Currency Area SCHE EE
-
Upload
cesar-r-sobrino -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of Currency Area SCHE EE
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
1/25
Currency area and short-run persistence:Puerto Rico is not converging to the US
Csar R. SobrinoSchool of Business & Entrepreneurship
Universidad del TuraboP.O. Box 3030
Gurabo, PR [email protected]
Phone: 001-787-743-7979, ext. (9) 4682Fax: 001-787-704-2732
Ellis HeathHarley Langdale, Jr. College of Business Administration
Valdosta State UniversityValdosta, GA [email protected]
Abstract
Long-run economic convergence in optimum currency areas requires free factormobility, fiscal transfers across regions, openness, and high correlation of shocks.In this paper we examine long-term convergence between the United States ofAmerica and Puerto Rico. We focus on per capita outputs, per capita incomes,outputs and incomes and we use unit root tests and cointegration tests to analyze
these series. From these tests we do not find support for the hypothesis ofconvergence. In other words, while optimum currency literature would suggestthat incomes and outputs for Puerto Rico and the United States should convergein the long run, our results indicate that they do not. In addition, when weaddress short-run persistence in gaps between respective time series, the dataexhibits a common pattern: a systematic widening--Puerto Rico lagging behind--at small, but statistically-significant, rates. All evidence from our study rejects thehypothesis that currency areas provide long-term convergence.
Keywords: Time-series models, Long-term capital movements, International monetary
arrangements, and Institutions, Measurement of Economic Growth; AggregateProductivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
JEL classification: C32, F21, F33, O47
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
2/25
1
1. Introduction
According to Mundell (1961) and Frankel and Rose (1998), the requisites for optimum
currency areas (OCA) are: free factor mobility, fiscal federalism, trade and financial
openness, and high correlation of shocks among member countries. Related literature
suggests that those conditions should assure long-term convergence. The US and its
territories fulfill those conditions. Lefort (1997) finds diversion between the per capita
incomes of the US and PR. Furthermore, the economic stagnation, which started in 2005,
raises the issue of per capita output divergence.1 This fact begs the question of whether
fiscal federalism and economic monetary areas lead to convergence. Recent wisdom
suggests that fiscal federalism is necessary to guarantee long-term convergence in the
Eurozone.2
In this study we examine long-term convergence between the US and PR, but
unlike in Lefort (1997), we use time-series analysis. From this analysis, we detect a long-
term common pattern across series. According to Bernard and Durlauf (1995, 1996), for
convergence (time-series convergence or -convergence) to exist deviations, or gaps,
between respective time series for the US and PR must not contain unit roots and time
series in levels should be cointegrated. Unlike Lefort (1997), we use unit root and
cointegration tests on per capita outputs, per capita incomes, outputs and incomes.
Furthermore, the Dickey-Fuller (DF) and cointegration tests are used to detect a
common long-term pattern. In addition, according to Quah (1992) and Yau and Hueng
1This can be seen in Figure 1, where, over recent years, the persistent decline of the GNP-GDP ratio hasstopped.2 See Bordo et al (2011).
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
3/25
2
(2000), dissimilarities in income persistence prevent convergence from occurring. With
this in mind and consistent with CEPAL (2004) on divergent/convergent phases
between the US and PR, we address persistence.
Based on unit root tests on gaps between respective time series the hypothesis of
convergence of outputs and income between the US and PR cannot be accepted.
Likewise, cointegration tests do not support the convergence hypothesis either. The
previous tests and DF test do not show a common pattern across time series. Only
when short-run persistence is addressed does a common pattern arise in the data. This
pattern indicates that there is a systematic widening of the gap with the PR lagging
behind the US at small, but statistically significant, rates. Specifically, the speed at
which the gaps between US and PR per capita outputs and per capita incomes widen
are 0.03% and 0.055% per year, respectively. All evidence rejects the hypothesis that
currency areas lead to long-term convergence.
Section 2 of this paper briefly gives an account of the Puerto Rican relationship
with the US Commonwealth and of the related literature concerning convergence.
Section 3 presents the data, as well as the outcomes from long-term convergence tests.
Section 4 examines the data when for short-run persistence is accounted for. In Section 4
we also conduct sensitivity analysis with PR and specific states from the US such as
New York, Florida and Mississippi. Section 5 concludes.
2. Puerto Rican Economic Model and Literature on Convergence
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
4/25
3
Puerto Rico basically operates like one of the 50 states from the US. It shares a common
currency (the US dollar) with the US; it shares a free-trade zone with the US; and they
both share a common customs union. Furthermore, Puerto Ricans are US citizens. They
can get jobs in the US without restrictions. Moreover, PR can ask the US for federal
funds. However, there are some differences that should be noted. PR is under the
jurisdiction of the courts of Massachusetts and the New York Federal Reserve District.
Puerto Ricans do not vote in the US national elections nor do they pay federal income
taxes.
In Dietz (2001), an analysis and a description of the Puerto Rican economic
model is given. For almost fifty years, Puerto Rico encouraged industrial development
by inviting US firms using IRS Section 936 (S936). S936 included tax exemptions for US
corporations in the US territories. In the 1950s and 1960s, this policy was successful in
bringing highly labor-intensive industries to Puerto Rico. Nevertheless, after changes in
the tax policy in the 1970s, highly capital-intensive US firms moved to the island.
Twenty years later, the resulting low impact on employment3, lack of economic linkages
with other domestic sectors and low tax revenues prompted Puerto Ricans to ask for an
end to S936.4
The convergence hypothesis states that countries with similar structural
parameters should converge in living standards to the same steady state levels and
growth rates, provided, according to Solow (1956), that the economies exhibit
diminishing returns to capital. Here, economic integration should improve the
3 The unemployment rate has been permanently above 10% (Bureau of Labor Statistics).4 Unrestricted emigration to the US and US federal transfers are two safety valves for the island.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
5/25
4
allocation of resources and hence achieve convergence. However, the Puerto Rican
economic growth process seems to imply an endogenous technological change where
policy measures have an important impact on the long-run growth rate of an economy.
According to Romer (1986), investment in human capital, innovation and knowledge
leads to convergence. In the economic literature on currency areas and trading zones,
countries should convergent in the long run.5 Hence, Puerto Rico should converge
towards the US in the long run.
There are three principal approaches for examining the convergence hypothesis:
cross-section analysis, panel data and time series. 6 Convergence in approaches that use
either cross-section or panel analysis is referred to as -convergence or -convergence.7
In the former, the type of convergence that is measured is that which occurs when a
poorer economy experiences faster growth than a richer one, because the poorer one is
catching up to the richer one. Specifically, in -convergence studies the sign of the
partial correlation between actual per capita real income growth and its initial level is
important. A negative sign indicates convergence of this type. In the latter, the
convergence being investigated is the type that occurs when the dispersion of the per
capita real income decreases over time. Important cross-section analysis studies include
Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1991, 1992), Ben-David (1993, 1996), Sachs and Warner (1995),
Sala-i-Martin (1996), and Lefort (1997) and Kim (1998). Lefort (1997)extends Barro and
Sala-i-Martin (1991) by including Puerto Rico and does not find support for long-term
5 See Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1991, 1992), Ben-David (1993, 1996), Sachs and Warner (1995), Sala-i-Martin(1996), and Kim (1998).6 Islam (2003) summarizes in detail all techniques used in this approach.7 See Islam (2003) and Young et al (2008).
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
6/25
5
convergence. Choi (2004) conducts a panel data study on the US states and finds little
evidence of convergence within this area. According to Bernard and Durlauf(1995,
1996), a stronger form of convergence is time-series convergence ( convergence). This
type of convergence is measured using time-series analysis. An important distinction
associated with -convergence is that it measures whether complete convergence will
occur, not simply whether divergence will be reduced. In the time-series study done by
Bernard and Durlauf (1995) convergence is rejected as well.
3. Data and Long-term Convergence Tests
For the period 1947-2009, the Federal Reserve of St. Louis and the Puerto Rico Planning
Board provide annual data on real GDP, real GNP and the population for the US and
PR.8 Dividing outputs and incomes over populations, we get the per capita income and
output series. Next, we take the natural logarithm of the per capita real GDP, the per
capita real GNP, the real GDP and the real GNP series. These series are shown in
Figures 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d. In addition, as shown in Table 1, the augmented Dickey-
Fuller and Phillip-Perron tests indicate that all series are I(1).
To accept the long-term convergence hypothesis, according to Bernard and
Durlauf (1995, 1996), differences between per capita outputs, per capita incomes,
incomes, and outputs must not contain unit roots or time trends and times series should
be cointegrated in levels and the cointegrating vector should be (1,-1).9 Table 1 shows
8 NOTE: The 2002 real GDP is calculated from July 2001 to June 2002.9 Even though, Islam (2003) notes that, for all a 1, (1,-a) indicates conditional convergence.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
7/25
6
that a unit root is present in the gaps between the series; hence, we cannot accept the
hypothesis of long-term convergence.
To run a cointegration test, we set up a reduced VAR(p) with n series I(1) which
is converted into the following VECM:
+ !!
!!!!!
!!!
!!!!! = + !!! + ! (1)
where ! is the vector of the time series data; is a vector of deterministic variables; is
the matrix of coefficients of ; = !!
!!!;Ai is the matrix of the VAR
coefficients for all i=1,2,...,p; L is the lag operator; is the first-difference operator; is
the matrix of disturbance terms (~ 0, ); and, is the variance-covariance matrix.
According to Johansen (1991), if the rank of is r( (0, n)), there are rlinear
combinations of !, that are I(0).Then, = !, where and are the (n*r) matrices of
adjustment coefficients and co-integrating vectors, respectively.
In Table 2 the results from the Johansen test are given. When drift is added to
equation (1), at the 5% level of significance, only the per capita real GNP series shows a
common trend. However, the cointegrating vector is not (1, -1). In addition, when a
restricted trend is added to equation (1), at the 5% level of significance, both the per
capita real GNP series and real GDP series are cointegrated. However, the restricted
trend assumption means that those series are not converging. All results reject the
convergence hypothesis.
Now, we run the DF test to examine the behavior across gaps. Equation (2) is the
simple representation of the Dickey-Fuller test:
! = + + !!! + ! (2)
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
8/25
7
where !~(0,!!), Tis the time trend, and ! are the subtractions times 100, reported in
Table 1, and is the first-differences operator. The interpretation of the parameters is as
follows: when = 0 and = 0, there is divergence; when < 0 and = 0, there is
convergence; when < 0 and < 0, there is catching up; when < 0 and > 0, there is
lagging-behind; when = 0 and < 0, there is loose catching-up; and when = 0 and
> 0, there is loose lagging-behind.10
Table 3 reports all outcomes of this test. Panel (A) indicates that divergence is
present in per capita outputs. Panel (B) shows that lagging-behind is present in per
capita incomes. Panel (C) indicates that divergence is present in outputs. And, Panel
(D), shows that lagging-behind is present in incomes. Neither cointegration nor DF tests
indicates a common pattern across series.
4. Convergence hypothesis and short-run persistence
None of the test presented addresses short-run persistence given that dissimilarities in
persistence are an important source of non-convergence. According to Quah(1992), and
Yau and Hueng (2000), persistence is a source of income disparities. Also, Stengos and
Yangaz (2011) found evidence of persistence for output gaps in Europe, which leads to
divergence. In CEPAL (2004) it is noted that there are differences in persistence for PR
and the US. We account for short-run persistence using equation (2). From
! !!! = + + !!! + !
we solve for ! and get
10Literature concerning the use of the DF test in this manner can be found in Carlino and Mills (1993),
Oxley and Greasley (1995); Li and Papell (1999); Lee, Lim, and Azali (2005); and, Gmez-Zaldvar, andVentosa-Santaulria (2010).
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
9/25
8
! = + + !!! + ! (3)
where = 1+ and equation (3) is a nesting model for both trend stationary and
differences stationary models. Here, if < 1, is the persistence coefficient and
equation (3) is a stationary AR(1) with a deterministic trend.11 Interpreting the Dickey-
Fuller test, when = 1 and = 0, there is divergence; when < 1 and = 0, there isconvergence; when < 1 and < 0, there is catching-up; when < 1 and > 0, there
is lagging-behind; when = 1 and < 0, there is loose catching-up; and when = 1
and > 0, there is loose lagging-behind.
Setting = 1 , equation 2 becomes a partial adjustment equation enabling
us to weigh the short-run persistence with the long-term time trend. Also, this
restriction assures that if 1 and 0+, then equation (3) is a random walk with
drift.12 Then, using two specifications, we regress equation (2) with = 1 , 0,
0 (S1) and 0, 0, and 0 (S2).
Table 4 shows the results. For all panels, there is strong and significant short-run
persistence, close to 1. In addition, in Panel (A) for the S1 specification, the trend
coefficient is positive and significant at the 1% level of significance. This indicates that
lagging-behind is present at about 0.03% per year. In the S2 specification, the trend
coefficient is positive but not statistically significant. From the LR test in both the
restricted case (S1 specification) and the unrestricted case (S2 specification), we cannot
reject the null that b=(1-).
11 Hamilton (1994) and Heij et al (2004).12According to Andrews (1999), this restriction is needed in order to avoid the possibility of an explosive
series and/or series with negative growth.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
10/25
9
Likewise, in Panel (B) under the S1 specification, the trend coefficient is positive
and significant at the 1% level of significance. This indicates that lagging-behind is
present at around 0.055% per year. Under the S2 specification, the trend coefficient
indicates lagging-behind at about 0.054% per year and it is significant at the 1% level of
significance. Again, from the LR test, we cannot reject the null that b=(1-), as well.In addition, in Panel (C) under the S1 specification, the trend coefficient is
positive and significant at the 1% level of significance indicating that lagging-behind is
present at around 0.029% per year. In the S2 specification, the trend coefficient is
positive but not statistically significant. From the LR test, we cannot reject the null that
b=(1-).In Panel (D), under the S1 specification, the trend coefficient is positive and
significant at the 1% level of significance. This indicates that lagging-behind is present
at around 0.057% per year. Under the S2 specification, the trend coefficient indicates
lagging-behind at around 0.065% per year and it is significant at the 1% level of
significance. From the LR test, we still cannot reject the null that b=(1-).When short-run persistence is addressed for gaps between respective time series,
a common pattern emerges in the data. This pattern indicates a lagging-behind outcome
where PR lags behind the US at small, but statistically significant, rates. For all cases,
short-run persistence is so strong that all gaps tend toward random walks. This can be
seen by looking at the S1 specification in all panels where 1, 0+ and 0.
The values of those parameters indicate that there is a tendency towards long-term
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
11/25
10
divergence between both economies. All evidence rejects the hypothesis that the
currency areas lead to long-term convergence.
Finally, strong significant short-run persistence is consistent with the outcomes
from CEPAL (2004). Puerto Rican policy actions led to dissimilarities in persistence
across countries. As noted by Quah (1992), Yau and Wen (2000) and Stengos and
Yangaz (2011), short-run persistence may prevent long-term convergence from
happening. A source of policy actions leading to short-run persistence might be
political status (i.e., no statehood), which impeded the full management of tax
exemptions like S936. According to Lefort (1997), political status is the main cause of no
convergence between the US and PR.
4.1. Sensitivity Analysis
It is possible that while PR and the US do not converge in the long run, PR could
converge with particular states in the US. To further examine this we ran the same
analysis as before but instead of using the US, we used New York (NY) and Florida
(FL), because PR is under the NY Fed jurisdiction and FL is the closest state to the
island. We also included Mississippi (MS), which is the lowest performing state in the
US. In Tables 5 and 6, the results are given.
In Table 4 we use the Coincident Economic Index (CEI). This index is mainly a
business cycle gauge, but since it includes employment data it allows us to look at the
trend in the economy. Of course, employment tends to grow more slowly than real
GDP. In Table 5 we compare real per capita personal incomes.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
12/25
11
In Panel (A) of Table 5, we compare PR with the US again, but using the CEI. We
do this as baseline result and to show how the overall results from our previous results
are not sensitive to using the CEI instead of real GDP. Under the S1 specification, the
trend coefficient is positive and significant at the 1% level of significance. The indication
is that lagging-behind is present as before. Using the S2 specification, the trend
coefficient is positive but not statistically significant.
In Panel (B) of Table 5, we compare MS with PR. Under both specifications, the
trend coefficient is not statistically significant. For Panel (C), we compare PR with NY.
Here, the same is true. For Panel (D), under the S1 specification, the gap between FL
and PR is a random walk. Again for all specifications, there is strong and statistically
significant short-run persistence. Specifically, the gaps are near random walks.13
In Table 6, we use the real per capita personal income of both countries. In Panel
(A), we compare PR with NY. Under the S1 specification, lagging-behind is present. In
Panel (B) of Table 6, looking at MS and PR, for the S1 specification, the gap is a random
walk, which indicates divergence. Finally, in Panel (C) of Table 6, the results for FL and
PR are shown. Under the S1 specification, lagging-behind is present. For all panels,
strong short-run persistence is displayed.
Again, as in the previous results we find no evidence of long-run convergence,
and some evidence of strong short-run persistence. This is true even when we compare
PR to individual states.
13 It is important to note that if autocorrelation is present, then should decrease when more lagged
variables are included in equation 3. West (1988) labels series with a root near, but less than, unity "nearrandom" walks.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
13/25
12
5. Conclusions
In this study we examine long-term convergence between the US and Puerto Rico, and
through this analysis, we detect a long-term common pattern across series. To test the
hypothesis convergence ( -convergence), we use unit root and cointegration tests on
output, income, output per capita and income per capita. The findings indicate that
gaps in all series show unit roots indicating that long-run convergence is not taking
place. Those outcomes are corroborated using cointegration tests. Moreover, the
economies only share common trends in per capita real GNP and real GDP. The
Dickey-Fuller tests do not display a common pattern, either. The lack of a common
pattern between the US and PR is addressed by accounting for short-run persistence in
gaps of all series. When short-run persistence is addressed for gaps in all of the time
series, a common pattern arises in the data. This pattern indicates that PR is lagging
behind the USat small, but statistically significant, rates. Standard of living and
productivity are lagging behind. Overall, short-run persistence is so strong that it might
lead to divergence between both economies. Like Leforts outcomes, all evidence rejects
the hypothesis that the currency areas lead to long-term convergence.
PR policy actions led to dissimilarities in persistence between itself and the US
causing a low correlation in short-run persistence shocks, which violates one of the
conditions of OCA. A source of policy actions leading to short-run persistence might be
political status; an example of political status for PR would be its "no statehood" status.
This would have impeded the full management of tax exemptions like S936. Puerto
Rican policy was successful at times, but long-term convergence was never obtained.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
14/25
13
The long-term process involves FDI firms creating economic growth without spillover
effects into the economy and a low impact on employment. This formed a persistent
divergence between output and income in spite of Puerto Rico being a recipient of US
federal funds. The changes in tax policy in the 1990s encouraged the shutdowns of
many US firms without any strong increase in private domestic investment, negatively
affecting output, job creation and income, and making the unemployment rate
persistently high.
Finally, the US federal transfers never balanced the FDIs profit outflows;
however, fiscal federalism has prevented social turmoil in PR like those happening in
Greece, Spain, and Portugal. Overall, unemployed and discouraged workers receive
federal funds for a living. The US finances part of the island's consumption.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
15/25
14
References
Andrews, D.W.K. (1999) Estimation when a parameter is on a boundary: Theory andapplications. Econometrica, 67(6),1341-1383.
Barro, R.J. and X. Sala-i-Martin (1991) Convergence across States and Regions. BrookingsPapers on Economic Activity, 22(1), 107-182.
Barro, R.J. and X. Sala-i-Martin (1992) Convergence.Journal of Political Economy, 100(2),223-251.
Ben-David, D. (1993) Equalization Exchange: Trade Liberalization and IncomeConvergence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 653-679.
Ben-David, D. (1996) Trade and Convergence among Countries.Journal of InternationalEconomics, 40(3-4), 279-298.
Bernard, A. B. and S. N. Durlauf (1995) Convergence in International Output.Journal ofApplied Econometrics, 10(2): 97-108.
Bernard, A. B. and S. N. Durlauf (1996) Interpreting Tests of the ConvergenceHypothesis.Journal of Econometrics, 71(1-2), 161-173.
Bordo, M.D., A. Markiewicz, A. and L. Jonung (2011) A Fiscal Union for the Euro: SomeLessons from History. NBER, WP 17380.
Carlino, G. A. and L.O. Mills, (1993) Are U.S. Regional Incomes Converging? A TimeSeries Analysis.Journal of Monetary Economics, 32, 335346.
CEPAL (2004) Convergent/Divergent Economic Trajectories of Puerto Rico and theUnited States. Cepal, No. LC/CAR/L.011.
Choi, C. (2004) A Reexamination of Output Convergence in the U.S. States: TowardWhich Level(s) are they Converging?Journal of Regional Science, 44(4), 713-741.
Dietz, J. L. (2001) Puerto Rico: The Three-legged Economy. Integration and TradeJournal, 5(15), 247273.
Frankel, J. A. and A. K. Rose (1998) The Endogeneity of the Optimum Currency AreaCriteria. Economic Journal, 108(449), 1009-1025.
Gmez-Zaldvar, M. and D. Ventosa-Santaulria (2010) Per Capita OutputConvergence: The Dickey-Fuller Test Under the Simultaneous Presence of Stochastic
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
16/25
15
and Deterministic Trends.Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d'conomie et deStatistique, 99/100, 429-445.
Hamilton, J. (1994) Time Series Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NewJersey.
Heij, C., P. de Boer, P.H. Franses, T. Kloek, and H.K.V. Dijk (2004) Econometric Methodswith Applications in Business and Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Islam, N. (2003) What have We Learnt from the Convergence Debate?Journal ofEconomic Surveys, 17(3), 309-362.
Johansen, S. (1991) Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors inGaussian Vector Autoregressive Models. Econometrica, 59(6), 1551-1580.
Khim, V. and S. Liew, S. (2004) Which Lag Length Selection Criteria Should WeEmploy? Economics Bulletin, 3(33), 1-9.
Kim, S. (1998). Economic Integration and Convergence: U.S. Regions, 1840-1987. TheJournal of Economic History, 58(3), 659-683.
Lee, H. A., K. Lim and M. Azali (2005) Income Disparity between Japan and ASEAN-5Economies: Converge, Catching-up or Diverge? Economics Bulletin, 6, 120.
Lefort, F. (1997) Is Puerto Rico Converging to the United States? Central Bank of ChileWorking PaperNo 009.
Li, Q. and D. Papell (1999) Convergence of International Output Time Series Evidencefor 16 OECD Countries. International Review of Economics and Finance, 8, 267280.
Mundell, R. A. (1961) A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas.American Economic Review,51(4), 657-665.
Oxley, L. and D. Greasley (1995) .A Time-Series Perspective on Convergence: Australia,UK and USA since 1870. Economic Record, 71 (2), 259270.
Quah, D. (1992) International Patterns of Growth: II. Persistence, Path Dependence, and
Sustained Take-Off in Growth Transition. Economics Department, LSE ,Working Paper,October.
Romer, P. M. (1986) Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth.Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
17/25
16
Sala-i-Martin, X. (1996) Regional Cohesion: Evidence and Theories of Regional Growthand Convergence. European Economic Review, 40(6), 1325-1352.
Sachs, J. and A. Warner (1995). Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration.Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 26(1), 1-118.
Solow, R. M. (1956) A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journalof Economics, 70(1), 65-94.
Stengos, T. and M. E. Yazgan (2011) Persistence in Convergence. Working Paper1105, University of Guelph, Department of Economics.
Yau, R. and C. J. Hueng (2000). Sources of Persistence in Cross-Country IncomeDisparities: A Structural Analysis.Journal of Macroeconomics, 22(4), 611-630.
Young, A.T., M. J. Higgins and D. Levy (2008) Sigma Convergence versus BetaConvergence: Evidence from U.S. County-Level Data.Journal of Money, Credit andBanking, 40(5), 1083-1093.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
18/25
17
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows the GNP-GDP ratios for the US and PR.
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
US Puerto Rico
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
19/25
18
Figure 2
Figure 2a Figure 2b
Figure 2c Figure 2d
In Figure 2, all series are in natural logarithm form. The vertical axis on the right-hand side of each graphmeasures the US series and on the left-hand side the PR series are measured. Figure 2a compares the percapita real GDP series for the US and PR; figure 2b does the same with the per capita real GNP series;figure 2c shows the real GDP series; figure 2d exhibits the real GNP series.Shadow bars indicate US recessions.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
20/25
19
TABLE 1: UNIT ROOT TESTS
Levels First differences
ADF PP KPSS ADF PP
(i) US real GDP per capita -1.86 -13.09 -2.16** -31.43**
(ii) PR real GDP per capita -0.32 -1.15 -2.41** -10.90**
(iii) US real GNP per capita -1.59 -11.6 -2.15** -31.29**
(iv) PR real GNP per capita -1.00 -2.21 -1.67* -9.57**
(v) US real GDP -0.89 -5.6 -2.92** -50.87**
(vi) PR real GDP 0.30 0.72 -2.07** -7.19**
(vii) US real GNP -0.70 -4.68 -2.66** -16.26**
(viii) PR real GNP -0.45 -0.68 -2.66* -49.83**
(i) minus (ii) -0.78 -0.33 0.79** -1.81* -50.85**
(iii) minus (iv) 0.05 -0.14 0.37* -2.07** -50.99**
(v) minus (vi) -0.45 -0.11 0.79** -1.46 -53.37**
(vii) minus (viii) 0.07 -0.04 0.47** -2.55** -51.00**
Critical values
zero-mean stationary stationary trend stationary
ADF PP ADF PP ADF PP KPSS
5% -1.93 -8.29 -2.89 -14.51 -3.4 -21.78 0.463
10% -1.6 -5.88 -2.58 -11.65 -3.13 -18.42 0.347Table 1 shows the unit root tests where ADF indicates the augmented Dickey-Fuller test; PPindicates the Phillips-Perron test. At levels, individual series are assumed trend stationary.Subtractions are assumed zero-mean stationary. Likewise, in first differences, all series but (v), (vii),and (viii) are assumed zero-mean stationary. For (v), (vii), and (viii), stationary is assumed. For the
KPSS tests, the null hypothesis is that the serie is stationary and the alternative hypothesis is thatthe series has a unit root. For all tests, the optimal lag order was set using the Hannan-Quinncriterion. According to Khim and Liew (2004), the Hannan-Quinn criterion neither underestimatesthe lag order for small samples nor overestimates the lag order for large samples. Significancelevels are as follows: * = 10%; ** = 5%.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
21/25
20
TABLE 2: JOHANSEN TEST
H0 Trace Statistic
(A) (B)(a) Real GDP per capita r=0 16.70 25.32
r1 4.22 12.37
(b) Real GNP per capita r=0 21.25 30.04
r1 2.87 11.64
(c) Real GDP r=0 11.97 27.20
r1 1.66 9.09
(d) Real GNP r=0 14.68 30.56
r1 1.41 12.68
Critical values at 5% 15.41 25.733.76 12.45
Normalized vectors (!s)US PR Trend
(A) Real GNP per capita 1 -1.94 (0.3)
(B) Real GNP per capita 1 -0.981 (0.34) -0.01 (0.01)
(B) Real GDP 1 -0.26 (0.04) -0.021 (0.002)
Table 2 shows the Johansen Trace test results. Standard errors are given in
parenthesis. Column (A) is equation (1) with drift. Column (B) is equation (1)with a restricted trend. Using the Hannan-Quinn criterion, the optimal lag orderin equation (1) is one. Results on real GNP series are not reported since PR realGNP is not I(1).
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
22/25
21
TABLE 3: DICKEY-FULLER TEST
(A) (B) (C) (D)
a 10.41 15.54 -3.18 15.94
(13.579) (12.017) (26.526) (24.444)
b 0.01 0.05*** 0.07 0.065***
(0.051) (0.017) (0.044) (0.016)
-0.04 -0.06 0.00 -0.02
(0.040) (0.038) (0.035) (0.033)
R2 0.20 0.27 0.17 0.23
Durbin H 0.77 0.67 0.78 0.78
Table 3 shows the DF test following equation (2). The dependent variables in firstdifferences for each column are as follows: Panel (A) per capita output of US inlogs minus per capita output of PR in logs, multiplied by 100; Panel (B) - per capitaincome of US in logs minus per capita income of PR in logs, multiplied by 100; Panel
(C) - output of US in logs minus output of PR in logs, multiplied by 100; and Panel(D) - income of US in logs minus income of PR in logs, multiplied by 100. For theDurbin H test, the p-values are reported. The null hypothesis of this test states thatthere is no autocorrelation. Robust standard errors are given in parenthesis.Significance level is as follows: *** = 1%.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
23/25
22
TABLE 4: CONVERGENCE & SHORT-RUN PERSISTENCE
S1 S2 S1 S2
(A) (B)
a 6.22*** 10.412 15.016*** 15.538(2.279) (13.58) (3.757 (12.017)
b 0.03*** 0.013 0.055*** 0.054***(0.009) (0.051) (0.014 (0.017)
0.97*** 0.96*** 0.945*** 0.94***(0.009) (0.04) (0.014) (0.038)
R2 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.97
Durbin H 0.84 0.99 0.68 0.99
LR Test 0.75 0.96
(C) (D)
a 19.21*** -3.18 40.59*** 15.944(6.315) (26.53) (9.841) (24.444)
b 0.029*** 0.067 0.057*** 0.065***(0.009) (0.044) (0.014) (0.016)
0.971*** 0.99*** 0.943*** 0.975***(0.009) (0.035) (0.014) (0.033)
R2 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.97
Durbin H 0.56 0.78 0.47 0.78LR Test 0.38 0.27
Table 4 shows both specifications for equation(3). The dependent variables for each columnare as follows: Panel (A) per capita output of US in logs minus per capita output of PR inlogs, multiplied by 100; Panel (B) - per capita income of US in logs minus per capita income ofPR in logs, multiplied by 100; Panel (C) - output of US in logs minus output of PR in logs,multiplied by 100; and Panel (D) - income of US in logs minus income of PR in logs, multiplied
by 100. S1: b=(1- ) and a 0 and S2: a 0, b0, 0. For the Durbin H test, the p-values arereported. The null hypothesis of this test states that there is no autocorrelation. For the LR
Test, the p-values are reported. The null hypothesis of this test states that b =(1- ). Forregressions on all gaps where =0, the trend coefficient is negative and significant, however,in contrast to the outcomes shown in Table 4, the p-values from the Durbin H test, are close tozero. Hence, we reject the null that there is no autocorrelation. Robust standard errors aregiven in parenthesis. Significance level is as follows: *** = 1%.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
24/25
23
TABLE 5: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES CEIS
S1 S2 S1 S2
(A) (B)
a -0.350*** -0.34 -0.264 -0.166(0.133) (0.328) (0.225) (0.284)
b 0.003*** 0.003 0.003 0.002(0.001) (0.003) (0.002) (0.003)
0.997*** 0.996*** 0.997*** 0.986***(0.001) (0.017) (0.002) (0.020)
R2 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96
Durbin H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LR Test 0.97 0.57
(C) (D)a -0.15 -0.124 0.349 0.311
(0.220) (0.562) (0.241) (0.242)
b 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.002(0.002) (0.005) (0.002) (0.003)
0.998*** 0.998*** 1.000*** 0.948***(0.002) (0.014) (0.002) (0.012)
R2 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99
Durbin H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LR Test 0.96 0.00Table 5 shows both specifications for equation(3). The dependent variables for eachcolumn are as follows: Column (A) - Coincident Economic Index (CEI) of the US inlogs minus PR in logs times 100; column (B) - CEI of MS in logs minus PR in logstimes 100; column (C) - CEI of NY in logs minus PR in logs times 100; and column (D)
- CEI of FL in logs minus PR in logs times 100. S1: b=(1- ) and a 0 and S2: a 0,b0,0. For the Durbin H test, the p-values are reported. The null hypothesis of this teststates that there is no autocorrelation. For the LR Test, the p-values are reported. The
null hypothesis of this test states that b=(1- ). Robust standard errors are given inparenthesis. Significance level is as follows: *** = 1%. Data on the US and PR series isfrom 1970q1 to 2007q4. Data on states is from 1979q1 to 2007q2.
-
7/30/2019 Currency Area SCHE EE
25/25
24
TABLE 6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS- REAL PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME
(A) (B) (C)
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
a -7.15*** -10.83*** 0.342 -38.546 -6.59*** -15.68***(2.061) (4.079) (5.558) (29.343) (2.529) (5.203)
b 0.031*** -0.013 -0.002 -0.04 0.027** -0.036(0.011) (0.043) (0.022) (0.036) (0.012) (0.034)
0.969*** 0.935*** 1.002*** 0.815*** 0.973*** 0.910***(0.011) (0.034) (0.022) (0.141) (0.012) (0.034)
R2 0.98 0.98 0.82 0.84 0.97 0.97
Durbin H 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.09
LR Test 0.29 0.18 0.05Table 6 shows both specifications for equation (3). The dependent variables for each column are asfollows: Column (a) - real per capita personal income of NY in logs versus PR in logs times 100;column (b) - real per capita personal income of MS in logs versus PR in logs times 100; column (c) -
real per capita personal income of FL in logs versus PR in logs times 100. S1: b=(1- ) and a 0 and S2:a 0,b0, 0. For the Durbin H test, the p-values are reported. The null hypothesis of this test statesthat there is no autocorrelation. For the LR test, the p-values are reported. The null hypothesis of this
test states that b =(1- ). Robust standard errors are given in parenthesis. Significance levels are asfollows: ** = 5%; *** = 1%.