Was It Real? The Exchange Rate‐Interest Differential Relation over the Modern Floating‐Rate Period

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the relationship between real exchange rates and real interest rate differentials in the United States, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Contrary to theories based on the joint hypothesis that domestic prices are sticky and monetary disturbances are predominant, we find little evidence of a stable relationship between real interest rates and real exchange rates. We consider both in-sample and out-of-sample tests. One hypothesis that is consistent with our findings is that real disturbances (such as productivity shocks) may be a major source of exchange rate volatility. THIS PAPER INVESTIGATES THE empirical relationship between major currency real exchange rates and real interest rates over the modern (post-March 1973)flexible rate experience. The exchange rates examined here include the dollar/ mark, dollar/yen, and dollar/pound rates. Our two major findings are as follows. First, the data do not indicate a strong correspondence between real interest rate differentials (short-term or long-term) and real exchange rates. This finding appears to conflict with the predictions of most monetary and portfolio balance models of exchange rate determination, though the conflict can be substantially reconciled if aggregate disturbances are primarily real in nature (i.e., changes in productivity, tastes, etc.). It is true that in many cases the sign of the estimated exchange rate-interest rate differential relationship is consistent with the possible predominance of financial market disturbances, but the relationship is not stable enough to be statistically significant. Second, although one does find some evidence of a unit root in both real exchange rates and long-term (but not shortterm) real interest differentials, these two series do not appear to be linearly cointegrated. Hence, the nonstationarity (or near nonstationarity) in the two series cannot be attributed to the same factor.In Section I, we briefly describe a class of small-scale monetary models of exchange rate determination. The importance of this class of models for empirical work derives from its strong predictions about how the exchange rate will move

International Parity Relations and Economic Shock: Evidence from Swiss Franc Unpegging

“…Abuaf and Jorion's (1990) findings, however, do not apply to our study as our focus is fairly short run, i.e., daily spot rate movement. In addition, our regression results based on IFE is consistent with previous empirical studies that while the ability of interest rate differentials is likely to support the tendency for these differentials to offset exchange rate changes (Giddy and Dufey, 1973;Aliber, 1973), the relationship between the interest rate differentials and the exchange rate differentials remains to be weak (Meese and Rogoff, 1988). …”

Real exchange rates and target interest rates in a simple VAR model

“…In our model, for the mark and yen, an extremely large portion of real exchange rate variations is explained by its own shocks after 3 years: around 93% in DEM and around 98% in JPY, which would suggest near random-walk behavior for these currencies and very small monetary policy shocks effects. This is similar to the reasoning in Meese and Rogoff (1988) whose explanation of why monetary models perform poorly was explicitly attributed to real disturbances predominantly affecting FX markets.…”

An Empirical Test of Purchasing Power Parity Theory for Canadian Dollar-US Dollar Exchange Rates

“…Studies by Meese and Rogoff (1988) and by Mark (1990) did an evaluation of time series data after the cessation of the Bretton-Woods Agreement, and basically determined that there was no support for the PPP theory. Frenkel (1986,1990) did raise a possible reason for this lack of support.…”