Publication:
Comment on “Industry-specific real effective exchange rates and export price competitiveness: the cases of Japan, China, and Korea”
| DC Field | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Abdul Kareem, Mohamed Ariff | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-06 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-07-25T20:05:45Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-06-06 | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-07-25T20:05:45Z | |
| dc.date.disclosure | 2016-06-10 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Sato et al. (2013) represents a significant contribution to the literature. The novelty of their paper lies in the construction of a new dataset on industry-specific real effective exchange rates (REER) on a monthly basis from January 2005 to the present. The authors have convincingly demonstrated that REER differs not only between countries, but also across industries, a finding that would have slipped through the net of aggregate data analysis. The authors have used the industry-wise producer price index (PPI), instead of consumer price index (CPI), not only because the latter includes nontradables, but also because the former tends to vary across industries, reflecting interindustry differences in costs arising from differences in their exposure to exchange rate changes. In this context, industries with large import content are more sensitive to exchange rate changes than those with a large domestic content. It, thus, makes considerable sense to use the industry breakdown PPI data. However, exchange rate changes, in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, can only be explained by the inflation differential. According to PPP, a currency with a relatively lower inflation rate would appreciate vis-à-vis currency with a higher inflation rate. Seen in these terms, one might still argue that CPI is more relevant for explaining exchange rate appreciations and depreciations, be they in nominal or real terms. | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Abdul Kareem, Mohamed Ariff. (2013). Comment on “Industry-specific real effective exchange rates and export price competitiveness: the cases of Japan, China, and Korea”. Asian Economic Policy Review, 8 (2), pp. 322–323. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | doi:10.1111/aepr.12033 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://ikr.inceif.org/handle/INCEIF/1399 | |
| dc.language | English | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | Wiley | |
| dc.rights | 2013. Wiley | |
| dc.source | CRP | |
| dc.subject | Exchange rate | |
| dc.subject | Export price | |
| dc.subject | Japan | |
| dc.title | Comment on “Industry-specific real effective exchange rates and export price competitiveness: the cases of Japan, China, and Korea” | |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| dlc.maintopic | Conventional finance | |
| dlc.subtopic | Economics | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| ikr.doctype | Scholarly Works | |
| ikr.docurl | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12033/abstract | |
| ikr.topic.maintopic | Conventional finance | |
| ikr.topic.subtopic | Conventional finance | |
| Appears in Collections |