
deficits. While these episodes underline the need for continuous monitoring of
the evolution of the fundamental equilibrium REER for managing current account
balance, the desirability of having a predefined band around the neutral REER
as suggested by Committee on Fuller Capital Account Convertibility (FCAC) also
may need to be positively deliberated. There is clearly a need to keep the actual
REER anchored closely to its fundamental level which may, perhaps, be relaxed
in cases of implied tradeoffs in tandem with the contextual revision in the hierarchy
of goals of economic policy and particularly in the face of temporary asymmetric
risks to economic outlook.
It may be mentioned that the
importance of fundamentals in the context of exchange rate management has been
emphasized on many occasions at the policy making level. Dr. Y.V Reddy, in his
inaugural address to the XIth National Assembly of Forex Association
of India in 1997 underscored that ';any currency could come under speculative
attack if its exchange rate is out of alignment with fundamentals for a prolonged
period of time';. Dr. C. Rangarajan (Chairman, Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory
Council) recently noted that '; when and economy becomes more open to capital
and financial flows, there is even greater compulsion to ensure that factors relating
to macroeconomic stability are not ignored';. Needless to state, the literature
on exchange rate management has also been emphasizing the fact that a prolonged
deviation of REER from the equilibrium REER in terms of overvaluation could lead
to worsening of trade balance, speculative attacks, increased foreign debt, fall
in the rate of investment, productivity and thereby overall growth (Gylfason,
2002).
Besides the structural and stabilization program
instituted during the nineties, the success in limiting the misalignment of the
exchange rate is also significantly attributed to the broad framework of reforms
in the external sector in the aftermath of the Gulf crisis which were based on
the recommendations of the High Level Committee on Balance of Payment (Chairman:
Dr C. Rangarajan, 1991). The Committee advocated compositional shift in capital
flows, liberalization of the current account along with introduction of market
determined exchange rate regime and emphasized on the need to contain the current
account deficit within prudential limits. Needless to mention, the emphasis on
containing the current account deficit at prudential levels typically underscored
the importance of the impact of aggregate demand effects on the real exchange
rate. The implementation of the recommendations of the High Level Committee resulted
in market determined exchange rate regime effective March 1, 1993 and thereafter
the acceptance of Article VIII of the Articles of Agreement of the IMF in August
1994 brought on full current account convertibility paving way for orderly exchange
rate movements in accordance with evolving demand and supply conditions in the
foreign exchange market, thereby limiting the extent of exchange rate misalignment
The virtues of a flexible exchange rate system are well recognized. Compared to
a fixed exchange rate, a flexible exchange rate arrangement, under normal circumstances,
leads to quicker convergence towards the equilibrium because of faster self-stabilizing
adjustments in the nominal exchange rate in tandem with the changes in fundamentals
as compared with slower convergence through changes in relative price ratios which
remain sticky because of market rigidities.
Section V
Concluding
Observations
Although there are many empirical approaches
devoted to the subject, this paper has employed an empirical approach involving
economic fundamentals for estimating the equilibrium real exchange rate for India.
The assessment of the fundamental equilibrium level at periodic intervals and
its relationship with the actual level of REER can provide useful information
and may serve as one of the helpful tools for exchange rate management. According
to the empirical illustration, and for the time period under consideration, the
real exchange rate in India is found to be predominantly determined by permanent
real demand shocks followed by nominal and supply shocks. The upshot of these
findings is that the efforts undertaken by the Reserve Bank in sterilizing capital
inflows to offset demand pressures would continue to play the pivotal role in
exchange rate management policy. On the other hand, the relative PPP condition
alone may not be sufficiently significant in judging under or overvaluation of
the exchange rate. The dynamically shifting position of the fundamental equilibrium
REER in response to evolving fundamentals also implies that it would not be entirely
inappropriate to suggest that nominal exchange rate interventions may not be based
on any arbitrary ';rule of thumb'; without appropriate recognition of
the contributions made by shocks pertaining to different economic fundamentals.
The contribution made by each of the different factors incorporated in the model
is subject to change depending on the evolving strength of shocks over time thus
requiring continuous monitoring.
For the time sample taken
in the study, the empirical regularity, viz., the apparent relationship
of the divergences between the actual and fundamental REER and the corresponding
developments in the current account ratio underpin the importance of periodically
tracking the model based fundamental level of REER. Needless to mention, there
is further scope for developing more proximate policy oriented models which can
offer policy rules under fast changing conditions in the macroeconomic environment.
The flexibility of the real exchange rate is primarily a product of the far reaching
reforms in the policies and practices related to exchange rate management during
the 1990s, as also due to the remarkable changes in the framework and operating
procedures of monetary policy and the general improvement in the macroeconomic
environment. From the policy point of view, considering the fact that a variety
of factors(viz., multiple fundamental indicators) serve to determine the real
exchange rate in the Indian context, initiatives aimed at prudent management of
demand (viz., fiscal deficits and money supply from the policy perspective)
and supply (investments, productivity and technological progress to alleviate
supply constraints) coupled with stable inflationary expectations should serve
to maintain the stability of the external account on an enduring basis.
Finally,
as has been the experience in foreign exchange management in the post reforms
year, the policy of maintaining flexibility of the exchange rate in keeping with
evolving market forces of demand and supply without undue volatility as adopted
by the Reserve Bank has stood the test of time in sustaining the stability of
the external account. Needless to mention, the judicious exchange rate management
policy of the Reserve Bank supported with sterilisation interventions in the face
of heavy capital inflows in the recent years also considerably served to ease
the bias in current account besides limiting undue volatility in the exchange
rate which is critical for maintaining financial stability.
References
:
Balassa,B.(1964), ‘The Purchasing Power Doctrine : A Reappraisal’,
Journal
of Political Economy, 72, 584-596.
Blanchard, O. and D. Quah. (1989),
‘ The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbances’, American
Economic Review 79, 655-673
Bleaney,M, Leybourne S.J
and Mizen P.(1999), ‘Mean Reversion of Real Exchange Rates in High Inflation Countries’,
Discussion Paper No 99/13, University of Nottingham.
Bjornland.H.C.
(2000), ‘ The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand, Supply and Oil Price Shocks-
A Comparative Study’, The Manchester School of Economics Studies, 68, 578-607.
Bjornland.H.C.
(2004), ‘Estimating the Equilibrium Real Exchange Rate in Venezuela’, Economics
Bulletin, Vol 6, pp 1-8.
Cashin, P and C.John McDermott.(2003), ‘ An
Unbiased Appraisal of Purchasing Power Parity’, IMF Staff Papers, Vol 50.
Froot.K
and K.Rogoff.(1995), ‘Perspectives on Purchasing Power Parity and Long Run Real
Exchange Rate’, in G.Grossman and K.Rogoff (eds) Handbook of International Economics,
Vol 3, Eslevier/North Holland.
Gylfason T.(2002), ‘ The Real Exchange Rate
always Floats’, CEPR Discussion Papers, No 3376, Center for Economic Policy
Research.
International Monetary Fund, ‘International Financial Statistics’,
March 2005, IMF Washington.
Holmes M.J(2001), ‘Principal
Components, Stationarity, and New Evidence of Purchasing Power Parity in Developing
Countries’, The Developing Economies, XXXIX-2, June 2001, pp 189-98.
Holmes
M.J. (2002), ‘Are there non-linearities in US:Latin American real exchange behaviour’,
Estudio de Economica, Vol 29-N, December 2002, pp 177-190.
Kohli
R. (2002), ‘Real Exchange Rate Stationarity in Managed Floats: Evidence from India
‘, Working Paper No 93, ICRIER, New Delhi.
Liu,P.C.(1992),’Purchasing Power
Parity in Latin America : A Cointegration Analysis’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv
, 128, pp 662-80.
Lothian J.R and Taylor, M.P.(2006), ‘ Real Exchange Rates
Over the Past Two Centuries : How Important is the Harrod-Balassa- Samuelson Effect
?’,
Warwick Economic Research Papers, No 768, University of Warwick.
Mahdavi
S. and S.Zhou. (1994), ‘Purchasing Power Parity in High Inflation Countries :
Further Evidence’, Journal of Macroeconomics, No. 16, 403-22.
McNown,
R and M.Wallace.( 1989), ‘National Price Levels, Purchasing Power Parity , and
Cointegration : A Test for Four High Inflation Countries’
Journal of
International Money and Finance, No. 8, pp533-45.
Mohsin
Khan.(2004), ‘ Real Exchange Rate in Developing Countries : Are Balassa- Samuelson
Effects Present ?’ IMF Working Paper No 04/188, IMF Washington.
Omerbegovic.
A.(2005), ‘ Real Exchange Rate in Bosnia and Herzgovnia, the Required Adjustment
in the Context of Macroeconomic Stability and Accession to the EU';, Sarajevo
School pf Business, Sarajevo.
Paul Mohua.(2002), ‘Empirical
Evidence of Purchasing Power Parity in six South East Asian Countries - A Panel
Data Approach’, mimeo, Institute of Economic Growth, University of Delhi.
Rangarajan,
C.(2007), '; Who’s is afraid of globalization ?';, The Economic Times,
Monday 15 January, 2007.
Reddy, Y.V.(1997), ‘Exchange Rate Management :
Dilemmas’, Inaugural Address at the XIth National Assembly of
Forex Association of India, Goa.
Reserve Bank of India, ';Report of
the Committee on Fuller Capital Account Convertibility(FCAC)';, Chairman :
S.S Tarapore, July 2006..
Reserve Bank of India , Reserve Bank of India
Bulletin, various issues.
Rogoff, K.(1996), ‘The Purchasing Power Parity
Puzzle’, Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 647-68.
Samuelson, P.A.(1964),
‘ Theoretical Notes on Trade Problems’, Review of Economics and Statistics,
46,145-154.
Schweigert, T.E.(2002), ‘Nominal and Real Exchange
Rates and Purchasing Power Parity during the Guatemalan Float, 1897-1922’, Journal
of Economic Development, Vol 27, Number 2, December.
Simmons
Walter. (2005), ‘Purchasing Power Parity in the East Caribbean Currency Union’,
The Journal of Developing Areas, Vol 38, Number 2, Spring 2005, pp 155-169.
Taylor,
A. M and Mark P. Taylor.(2004), '; The Purchasing Power Debate';,
Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 18:1, 135-158
Williamson, J.(1983), ‘The Exchange
Rate System’, Institute for International Economics, Washington
Williamson,
J.(1994), ‘Estimating Equilibrium Exchange Rates’, ed.
Institute for
International Economics, Washington.
Vlaar, P.(2002), ‘ On the Strength
of US dollar : Can it be explained by output growth ?’, DNB Staff Reports ,
82 Netherlands Bank.
Annex I
PPP
testing in Developing Countries : A Review
(i) Bleany
et.al (1999) investigated the applicability of PPP for a sample of high
inflation countries esp., Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Israel for the period 1972
to 1993, noting that while in the literature there was particularly striking evidence
that the estimated coefficients of cointegrating regressions between exchange
rates and relative prices were much closer to PPP predicted value of unity, the
alternative empirical evidence obtained by using advanced stochastic unit root
models did not support the assumption of a fixed rate of mean reversion of exchange
rates, especially under extreme and rapidly changing monetary conditions.
(ii)
Nagayasu (1999) studied the long–run purchasing power parity (PPP) concept empirically
using the parallel market exchange rates of 17 African countries and using the
panel cointegration method. The panel data method was employed to overcome the
problem of not having long time–series for African countries.
Empirical
evidence adduced in the paper supported the weak–form of the long–run PPP hypothesis
in Africa, not requiring a homogeneity restriction on prices.
(iii)
Wikremsinghe (2001) investigated the applicability of PPP for Sri Lanka using
data for the period for the floating exchange rate regime. Using symmetric unit
root tests which took into account unknown means and trend and graphical techniques,
the empirical evidence overwhelmingly rejected the PPP hypothesis for Sri Lanka.
The failure of the symmetric unit root test and therefore of PPP hypothesis pointed
towards the existence of market frictions such as transaction costs prevailing
in international trade.
(iv) Mohua Paul (2002) tested the
validity of PPP hypothesis for six South East Asian countries, including India,
employing panel unit root test for multilateral real effective exchange rate based
on dynamic export, import and trade weights. The empirical evidence supported
the alternative hypothesis of acceptance of the PPP hypothesis for demeaned data,
thus concluding that PPP could be used to assess the levels of exchange rate.
(v) Holmes (2001) conducted test for PPP for a sample of 30 developing countries
using a technique that investigates the stationarity of the largest principal
component based on deviations from relative PPP against the United States. Using
data for the period 1973 to 1997 the empirical results generally confirmed PPP
and made out, unlike other studies, that there was no evidence that PPP is confined
merely to high-inflation countries as established, inter-alia, by McNown
and Wallace (1989), Liu (1992) and Mahdavi and Zhou (1994).
(vi)
Holmes(2002) tested non-linearities in US $/Latin American real exchange rates
and found that non-linearities existed for seven out of thirteen countries in
the sample with Columbia and Venezuela showing the sharpest transition between
regimes of low and high real exchange rates. Noting that while the vast majority
of the work on PPP was based on linear tests for mean reversion of real exchange
rate, the authors conclude that the identification of non-linearities should offer
some explanation as to why PPP was not confirmed in many cases. In a more recent
study Holmes and Wang (2004) investigated the possibility whether the long run
purchasing power parity in less developed and developing countries was dependent
upon the nature of shocks experienced by them. Using non linear tests of stationarity
and cointegration and a sample of ten African economies for the post Bretton Woods
era, they found that long run purchasing power held in eight out of ten countries
chosen for the sample if an explicit distinction were made between positive and
negative shocks.
(vii) Simmons (2005) studied the applicability
of PPP hypothesis for Eastern Caribbean Currency Union and found that PPP held
for each exchange rate and many real exchange rates are cointegrated and moved
in a block in the Eastern Caribbean region over the 1980s and 1990s. The relationship
of the nominal and real exchange rate and purchasing power parity of the Guatemalan
peso was investigated by Schweigert (2002) who concluded that the nominal exchange
rate was consistent with the PPP hypothesis, and the behaviour of the real exchange
rate was consistent with fundamentals. The paper also concludes that improvement
of terms of trade and years of good harvest coincided with appreciation while
reversal of capital flows led to depreciation.