Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan: Causality Analysis
Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan: Causality Analysis
Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan: Causality Analysis
k
i
i
1
(1-L) Y
t-i
+ut .. (i)
Where, L is a lag operator, t denotes time trend, and u
t
is a white noise error term. Y
t
denotes the variables for which study is testing unit root problem. Y
t-i
are the lagged
values of variables of our study.
i
are the coefficients of lagged values of Y
t-i
to capture
the optimum lag length (k), k ensures that there is no correlation between error term and
regressors of this equation. Lag length is selected by AIC criterion. The equation is only
with constant and includes also time trend t afterward along with constant. ADF test
checks the statistical significance of , if has statistically zero value then Y
t
has unit
root problem and is non-stationary. If is not statistically zero then there is not a problem
of unit root and Y
t
is stationary.
A series of the models have been used to see the effectiveness of exchange rate (EXR =
Rs/Dollar) on macroeconomic variables like inflation (INF =Consumer Price Index),
foreign direct investment (FDI =FDI as a percentage of GDP), international trade (TR =
Volume of Trade as percentage of GDP), and gross domestic product (GDP =GDP
growth rate).
We hypothesized that exchange rate is conintegrated with inflation, trade, FDI and GDP.
Cointegration, a multivariate technique, occurs between two or more time series
variables, if one or more linear combinations of different nonstationary time series
produce stationary time series (Engle and Granger, 1987). The linear combination
produces the long run relationship between different time series because it is a
description of the lasting effects shared by the different time series (Johansen, 1995). The
long run relationship, as a statistical point of view, means the variables move together
Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan
87
over time so that short term disturbances from the long term trend will be corrected. A
lack of cointegration suggests that such variable have no long run equilibrium
relationship and in principle, they can wander arbitrarily far away from each other
(Dickey et al., 1991).
The Johansen (1991) maximum likelihood test is used to test the cointegration between
EXR, INF, FDI, TR and GDP. That means it examines, whether the series are driven by
common trends (Stock and Watson, 1988) or, equivalently, whether they are cointegrated
(Engle and Granger, 1987). The test statistic is used as follows;
t k t k t t t
X X X X
...
2 2 1 1
(ii)
Where X
t
is the vector of non-stationary I (1) variables;
1
,
2
, ..
k
are the parameters;
t
is the vector of random errors which is distributed with zero mean and variance matrix.
The model can be further rewrites as:
t i t
p
i
i t t
X X X
1
1
1
(iii)
Where
i i
p
i
i
I
1
.. (iv)
and
j
p
j
i i
1
.,. (v)
The Granger representation theorem asserts that if the coefficient matrix has reduced
rank r < x, there exists x X r matrix and each with rank r such that =
and
X
t
is stationary. R is the number of cointegrating relations (the cointegration rank) and each
column of is the cointegrating vector. The elements of are known as the adjustment
parameters in the vector error correction model. Johansens method is to estimate
matrix is an unrestricted form, the test whether we can reject the restrictions implied by
the reduced rank of .
We use Granger Causality Test to analyze the causality between variables for each
model. If both variables are integrated of order one, 1(1), and there is cointegration
between them. Granger causality test is a technique for determining whether one time
series is useful in forecasting other one.
4. Results and Discussion
Before conducting tests for cointegration and causality, the stationarity properties of the
variables have been checked by using Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) unit root test. To
determine the order of integration of time series, unit root test has been applied on level
as well as first difference. The table-1 shows the results of ADF unit root test.
Stationarity of all variables has been tested with intercept and trend. Results indicate the
acceptance of the unit root hypothesis in the level, then time series become stationary in
first difference, in other words all the variables are integrated of order one, I(1).
Khan et al
88
Table 1: Results of ADF Unit Root Test
Variables
Level First Difference
t-statics critical value at 1% t-statics critical value at 1%
Exchange Rate -1.653 -4.416 -5.611 -4.416
Trade -4.953 -4.309 -5.262 -4.356
Inflation -3.393 -4.394 -6.186 -4.323
FDI -4.372 -4.440 -4.080 -3.644
GDP -3.750 -4.309 -3.583 -3.261
4.1 Exchange Rate and Inflation
In the literature, there are various trends associated with the use of fixed exchange rate to
reduce inflation. These trends include an appreciation of the real exchange rate, strong
growth of output and aggregate demand and a widening of trade and current account
deficit. Two broad approaches exist to explain these developments. One approach focuses
on explaining the stylized facts of exchange rate based stabilization, in an equilibrium
framework, assuming that prices clear the goods market at each moment in time (see
Rebelo and Vegh, 1995 for overview of equilibrium theories). In this equilibrium
approach the disinflation associated with exchange rate based stabilization is shown to
raise aggregate demand, thereby boosting output, raising prices of non-tradable goods
appreciating the real exchange rate and widening the trade deficit. The second broad
approach towards understanding the effects of exchange rate based stabilization stresses
the persistence of inflation in a framework in which goods and/or labor markets
temporarily may be out of equilibrium. It might be termed as intertial inflation
approach, immediately following the implementation of a fixed exchange rate regime,
inflation is posited to be slow to decline to international levels as a result of over-lapping
contracts, imperfect credibility, or backward-looking expectations (Dornbusch and
Werner, 1994). The presence of intertial inflation explains both the real appreciation of
the exchange rate and determination of trade performance observed during exchange rate
based stabilization program.
The theoretical model relating the Exchange Rate Pass Through (ERPT) to a lower
inflation environment is provided by Tylor (2000). This is explained through a model of
firm behavior based on staggered price setting and monopolistic competition. As firms
set prices for several periods in advance, they are more responsive to cost increase due to
exchange rate movement if cost changes are perceived to be persistent. The regimes with
higher inflation tend to lead to persistent cost changes. Taylor argued that a high inflation
environment would thus tend to increase ERPT. In other words, ERPT would be
endogeneous to a countrys inflation performance. Devereux and Yetman (2010)
developed a related argument. In their model with sticky prices, they allowed for the
frequency price changes to be chosen by firm. For a given menu cost of changing prices,
their model shows that firm will choose a higher frequency of price adjustment, the
higher is the average rate of inflation and the volatility of the nominal exchange rate. The
higher in the frequency of price changes, the greater is ERPT. Campa and Goldberg
(2005) argued that an important implication of Taylors argument is that there is a
Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan
89
virtuous circle where low inflation leads to reduce ERPT which makes it easier to keep
inflation low, thereby keeping ERPT low. Choudhri and Hakura (2006) found strong
evidence of a positive correlation between ERPT and the average inflation for a large
sample of developed and emerging market economies.
For Pakistan, there are empirical evidences of increase in exchange rate to boost inflation
(see Ahmed and Ali, 1999). We will check cointegration between exchange rate and
inflation which explores the long-run equilibrium relationship between them. Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC) is used to determine the optimal lag length selection.
Table 2: Results for Lag Length Selection
Lag Length AIC
0 14.594
1 10.484
2 10.452
3 10.403*
4 10.584
AIC denotes Akaike Information Criterion
* indicates optimal lag length selected by AIC
The AIC has been again used to determine the most appropriate model specification for
Johansen cointegration test.
Table 3: Optimal Model Specification Selected by the AIC
Number of cointegration
equations
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
0 10.914 10.914 10.790 10.790 10.785
1 10.786 10.787 10.689 10.651* 10.652
2 10.989 10.892 10.892 10.747 10.747
*indicates optimal model specification selected by the AIC
Results of the cointegration test are reported in tables-3. Both the Trace Eigenvalue test
and Maximum Eigenvalue test indicate no-cointegratin, which shows that there is no
long-run relationship between exchange rate and inflation.
Table4: Johansen Cointegration Test (Trace Eigen value Statistics)
Number of cointegrating equations Eigenvalue Trace statics 5% critical value
None* .407 21.127 25.872
At most 1 .251 7.515 12.517
Table 5: Results of Johansen Cointegration Test (Maximum Eigen value Statistics)
Number of cointegrating equations Eigenvalue Max statics 5% critical value
None* .407 13.612 19.387
At most 1 .251 7.515 12.517
We have calculated the Wald test statics for causality between exchange rate and
inflation (see table-6). The Wald static shows no causality in either direction. The
evidence of long-run cointegration does not exist between exchange rate and inflation.
Khan et al
90
Table 6: Causality Results Based on Wald Test Statistics
Hypothesis Wald test-statics Prob
Exchange Rate does not cause Inflation 3.80 0.149
Inflation does not cause Exchange rate 2.89 0.235
4.2 Exchange rate and Trade
Theoretically there exists a correlation between exchange rate and international trade. A
depreciation in currency makes the exports cheaper and imports costly. In this way the
effect of depreciation on international trade may be positive or negative. If the exports are
more price sensitive to the imports and the country is having surplus items of exports
then total volume of the trade will be increased. On the other hand if imports are more
price sensitive as compared to the exports and the country is having deficit balance of
payments then there may be possibility of decreased trade volume of the country. Ahmed,
et. al. (2006) supported the conventional positive responsiveness of net exports due to
real exchange rate depreciation but largely driven by falling imports rather than rising
exports.
Similarly the volume of trade along with its composition, i.e. volume of imports and
exports also affects the exchange rate. For a country having higher bulk of the trade, if
the ratio of exports to imports is higher, then there may be a possibility of decrease in
exchange rate. Although Ahmed et al. (2006) empirically evidenced that terms of trade
shocks have very little effect on Pakistans real exchange rate.
For empirical investigation we have checked the cointegration between exchange rate and
trade to explore the long-run equilibrium relationship between exchange rate and trade.
The results of Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to determine the optimal lag length
selection has been shown in table-7.
Table 7: Results of Lag Length Selection
Lag Length AIC
0 15.301
1 11.000*
2 11.235
3 11.461
AIC denotes Akaike Information Criterion
* indicates optimal lag length selected by AIC
The AIC has been used to determine the most appropriate model specification for
Johansen cointegration test. The results are shown in table-8.
Table 8: Optimal Model Specification Selected by the AIC
Number of cointegration
equations
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
0 11.659 11.659 11.512 11.512 11.592
1 11.473 11.329 11.144 11.090* 11.100
2 11.602 11.402 11.402 11.263 11.263
*indicates optimal model specification selected by the AIC
Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan
91
Results of the Johansen cointegration test are reported in tables-9 and 10. Both the Trace
Eigenvalue test and Maximum Eigenvalue test indicate cointegration expressing long-run
relationship between exchange rate and trade.
Table 9: Results of Johansen Cointegration Test (Trace Eigenvalue Statistics)
Number of cointegrating equations Eigenvalue Trace statics 5% critical value
None* .540 26.958 25.872
At most 1 .168 5.155 12.517
*indicates significance at 5% level
Table 10: Results of Johansen Cointegration Test (Maximum Eigenvalue Statistics)
Number of cointegrating equations Eigenvalue Max statics 5% critical value
None* .540 21.802 19.387
At most 1 .168 5.155 12.517
*indicates significance at 5% level
The Wald-static for exchange rate and trade are shown in table-11, which shows no
causality in either direction. The evidence of long-run cointegration between exchange
rate and trade is existed. The results may be explained as the imports of the country are
inelastic to prices so an increased exchange rate has no effect on the imports. On the
other hand, for exports we have no surplus of exports mainly due to compressed
agricultural production. So exports remained unaffected to change in exchange rate.
Furthermore, in the global market demand for agricultural products is inelastic to price.
Table 11: Causality Results Based on Wald Test Statics (Model 2)
Hypothesis Wald test-statics Prob
Exchange Rate does not cause Trade 1.878 0.391
Trade does not cause Exchange rate 1.089 0.580
Theoretical studies on the nexus of FDI and exchange rate explained that a devaluation of
the host country (of FDI) currency against that of a source country enhance inflows of
FDI through both the production cost and relative wealth channels. Exchange rate not
only influence FDI flows between source and host countries, but also the distribution of
FDI among host countries competing for FDI from the same source country. Given other
factors determining FDI, such as market size, growth, labor skill, political and economic
stability and the regulatory framework constant, if a host country devaluates its currency
against that of the FDI source country by more than its rival countries, the devaluation
will reduce its local production cost in terms of foreign currency more, thus making it
more attractive for foreign investment. In other words, from the point of view of foreign
investors, the wealth and production cost effects associated with devaluation should be
greater in the country which devalues its currency more, therefore strengthening its
competitiveness for FDI and leading to a higher level of FDI inflows.
In our study for the third model of exchange rate and FDI, the results of Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC) to determine the optimal lag length selection are shown in
table-12.
Khan et al
92
Table 12: Results for Lag Length Selection
Lag Length AIC
0 11.296
1 6.667
2 6.002*
3 6.198
AIC denotes Akaike Information Criterion
* indicates optimal lag length selected by AIC
The AIC results to determine the most appropriate model specification for Johansen
cointegration test are shown in table-13.
Table 13: Optimal Model Specification Selected by the AIC
Number of cointegration
equations
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
0 6.622 6.622 6.455 6.455 6.528
1 6.415 6.471 6.231* 6.305 6.306
2 6.491 6.494 6.494 6.420 6.420
*indicates optimal model specification selected by the AIC
Results of the cointegration test are reported in the tables-14 and 15. Both the Trace
Eigenvalue test and Maximum Eigenvalue test indicate one cointegrating equation, which
shows that there exists long-run relationship between exchange rate and FDI.
Table 14: Johansen Cointegration Test (Trace Eigenvalue Statistics)
Number of cointegrating equations Eigenvalue Trace statics 10% critical value
None* .405 14.928 13.428
At most 1 .032 .887 2.705
*indicates significance at 10% level
Table 15: Johansen Cointegration Test (Maximum Eigenvalue Statistics)
Number of cointegrating equations Eigenvalue Max statics 10% critical value
None* .405 14.040 12.296
At most 1 .032 .887 2.705
*indicates significance at 10% level
The results of Wald test statics for causality between exchange rate and FDI are shown in
table-16. The Wald-static shows the causality in both directions.
Table 16: Causality Results Based on Wald test statics
Hypothesis Wald test-statics Prob
Exchange Rate does not cause FDI 5.750 .056
FDI does not cause Exchange rate 22.067 .0000
The bi-directional positive relationship between FDI and exchange rate
1
may be
explained as an increase in exchange rate enhances the value of foreign currency making
the decrease in cost of production in host currency. It attracts the foreign investment. On
11
Bayoumi and Lipworth (1998) emphasized that for Southeast Asian economies the
bilateral real exchange rate was one of the FDI determinants for these countries.
Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan
93
the other hand, the increase in FDI results into increased exports as in Pakistan, foreign
direct investment is mainly concerned with export industry. The phenomenon contributes
to variability in exchange rate.
4.3 Exchange Rate and GDP
For the model of long-run equilibrium relationship between exchange rate and GDP, the
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) results to determine the optimal lag length selection
are shown in table-17.
Table 17: Results of Lag Length Selection
Lag Length AIC
0 13.125
1 9.260*
2 9.353
3 9.520
AIC denotes Akaike Information Criterion
* indicates optimal lag length selected by AIC
The AIC is again used to determine the most appropriate model specification for
Johansen cointegration test.
Table 18: Optimal Model Specification Selected by the AIC
Number of cointegration
equations
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
0 9.769 9.769 9.621 9.621 9.675
1 9.732 9.513 9.349 9.343 9.332*
2 9.888 9.602 9.602 9.508 9.508
*indicates optimal model specification selected by the AIC
Results of the cointegration test are reported in tables-19 and 20. Both the Trace
Eigenvalue test and Maximum Eigenvalue test indicate one cointegrating equation, which
shows that there is long-run relationship between exchange rate and GDP.
Table 19: Johansen Cointegration Test (Trace Eigenvalue Statistics)
Number of cointegrating
equations
Eigenvalue Trace
statics
5% critical
value
10% critical
value
None* .466 20.692 18.397 16.106
At most 1 .104 3.091 3.841 2.705
*indicates significance at 5% and 10% level
Table 20: Johansen Cointegration Test (Maximum Eigenvalue Statistics)
Number of cointegrating
equations
Eigenvalue Max
statics
5% critical
value
10% critical
value
None* .466 17.600 17.147 15.001
At most 1 .104 3.091 3.841 2.705
*indicates significance at 5% and 10% level
The Wald-static shows no causality in either direction (see table-21). There is evidence of
long-run cointegration between exchange rate and GDP.
Khan et al
94
Theoretically there exists a positive correlation between high exchange rate and
economic growth of a country. The depreciation stimulates economic growth, if the
imports are price elastic and comprised of consumer items or the exports are price elastic.
It may be particular case for developing economies.
On the other hand, due to economic development there would be efficient use of
resources, adaptation of technology and refined human capital resulting into better quality
output in a bigger volume for exports. Consequently prices of exports are decreased and
the relative prices of imports are increased. In the case of Pakistan, the scenario is
different. The major imports are comprised of raw material like machinery, petroleum, oil
and lubricants and chemicals. On the other hand major exports are consisted of
agricultural products. It explains the results of current study, i.e. no causality between the
exchange rate and GDP.
Table 21: Causality Results Based on Wald test statics
Hypothesis Wald test-statics Prob
Exchange Rate does not cause GDP 2.857 0.239
GDP does not cause Exchange rate 2.502 .286
5. Conclusion
We analyzed the effectiveness of exchange rate on inflation, trade, GDP and FDI for
Pakistan. The major findings of the study are as follows:
Exchange rate and inflation are not cointegrated with each other. So there is no
causality in either direction.
Exchange rate and trade are cointegrated with each other, so there is long-run
equilibrium relationship between exchange rate and trade, but no causality found in either
direction.
Exchange rate and FDI are cointegrated with each other, so there is long-run
equilibrium relationship between exchange rate and FDI and causality found in both
directions.
Exchange rate and GDP are also cointegrated with each other but there is no causality
in either direction.
It may be concluded that exchange rate policy is not effective to have the desired results
for macroeconomic variables. Only foreign direct investment is the area for which
exchange rate may contribute.
Effectiveness of Exchange Rate in Pakistan
95
REFERENCES
Aftab, Z. and Aurangzeb (2002). The Long-Run and Short-Run Impact of Exchange Rate
Devaluation on Pakistans Trade Performance. The Pakistan Development Review, 41(3),
277-286.
Ahmad, E. and Ali, A.S. (1999). Exchange Rate and Inflation Dynamics. The Pakistan
Development Review, 38(3), 235-251.
Ahmed, S., Ara, I. and Hyder. K. (2006). How External Shocks and Exchange Rate
Depreciation Affects Pakistans Implication for Choice of an Exchange Rate Regime.
SBP Research Bulletin, 1(2), 61-88.
Alam, S. and Ahmed, Q.M. (2010). Exchange Rate Volatility and Pakistans Import
Demand: An Application of Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model. International
Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Issue 48, 7-22.
Azid, T., Jamil, M. and Kausar, A. (2005). Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility on
Growth and Economic Performance: A Case Study of Pakistan (1973-2003). Pakistan
Development Review, 44, 479-775.
Bayoumi, T. and Lipworth, G. (1998). Japanese Foreign Direct Investment and Regional
Trade. Journal of Asian Economics, 9(4), 581-607.
Bhatti, R.H. (2001). Determining Pak Rupee Exchange Rate vis--vis Six Currencies of
the Industrial World: Some Evidence Based on National Flow Model. Pakistan
Development Review, 40, 885-897.
Branson, W.H. and Buiter, W.H. (1983). Monetary and Fiscal Policy with Flexible
Exchange Rate, In J. S. Bhandri and B. H. Putnam (eds.) Economic Independence and
Flexible Exchange Rate. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Caballew, R. and Corbo, V. (1988) Real Exchange Rate Uncertainty and Exports: Multi-
country Empirical Evidence. [Discussion Paper] No.12/1988. Department of Economics,
Columbia University.
Campa, J. and Goldberg, L. (2005). Exchange Rate Pass-through into Imports Prices. The
Review of Economic and Statistics, 87, 679-690.
Choudhri, E. and Hakura, D. (2006). Exchange Rate Pass-through to Domestic Prices:
Does the Inflationary Environment Matter? Journal of International Money and Finance,
25, 614-639.
Devereux, M.B. and Yetman, J. (2010). Price Adjustment and Exchange Rate Pass-
through. Journal of International Money and Finance. 29(1), 181-200.
Dickey, D.A. and Fuller, W.A. (1981). The likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive
Time Series with a Unit Root. Econometrica, 49, 1057-1072.
Dickey, D.A., Jansen, D.W. and Fuller, W.A. (1991). A Primer on Cointegration with an
Application to Money and Income. Review Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 73, 58-78.
Dornbusch, R. and Werner, A. (1994). Mexico: Stablization, Reforms, and No-Growth.
[Brookings Papers on Economic Activity], 1:253-315.
Engle, R.F. and Granger, C.W.J. (1987). Cointegration and Error Correction:
Representation, Estimation and Testing. Econometrica, 55, 251-276.
Khan et al
96
Goldberg, L.S. and Klein, M.W. (1997). Foreign Direct Investment, Trade and Real
Exchange Rate, Linkage in Developing Countries. NBER [Working Paper] No.6344.
Javed, Z.H. and Farooq, M. (2009) Economic Growth and Exchange Rate Volatility in
Case of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, 7(2): 112-118.
Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in
Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models. Econometrica, 59, 1551-1580.
Johansen, S. (1995). Likelihood-based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive
Models. Oxford University Press, New York.
Mundell, R. (1963). Capital Mobility and Stablization Under Fixed and Flexible
Exchange Rate. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 29, 475-485.
Mustafa, K. and Nishat, M. (2004). Volatility of Exchange Rate and Export Growth in
Pakistan: Structure and Interdependence in Regional Markets. Pakistan Development
Review, 43,813-828.
Rebelo, S. and Vegh, C.A. (1995). Real Effects of Exchange Rate Based Stablization: An
Analysis of Competing Theories. NBER Macro Annual. National Bureau of Economic
Research (NBER). Cambridge, M.A.
Stock, J. and Watson, M. (1988). Testing for Common Trends. Journal of American
Statistical Association. 83, 1097-1107.
Taylor, J. (2000). Low Inflation, Pass-through and the Perceiving Power of Firm.
European Economic Review, 44, 1389-1408.
Xing, Y. (2006a). Why is China so Attractive for FDI: The Role of Exchange Rate.
China Economic Review, 17(2), 198-209.
Xing, Y. (2006b). Exchange Rate Policy and the Relative Distribution of FDI among
Host Countries. BOFIT [Discussion Paper] No.15/2006. Bank of Finland (BOFIT).
Xing, Y. and Wan, G. (2006). Exchange Rate and Competition for FDI in Asia. The
World Economy, 29(4), 419-434.