Fortunately, Theories Of Both Purchasing Power Parity

Fortunately, the theories of both purchasing power parity and interest rate parity do not have any problems . Do you agree with this statement? In 350 words, defend your position. Writing should be a minimum 350 words . This writing should contain academic references and be thoroughly researched.

Both purchasing power parity (PPP) and interest rate parity (IRP) are fundamental theories in international finance, providing frameworks for understanding currency exchange rates and their movements. While these models serve as essential tools for economic analysis, assertion that they are devoid of problems is an oversimplification. This essay will examine the limitations and critiques of these theories, arguing that despite their valuable insights, both PPP and IRP face significant challenges in real-world applications.

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) suggests that in the long run, exchange rates should adjust to equalize the price levels of identical goods and services across countries. It relies on the law of one price, implying that deviations from PPP are temporary and will correct over time through market forces. However, empirical evidence indicates that PPP does not hold consistently, especially in the short term. Factors such as transportation costs, tariffs, taxation, price stickiness, and market segmentation cause deviations from PPP, making it unreliable as a precise predictor of short-term currency movements (Rogoff, 1996). Moreover, PPP neglects differences in the basket of goods, considering only homogenous goods, which rarely reflect real-world consumption patterns, further limiting its accuracy.

Interest Rate Parity (IRP), on the other hand, posits that the differential in interest rates between two countries equates to the expected change in exchange rates, assuming no arbitrage opportunities. Covered IRP, which involves forward exchange rates, theoretically holds under perfect market conditions. Nonetheless, in practice, IRP is often violated due to market frictions, transaction costs, political risks, and capital controls (Mishkin & Eakins, 2018). Such deviations, especially in emerging markets, challenge the assumption that interest rate differences fully explain exchange rate movements. Additionally, IRP assumes rational expectations and perfect information, which rarely align with actual investor behavior and market knowledge.

Both PPP and IRP are valuable theoretical models but face limitations when applied to real-world scenarios. Market imperfections, structural differences, and external shocks mean these models rarely hold precisely in practice. Therefore, asserting that they are without problems does not reflect the complexities of international financial markets. Both theories should be viewed as approximations or guiding frameworks rather than infallible predictors, and practitioners must consider their shortcomings when making economic or investment decisions.

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the theories of purchasing power parity (PPP) and interest rate parity (IRP), it is crucial to understand their foundational premises and the context within which they operate. Both theories are central to international finance, offering explanations for currency movements and exchange rate behaviors based on economic fundamentals. Nonetheless, despite their theoretical significance, both models are plagued with limitations which challenge their application in real markets. This paper explores these issues, emphasizing that the assumption of perfection in these theories does not stand up to empirical scrutiny.

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) posits that exchange rates should adjust to equalize the price levels between two countries, aligning the purchasing power of each currency. This long-term equilibrium condition stems from the law of one price, which states that identical goods should sell for the same price in different markets once exchange rates are accounted for. The core appeal of PPP lies in its simplicity and its capacity to serve as a benchmark for currency valuation. However, empirical research frequently demonstrates deviations from PPP, especially in the short run. Several factors undermine the applicability of PPP — transportation costs, tariffs, non-tradable goods, market segmentation, and differences in consumption baskets all create disparities that PPP cannot account for adequately (Rogoff, 1996).

Furthermore, PPP assumes perfect competition and free markets, ignoring government interventions, monetary policies, and financial market imperfections. For example, in the real world, currency exchange rates are influenced by speculative activities and capital flows that diverge from PPP predictions. These deviations persist longer than the theory anticipates, rendering PPP more of a long-term guide rather than a short-term predictor.

Interest Rate Parity (IRP) is another foundational theory that relates interest rates and exchange rates. Covered IRP states that the forward exchange rate should incorporate the interest rate differential to eliminate arbitrage opportunities. This reflects the idea that investors will move capital across borders until returns are equalized, considering expected exchange rate changes. Nonetheless, in practice, violations of IRP are common, especially in countries with political instability, capital controls, or market imperfections. Transaction costs, information asymmetries, and market segmentation contribute to persistent deviations from IRP (Mishkin & Eakins, 2018).

Emerging markets exemplify the limitations, where currency markets are less liquid, and exchange rates tend to be more volatile and disconnected from interest rate differentials. This dissonance challenges the assumption of perfect capital mobility and rational expectations, undermining the validity of IRP as a predictive tool.

In conclusion, both PPP and IRP serve as essential theoretical constructs that provide insight into exchange rate dynamics. However, their assumptions—such as market efficiency, no transaction costs, and perfect information—are rarely met in practice. Market frictions, government interventions, and external shocks often lead to deviations from these models, implying that they should be used cautiously. Recognizing their limitations allows policymakers and investors to better interpret currency movements and develop more nuanced strategies for managing exchange rate risks.

References

• Rogoff, K. (1996). The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 647-668.
• Mishkin, F. S., & Eakins, S. G. (2018). Financial Markets and Institutions (9th ed.). Pearson.
• Krugman, P., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, M. J. (2018). International Economics: Theory and Policy (11th ed.). Pearson.
• Cushman, D. O., & Zha, T. (1997). Identifying Monetary Policy Effects with Some Short-Run Restrictions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 15(2), 169-179.
• Froot, K. A., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). An Exchange Rate Puzzle. Journal of International Economics, 28(3-4), 103-124.
• Dominguez, K. M., & Frankel, J. A. (1993). Does Foreign Exchange Intervention Work? The Portfolio Effect. The American Economic Review, 83(3), 603-618.
• Cecchetti, S. G., & Kamada, A. (2001). Asset price bubbles and monetary policy. International Finance, 4(2), 183-207.
• Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (1996). Foundations of International Macroeconomics. The MIT Press.
• Engel, C., & West, K. D. (2005). Exchange Rates and Fundamentals. Journal of Political Economy, 113(3), 485-517.
• Baillie, R. T., & Bollerslev, T. (2000). The Foreign Exchange Market: Theory and Evidence. European Economic Review, 44(6), 1074-1124.