Inflation and Productivity Differentials in EMU

  • Paul De Grauwe
  • Frauke Skudelny
Chapter

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to find out whether the Balassa-Samuelson effect is important in EMU. We use panel data going from 1971 to 1995 for the current EU members in order to estimate the long run effect of bilateral differences in productivity growth differential between the traded and non-traded goods sector on bilateral inflation differentials. The regression results indicate that there is little evidence for a significant effect of the productivity differential, as proposed by the theory. The productivity growth in the non-traded goods sector alone does however have a significant effect on inflation. According to our regression results, less than one percent of the inflation differentials between EU countries is on average due to the productivity growth in the traded and the non-traded goods sector. However, the impact of productivity shocks was quite substantial, leading to a maximum of 7 percent increase in inflation differentials.

Keywords

Productivity Growth Real Exchange Rate Consumer Price Index Purchase Power Parity Market Imperfection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberola, E. and Tyrväinen, T. (1998). Is there scope for inflation differentials in EMU? An empiricial evaluation of the Balassa-Samuelson model in EMU countries. Bank of Finland Discussion Papers, 15/98.Google Scholar
  2. Asea, P. and Mendoza, E. (1994). Do long-run productivity differentials explain long-run exchange rates? IMF Working Paper, WP 94/60.Google Scholar
  3. Balassa, B. (1964). The PPP doctrine:A reappraisal. Journal of Politicial Economy, 584-596.Google Scholar
  4. Bayoumi, T. and Alun, T. (1995). Relative price and economic adjustment in the United States and the European union: A real story about EMU. IMF Staff Paper, 42(1).Google Scholar
  5. Campillo, M. and Miron, J. (1996). Why does inflation differ accross countries? NBER Working Paper 5540.Google Scholar
  6. Canzoneri, M., Diba, B, and Eudey, G. (1996). Trends in European producitivity and real exchange rates: implications for the Maastricht convergence criteria and for inflation targets after EMU. CEPR Discussion Papers, 1417.Google Scholar
  7. Canzoneri, M., Cumby, R. and Diba, B.(1999). Relative labour productivity and the real exchange rate in the long-run: evidence for a panel of OECD countries. Journal of International Economics, 47:245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinn, M. and Johnston, L. (1997). Real exchange rate levels, productivity and demand shocks: Evidence froma panel of 14 countries. IMF Working Paper, WP 97/66.Google Scholar
  9. De Gregorio, J. and Wolf, H. (1994). Terms of trade, productivity, and the real exchange rate. NBER Working Paper 4807.Google Scholar
  10. De Gregorio, J., Giovannini, A. and Wolf, H. (1994). International evidence on tradables and nontradables inflation. European Economic Review, 38:1225–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Froot, K. and Rogoff, K. (1991). The EMS, the EMU and the transition to a common currency. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 269-327.Google Scholar
  12. Froot, K. and Rogoff, K. (1991). Perspectives on PPP and long-run real exchange rates. NBER Working Paper 4952.Google Scholar
  13. Hondroyiannis, G. and Papapetrou, E. (1998). Temporal causality and the inflation-productivity relationship: evidence from eight low inflation OECD countries. International Review of Economics and Finance, 7(1):117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsieh, D. (1982). The determination of the realexchange rate: the productivity approach. Journal of International Economics, 12:355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Im, K., Pesaran, H. and Shin, W. (1996). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. University of Cambridge, mimeo.Google Scholar
  16. Levin, A. and Lin, C-F. (1993). Unit roots tests in panel data: New results. University of California at San Diego, Discussion Paper 93-56.Google Scholar
  17. MacDonald, R. (1997). What determines real exchange rates? The long and short of it. IMF Working Paper, WP 97/21.Google Scholar
  18. Marston, R. (1987). Real exchange rates and productivity growth in the United States and Japan. In Ardnt, S. and Richardson, J., editors, Real Financial Linkages among Open Economies. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Micossi, S. and Milesi-Ferretti, M. (1994). Real exchange rates and the price of non-tradable goods. IMF Working Paper, 94/19.Google Scholar
  20. Obstfeld, M. and Rogoff, K. (1996). Foundations of International Macroeconomics. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Officier, L. (1976). The productivity bias in purchasing power parity: An econometric investigation. IMF Staff Papers, 23(3):545–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oh, K. (1996). Purchasing power parity and unit root tests using panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 15(3):405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poloz, S. (1990). Real exchange rate adjustment between regions in a common currency area. Bank of Canada.Google Scholar
  24. Rebelo, S. (1993). Inflation in fixed exchange rate regimes: The recent Portuguese experience. In Torres, F. and Giavazzi, F., editors, The Transition to EMU in Europe. CEPR, London.Google Scholar
  25. Rogoff, K. (1992). Traded goods consumption smoothing and the random walk behavior of the real exchange rate. NBER Working Paper, 4119.Google Scholar
  26. Samuleson, P. (1964). Theoretical notes on trade problems. Review of Economics and Statistics, 64:145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strauss, J. (1995). Real exchange rates, PPP and the relative price of nontraded goods. Southern Economic Journal, 61(4):991–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul De Grauwe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frauke Skudelny
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre of Economic StudiesUniversity of LeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.CEPRBelgium
  3. 3.Centre of Economic StudiesUniversity of LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations