Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSN 1818-4952
IDOSI Publications, 2013
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.28.efmo.27006
Submitted: Nov 9, 2013; Accepted: Dec 16, 2013; Published: Dec 20, 2013
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to estimate the long run effects of real oil price and real interest rate
differential on real exchange rate for a monthly panel of ASEAN-5 countries from 1983 to 2012. The modeling
exercise begins with the determination of the stationarity condition of the variables which are found to be
integrated of order one. Using several panel cointegration tests, the paper finds evidence of cointegration
among the three variables. Finally, using pooled mean group estimator, the paper finds a negative and
statistically significant impact of real oil price on real exchange rate for ASEAN-5 countries, implying that
increase in real oil price leads to real exchange rate appreciation.
Key words: Asean
Oil price
Exchange rate
Panel cointegration
INTRODUCTION
Corresponding Author: Mukhriz Izraf Azman Aziz, SEFB College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Tel: +6049286806, Fax: +6049286346.
27
World Appl. Sci. J., 28 (Economic, Finance and Management Outlooks): 27-31, 2013
(1)
qit =
(2)
1i
rdrit +
roilt
(4)
2i
(3)
where
is a positive parameter larger than unity.
This leaves relatively open the question of
which are the determinants of q t that is non-stationary
variable.
Table 1: Panel Unit Root Tests
Null Hypothesis
Exchange Rate
Oil Price
Unit Roota
1.97 (0.98)
0.086 (0.53)
1.69 (0.99)
Hadri Z-stat
Stationaryb
11.85 (0.00***)
22.77 (0.00***)
-2.21 (0.01**)
Unit Roota
-8.60 (0.00***)
-48.13 (0.00***)
-58.58 (0.00***)
Hadri Z-stat
Stationaryb
-0.97 (0.83)
-2.30 (0.99)
-2.28 (0.98)
Series in level
Notes : An intercept and trend are included in the test equation. The lag length was selected using the Modified Akaike Information Criteria.
The numbers in the bracket are the p-values of the corresponding test statistics.
* (**) *** denote statistical significance at the 10%,5% and 1% levels. a Signifies that the null hypothesis is the unit root (with the assumption that the
cross-sectional units share a common unit root process). bSignifies that the null hypothesis of no unit root (but assumes a common unit root process for
all cross-sectional units).
28
World Appl. Sci. J., 28 (Economic, Finance and Management Outlooks): 27-31, 2013
Table 2: Kao (1999) Residual Cointegration Tests
Null hypothesis: No Cointegration
Statistics
Probability
0.05*
Prob.
Prob.
None
At most 1
At most 2
70.44
18.08
5.89
0.00*
0.05*
0.82
68.25
18.35
5.89
0.00*
0.05*
0.82
Note: The null hypothesis is that there is no cointegration. Linear deterministic trend is included in the test equation. An asterisk (*) indicates rejection
at the 10% level or better
i,1
roilit + i2 roilt1 +
rdrt1 + iqit1 + t
i,1
rdrit +
i,2
(5)
i1
roilit
(6)
where
ai1 = (i/1 i), ai2 = (
i1
i1
i,2
/1
World Appl. Sci. J., 28 (Economic, Finance and Management Outlooks): 27-31, 2013
Table 4: Panel Long Run Estimation
Convergence Coefficient
-0.02*** (-2.23)
-0.01*** (-2.64)
-0.15 (-1.03)
10.04*** (2.76)
0.00 (0.07)
-0.16* (-1.67)
8.77*** (3.31)
-0.00 (-0.66)
-0.19*** (-2.21)
0.15 (1.42)
5
1775
-0.02*** (-2.4)
0.16 (1.47)
5
1775
-0.02*** (-3.64)
0.98
0.0673 (0.659)
10.02*** (3.34)
0.00 (0.85)
-0.02** (-2.36)
0.02 (0.64)
5
1775
Note : t-statistics calculated using heteroskedasticity consistent standard errors. All equations include a constant country-specific term. t-statistics are in
parentheses. *Significant at 10% or better; Significant coefficients in bold letters.
REFERENCES
1.
World Appl. Sci. J., 28 (Economic, Finance and Management Outlooks): 27-31, 2013
11. Kao, C., 1999. Spurious regression and residualbased tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of
Econometrics, 90: 1-44.
12. Maddala, G.S. and S. Wu, 1999. A comparative study
of unit root tests with panel data and a new
simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics, 61: 631-652.
13. Pesaran, M.H., Y. Shin and R.P. Smith, 1999. Pooled
mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous
panels. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, pp: 621-634.
31