Nonlinearities and asymmetric adjustment to PPP in an exchange rate model with inflation expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explain real exchange rate fluctuations by means of a model including both standard fundamentals and two alternative measures of inflation expectations for five inflation targeting countries (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden) over the period January 1993–July 2019. Design/methodology/approach Both a benchmark linear autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model and a nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) specification are considered. Findings The results suggest that the nonlinear framework is more appropriate to capture the behaviour of real exchange rates given the presence of asymmetries both in the long and short run. In particular, the speed of adjustment towards the purchasing power parity (PPP) implied long-run equilibrium is three times faster in a nonlinear framework, which provides much stronger evidence in support of PPP. Moreover, inflation expectations play an important role, with survey-based ones having a more sizable effect than market-based ones. Originality/value The focus on linearities and the estimation of a NARDL model, which is shown to outperform the linear ARDL model both within sample and out of sample, is an important contribution to the existing literature which has rarely applied this type of framework; the choice of an appropriate econometric method also makes the policy implications of the analysis more reliable; in particular, monetary authorities should aim to achieve a high degree of credibility to manage them and thus currency fluctuations effectively; the inflation targeting framework might be especially appropriate for this purpose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".