essays guro to bid
EXCHANGERATE AND
PPP
00 Jan
69.300
0
0.210
0.213
0.213
172.700
0.213
0.214
0.214
0.212
36.898 0.210
36.732
36.898 0.210
0.211
0.211
0.213
177.400
0.216
0.218
177.400
177.700
0.218
38.639
38.805 0.217
38.888 0.217
39.137 0.218
0.220
0.222
0.222
0.223
40.132
0.219
40.132 0.219
40.380 0.220
0.223
46.746
0.224
41.375 0.224
0.226
0.226
0.224
41.790 0.224
41.790 0.224
41.790 0.223
41.790 0.223
0.224
11.294
0.225
0.229
0.227
191.700
0.225
43.614 0.228
43.531 0.226
43.531 0.225
0.226
9.468
0.226
193.700 43.863 0.226 34.228
0.229
0.228
0.226
0.228
198.100
0.228
45.521 0.228
45.521 0.228
0.229
0.230
1
0.234
47.434 0.233
45.438
48.581 0.241
48.581
48.581 0.239
48.581
48.964
0.239
0.240
50.877
0.245
51.259 0.243
51.259
51.259 0.242
0.243
0.247
0.246
56.615
0.266
56.615
56.615 0.266
56.615 0.266
0.271
45.894
65.030 0.299
0.227
65.030 0.299
65.795 0.303 45.769 0.000
68.091
70.768
70.768 0.317
0.318
base year global crisis
224.806
0.328
7
75.359
75.741 0.332
0.754
76.124 0.333
2.253
0.356
0.380
0.388
0.390
90.660
91.042
91.425 0.387
0.394
0.397
96.780 0.408
96.780 0.408
96.780 0.408
96.780
96.780
97.163
0.288
102.901 0.433
102.901 0.433
0.430
0.434
0.441
0.096
105.961
0.270
106.344 0.440
105.961
105.196 0.433
0.430
104.814 0.430
105.196
105.961 0.434
106.344
107.109 0.439
0.446
109.021
109.021 0.442
0.445
0.441
110.169
109.786 0.440
109.786 0.440
110.169 0.441
1
0.441
0.443
115.142
0.535
115.142 0.457
3.217
0.457
115.524 0.457
3
115.142
Exchange Rate and PPP
US/INDIA Exchange Rate 2000 Jan 2000 Feb 2000 Mar 2000 Apr 2000 May 2000 Jun 2000 Jul 2000 Aug 2000 Sep 2000 Oct 2000 Nov 2000 Dec 2001 Jan 2001 Feb 2001 Mar 2001 Apr 2001 May 2001 Jun 2001 Jul 2001 Aug 2001 Sep 2001 Oct 2001 Nov 2001 Dec 2002 Jan 2002 Feb 2002 Mar 2002 Apr 2002 May 2002 Jun 2002 Jul 2002 Aug 2002 Sep 2002 Oct 2002 Nov 2002 Dec 2003 Jan 2003 Feb 2003 Mar 2003 Apr 2003 May 2003 Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003 Nov 2003 Dec 2004 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 Mar 2004 Apr 2004 May 2004 Jun 2004 Jul 2004 Aug 2004 Sep 2004 Oct 2004 Nov 2004 Dec 2005 Jan 2005 Feb 2005 Mar 2005 Apr 2005 May 2005 Jun 2005 Jul 2005 Aug 2005 Sep 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2006 Jan 2006 Feb 2006 Mar 2006 Apr 2006 May 2006 Jun 2006 Jul 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 May 200 7 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007 Sep 2007 Oct 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Jun 2008 Jul 2008 Aug 2008 Sep 2008 Oct 2008 Nov 2008 Dec 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 Mar 2009 Apr 2009 May 2009 Jun 2009 Jul 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 2011 Feb 2011 Mar 2011 Apr 2011 May 2011 Jun 201 1 Jul 2011 Aug 2011 Sep 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2012 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Jun 2012 Jul 2012 Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2013 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 Jun 2013 Jul 2013 Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2014 Jan 2014 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 Apr 2014 May 2014 Jun 2014 Jul 2014 Aug 2014 Sep 2014 Oct 2014 Nov 2014 Dec 2015 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Mar 2015 Apr 2015 May 2015 Jun 2015 Jul 2015 Aug 2015 Sep 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2016 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2017 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2018 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018 Jul 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 43.540399999999998 43.602899999999998 43.572000000000003 43.62149 9999999997 43.988199999999999 44.6601 44.763199999999998 45.671100000000003 45.8339 46.318199999999997 46.7836 46.745800000000003 46.536000000000001 46.514499999999998 46.609299999999998 46.755600000000001 46.898699999999998 46.972200000000001 47.121600000000001 47.1083 47.589100000000002 47.996600000000001 47.984299999999998 47.904800000000002 48.271099999999997 48.664700000000003 48.733699999999999 48.9086 49.002200000000002 48.9634 48.787700000000001 48.603200000000001 48.444400000000002 48.362499999999997 48.251100000000001 48.176299999999998 47.937600000000003 47.740099999999998 47.664499999999997 47.403570000000002 47.098300000000002 46.746400000000001 46.245600000000003 45.9437 45.846899999999998 45.384999999999998 45.4861 45.564700000000002 45.432200000000002 45.235900000000001 45.054600000000001 43.820799999999998 45.123899999999999 45.470500000000001 45.996499999999997 46.304000000000002 45.860399999999998 43.929099999999998 45.110599999999998 43.7607 43.735100000000003 43.6175 43.638800000000003 43.696100000000001 43.4529 43.557299999999998 43.490099999999998 41.960599999999999 43.876600000000003 44.729599999999998 45.629600000000003 45.694400000000002 44.351399999999998 44.2547 44.3705 44.801200000000001 45.253599999999999 45.893500000000003 46.384900000000002 46.491 46.119500000000002 45.438200000000002 44.811500000000002 44.6325 44.306199999999997 44.123699999999999 44.014299999999999 42.276499999999999 40.870600000000003 40.753571000000001 40.420952 40.843125000000001 40.388438000000001 39.548260999999997 39.439205000000001 39.465375000000002 39.267600000000002 39.673499999999997 40.145200000000003 39.966799999999999 42.001899999999999 42.763300000000001 42.7027 42.905700000000003 45.53 48.615499999999997 48.851700000000001 48.513199999999998 48.6995 49.248399999999997 51.129100000000001 49.965499999999999 48.51 47.6736 48.362400000000001 48.242600000000003 48.292400000000001 46.6524 46.530500000000004 46.527299999999997 45.894399999999997 46.273200000000003 45.450899999999997 44.444000000000003 45.768999999999998 46.4983 46.761699999999998 46.460500000000003 45.872900 000000001 44.353999999999999 44.9315 45.1 45.375 45.3795 44.914299999999997 44.301000000000002 44.9024 44.810899999999997 44.396000000000001 45.313499999999998 47.6905 49.201999999999998 50.6785 52.382399999999997 51.0015 49.181199999999997 50.363500000000002 51.69 54.331400000000002 55.942399999999999 55.424799999999998 55.493499999999997 54.35 53.099499999999999 54.784500000000001 54.646999999999998 54.228999999999999 53.807899999999997 54.422899999999998 54.323599999999999 54.984499999999997 58.383499999999998 59.760899999999999 62.810899999999997 63.648000000000003 61.605899999999998 62.517899999999997 61.811 62.105699999999999 62.164200000000001 60. 947600000000001 60.346400000000003 59.284300000000002 59.736699999999999 60.095599999999997 60.873800000000003 60.897599999999997 61.366799999999998 61.6828 62.707099999999997 62.13 61.990499999999997 62.480499999999999 62.641399999999997 63.715000000000003 63.780900000000003 63.604500000000002 65.097099999999998 66.166700000000006 65.026200000000003 66.099999999999994 66.502300000000005 67.333200000000005 68.239500000000007 66.890900000000002 66.421899999999994 66.889499999999998 67.265500000000003 67.158000000000001 66.903499999999994 66.713800000000006 66.741500000000002 67.639499999999998 67.805199999999999 68.047399999999996 66.9726 65.800899999999999 64.536000000000001 64.419499999999999 64.4482 64.42400000000000 7 63.968299999999999 64.477500000000006 65.035700000000006 64.843500000000006 64.244500000000002 63.645200000000003 64.430000000000007 65.045500000000004 65.672899999999998 67.510000000000005 67.790000000000006 68.686700000000002 69.631699999999995 72.277900000000002 73.560900000000004 71.738
00000000002 PPP 2000 Jan 2000 Feb 2000 Mar 2000 Apr 2000 May 2000 Jun 2000 Jul 2000 Aug 2000 Sep 2000 Oct 2000 Nov 2000 Dec 2001 Jan 2001 Feb 2001 Mar 2001 Apr 2001 May 2001 Jun 2001 Jul 2001 Aug 2001 Sep 2001 Oct 2001 Nov 2001 Dec 2002 Jan 2002 Feb 2002 Mar 2002 Apr 2002 May 2002 Jun 2002 Jul 2002 Aug 2002 Sep 2002 Oct 2002 Nov 2002 Dec 2003 Jan 2003 Feb 2003 Mar 2003 Apr 2003 May 2003 Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003 Nov 2003 Dec 2004 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 Mar 2004 Apr 2004 May 2004 Jun 2004 Jul 2004 Aug 2004 Sep 2004 Oct 2004 Nov 2004 Dec 2005 Jan 2005 Feb 2005 Mar 2005 Apr 2005 May 2005 Jun 2005 Jul 2005 Aug 2005 Sep 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2006 Jan 2006 Feb 2006 Mar 2006 Apr 2006 May 2006 Jun 2006 Jul 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 May 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007 Sep 2007 Oct 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Jun 2008 Jul 2008 Aug 2008 Sep 2008 Oct 2008 Nov 2008 Dec 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 Mar 2009 Apr 2009 May 2009 Jun 2009 Jul 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 2011 Feb 2011 Mar 2011 Apr 2011 May 2011 Jun 2011 Jul 2011 Aug 2011 Sep 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2012 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Jun 2012 Jul 2012 Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2013 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 Jun 2013 Jul 2013 Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2014 Jan 2014 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 Apr 2014 May 2014 Jun 2014 Jul 2014 Aug 2014 Sep 2014 Oct 2014 Nov 2014 Dec 2015 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Mar 2015 Apr 2015 May 2015 Jun 2015 Jul 2015 Aug 2015 Sep 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2016 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2017 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2018 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018 Jul 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 31.906388260216772 31.701285095628666 31.809068602688544 32.12102396642846 32.211151450140484 32.169658888882068 32.294235432916963 32.149092801756332 32.054616319509989 32.359670638686765 32.37588857790611 32.014590638421303 31.760902387612528 31.546297311723404 31.670723789124136 31.830009398354889 31.880501164518154 32.231914764622282 32.710313702805458 32.922259579915199 32.722491764 621729 33.026323096162066 33.327364770035302 33.134205457057483 32.937208304336281 32.811285671218855 32.859803820046963 32.783090061807009 32.956029229422093 33.216812424744617 33.491138013804679 33.606670587755595 33.620227363316978 33.684344589895993 33.766773399948093 33.366358861880549 33.151538745269825 33.039237696568001 33.189794669326552 33.727083170815845 33.850927846348071 34.019300391569246 34.181089637992372 33.897019155001473 33.787142269571973 34.094820437537258 34.144137108640351 33.916976995671291 33.90587957648129 33.833237092118182 33.760905211643319 33.706858938625743 33.829955525511949 33.969983561165776 34.265442758914325 34.57854416866487 34.535266717149675 34.551325060347359 34.323733726220397 34.062219564494356 34.407060655084948 34.198855277112528 34.074882212928273 34.228146722320751 34.116352725785653 34.228146722320751 34.596149902118505 34.512267966977753 34.16962716662858 34.495832636514677 34.986297874461293 34.796498790134912 34.524101074399894 34.50678708188515 34.454949144356036 34.57137000729999 34.755561732748717 35.242496578180052 35.336404267195384 35.180355376908452 35.638940050055062 36.370570950101957 36.352565716958345 36.155678359554834 36.09578530368411 36.239454776388868 35.770324007372984 35.944123917761651 36.075836170830222 36.271461844278498 36.764022468421118 37.031121809670474 36.874862610581012 37.037920499001139 36.749113469298344 36.642921748852174 36.517021827302344 36.700800733111357 37.111729499445644 37.296300186662194 37.3455711259437 37.224200379877502 37.752256164941954 38.337323923797825 38.568739452900729 39.436167736155078 40.146989335861903 40.206769229461784 40.378096935856959 40.231547062396139 40.271306232650048 40.774449837954144 40.985968899543707 41.186993340439571 43.084203188964047 43.477174437224868 43.661247112563728 44.064688745685103 44.716128896264685 44.958909766356904 45.727332128669168 45.238676079940632 45.22369038994438 45.213289500722539 45.768999999999998 46.320596515980348 47.297027678698797 47.2280103890973 47.41674641786949 47.7801792272234 47.922729511234976 48.517789208533117 49.145184262164328 48.205995648377709 47.957883227601997 47.9918365978452 48.096826842068857 48.611231407224672 49.510321671205595 49.610357838441246 50.26836 8153286389 50.489446680341544 50.650848712212657 50.129878658543525 50.24746111238246 50.393522728626834 50.793655280559918 51.718580674854621 52.078574306948511 52.627681110690929 53.62426468125625 53.817499700601026 53.812230861632344 54.16673320083239 54.507887002804864 54.764554161814146 55.15543579920169 55.354011785150774 55.759025923381387 56.374583330281638 56.849928738184033 57.461173068447813 58.341970112684358 58.698367452190581 58.923828864178965 59.634647887684885 60.01883712064015 58.875196744162267 58.241330080236153 58.42276355995115 58.548677718715673 59.173288367156019 59.54900170640925 59.957895970397985 61.351233766081137 61.604547853591967 61.600137837828278 61.612331774897633 61.728545648058912 61.919543255989133 62.570559350587331 62.186977900125605 62.229344927654743 62.679236531468916 62.950868091014172 63.492624089175628 63.879985115441087 64.129609596447722 64.757454319881347 65.412063178762082 65.590407413982859 65.402161303477996 65.397761432220207 65.011031174742399 65.09853543708175 65.609780415881403 66.401085310245008 66.688224133236417 67.415251194747583 66.807970597684786 66.443660160741871 66.506950369455836 66.175172088497618 65.49630720483627 64.988304522091013 64.940088278025371 65.233783493398988 65.626900628995543 65.887848688501293 66.302072120052387 67.428600417793689 67.179279225202919 66.873668547365043 67.296803516726655 67.327873081996032 66.706855851496826 66.908027455024197 66.546029734165344 66.511622893887235 66 .621075329722999 66.668361439853641 66.999288643225867 69.174137678509567 69.096691337904204 69.060773451450231 69.075318772744353 69.08461043613363 68.8659343134577
Deviation
Deviation 2000 Jan 2000 Feb 2000 Mar 2000 Apr 2000 May 2000 Jun 2000 Jul 2000 Aug 2000 Sep 2000 Oct 2000 Nov 2000 Dec 2001 Jan 2001 Feb 2001 Mar 2001 Apr 2001 May 2001 Jun 2001 Jul 2001 Aug 2001 Sep 2001 Oct 2001 Nov 2001 Dec 2002 Jan 2002 Feb 2002 Mar 2002 Apr 2002 May 2002 Jun 2002 Jul 2002 Aug 2002 Sep 2002 Oct 2002 Nov 2002 Dec 2003 Jan 2003 Feb 2003 Mar 2003 Apr 2003 May 2003 Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003 Nov 2003 Dec 2004 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 Mar 2004 Apr 2004 May 2004 Jun 2004 Jul 2004 Aug 2004 Sep 2004 Oct 2004 Nov 2004 Dec 2005 Jan 2005 Feb 2005 Mar 2005 Apr 2005 May 2005 Jun 2005 Jul 2005 Aug 2005 Sep 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2006 Jan 2006 Feb 2006 Mar 2006 Apr 2006 May 2006 Jun 2006 Jul 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 May 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007 Sep 2007 Oct 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Jun 2008 Jul 2008 Aug 2008 Sep 2008 Oct 2008 Nov 2008 Dec 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 Mar 2009 Apr 2009 May 2009 Jun 2009 Jul 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 2011 Feb 2011 Mar 2011 Apr 2011 May 2011 Jun 2011 Jul 2011 Aug 2011 Sep 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2012 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Jun 2012 Jul 2012 Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2013 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 Jun 2013 Jul 2013 Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2014 Jan 2014 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 Apr 2014 May 2014 Jun 2014 Jul 2014 Aug 2014 Sep 2014 Oct 2014 Nov 2014 Dec 2015 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Mar 2015 Apr 2015 May 2015 Jun 2015 Jul 2015 Aug 2015 Sep 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2016 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2017 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2018 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018 Jul 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 11.634011739783226 11.901614904371332 11.762931397311458 11.500476033571537 11.777048549859515 12.490441111117931 12.468964567083034 13.522007198243671 13.779283680490011 13.958529361313232 14.40771142209389 14.731209361578699 14.775097612387473 14.968202688276595 14.938576210875862 14.925590601645112 15.018198835481844 14.740285235377719 14.411286297194543 14.186040420084801 14.866608235378273 14.970276903837934 14.656935229964695 14.770594542942519 15.333891695663716 15.853414328781149 15.873896179953036 16.125509938192991 16.046170770577909 15.746587575255383 15.296561986195321 14.996529412244406 14.824172636683024 14.678155410104004 14.484326600051908 14.809941138119449 14.786061254730178 14.700862303431997 14.474705330673444 13.676486829184157 13.247372153651931 12.727099608430755 12.064510362007631 12.046680844998527 12.059757730428025 11.29017956246274 11.34196289135965 11.647723004328711 11.526320423518712 11.402662907881819 11.293694788356682 10.113941061374256 11.29394447448805 11.500516438834225 11.731057241085672 11.725455831335132 11.325133282850324 9.3777749396526389 10.786866273779601 9.698480435505644 9.3280393449150552 9.4186447228874712 9.5639177870717305 9.4679532776792499 9.3365472742143467 9.3291532776792465 8.8939500978814934 7.4483320330222469 9.7069728333714238 10.23376736348532 10.64330212553871 10.89790120986509 9.827298925600104 9.7479129181148494 9.9155508556439642 10.229829992700012 10.498038267251282 10.651003421819951 11.048495732804618 11.310644623091548 10.48055994994494 9.067629049898045 8.458934283041657 8.4768216404451664 8.2104146963158868 7.8842452236111313 8.2439759926270142 6.3323760822383477 4.7947638291697814 4.4821091557215027 3.6569295315788821 3.8120031903295271 3.5135753894189889 2.5103405009988577 2.6900915307016575 2.8224532511478273 2.7505781726976579 2.9726992668886396 3.0334705005543583 2.6704998133378055 4.6563288740562996 5.5390996201224993 4.9504438350580457 4.5683760762021777 6.9612605470992719 9.1793322638449197 8.7047106641380978 8.3064307705382134 8.3214030641430412 9.0168529376038578 10.857793767349953 9.1910501620458547 7.5240311004562912 6.4866066595604295 5.2781968110359543 4.7654255627751354 4.6311528874362722 2.5877112543148968 1.8143711037353185 1.5683902336430933 0.16706787133082912 1.034523920059371 0.22720961005561691 -0.76928950072253599 0 0.17770348401965208 -0.53532767869879905 -0.7675103890972963 -1.5438464178694886 -3.4261792272234004 -2.9912295112349767 -3.4177892085331152 -3.770184262164328 -2.8264956483777084 -3.0435832276019994 -3.6908365978451982 -3.1944268420688573 -3.8003314072246752 -5.1143216712055946 -4.2968578384412481 -2.5778681532863885 -1.2874466803415459 2.7651287787342937E-2 2.2525213414564718 0.7540388876175399 -1.2123227286268374 -0.43015528055991581 -2.8580674854623567E-2 2.2528256930514914 3.31471888930907 1.8005353187437478 1.6760002993989715 0.53776913836765772 -1.0672332008323906 0.27661299719513721 -0.11755416181414802 -0.92643579920169117 -1.546111785150778 -1.3361259233813882 -2.0509833302816389 -1.8654287381840362 0.9223269315521847 1.4189298873156417 4.1125325478094155 4.7241711358210381 1.9712521123151134 2.4990628793598475 2.9358032558377332 3.8643699197638455 3.7414364400488509 2.3989222812843281 1.1731116328439839 -0.26470170640924806 -0.22119597039798577 -1.2556337660811394 -0.73074785359196426 -0.70253783782828094 -0.24553177489763556 -4.574564805891157E-2 0.78755674401086395 -0.44055935058732842 -0.19647790012560762 0.2511550723452558 -3.7836531468919077E-2 0.76413190898583139 0.28827591082437465 -0.27548511544108578 0.96749040355227578 1.4092456801186586 -0.38586317876207943 0.50959258601713486 1.1001386965220092 1.9354385677797978 3.2284688252576075 1.7923645629182516 0.81211958411859086 0.48841468975498969 0.57727586676358555 -0.25725119474758 174 9.552940231520779E-2 0.27013983925813534 0.23454963054416567 1.4643279115023802 2.3088927951637288 3.0590954779089827 2.0325117219746289 0.56711650660101043 -1.0909006289955414 -1.468348688501294 -1.8538721200523867 -3.0046004177936823 -3.2109792252029195 -2.3961685473650363 -2.2611035167266493 -2.4843730819960257 -2.4623558514968238 -3.262827455024194 -2.1160297341653376 -1.4661228938872313 -0.948175329723 0.84163856014636451 0.79071135677413906 -0.48743767850956488 0.53500866209579101 3.2171265485497713 4.4855812272556506 2.6533895638663694 1.9671656865423017
TRADABLES
| Country | Local Price | Dollar Price | Value | ||||
| of Van Shoes | |||||||
| United States | £ 54.99 | $ 54.99 | |||||
| United Kingdom | £ 35.95 | £ 28.17 | -0.49 | ||||
| India | रु 2,799.00 | £ 39.52 | 50.90 | -0.28 |
NON-TRADABLES
| of 2LT Fanta | |||
| £ 2.27 | $ 2.27 | ||
| £ 1.25 | £ 0.98 | -0.57 | |
| रु 95.00 | £ 1.34 | 41.85 | -0.41 |
PURCHASING POWER PARITY THEORY AND EXCHANGE RATE
1
Purchasing Power Parity Theory and
Exchange Rate
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Institution
Table of Contents
3
Purchasing Power Parity Theory and Exchange Rate
3
Overview of Purchasing Power Parity Theory
4
Purchasing Power Parity and the Law of One Price
5
Types of Purchasing Power Parity
6
Long Run Exchange Rate
7
Relationship between Purchasing Power Parity and Ongoing Inflation
8
Relationship between Purchasing Power Parity and Interest Rate
8
Strengths and Weaknesses of Purchasing Power Parity
9
Empirical Analysis of Purchasing Power Parity Theory
9
Relative Purchasing Power Parity
11
Absolute Purchasing Power Parity
12
Traded Goods
13
Non-Tradables
14
Factors Explaining the Problem with Purchasing Power Parity
14
Monopolies and Oligopolies
15
Price Measurement Levels
15
Consumption Patterns
15
Price Changes in the Long Run
16
Price Changes in the Short Run
16
Conclusion
17
Reference List
Purchasing Power Parity Theory and Exchange Rate
No nation is rich enough to rely on free gold standard. All countries across the globe have paper currencies that are not convertible into other valuable things including gold. Hence, nowadays nations have standard paper currencies, which complicate exchange situations. In such cases, the exchange rate(ER)between two currencies can be measured their purchasing powers. The purchasing power parity theory infers that the rate of exchange between two nations depends on their currencies’ relative purchasing power. In essence, the ER between two nations equals the ratio of their price levels. The purchasing power parity, thus, predicts that a decline in an economies domestic purchasing power due to an increase in domestic prices, will lead to a proportional depreciation of the currency in foreign exchange market (Paul, Kimata & Khan 2
0
17).
Conversely,
PPP
holds that an growth in the domestic PP of a currency will result in a proportional currency appreciation. For instance, if a certain good can be purchased for $1 in the
United States
and 60 rupees in
India
, the purchasing power of$1 in the United States equals to purchasing power of 60 rupees in India. If in the United States $1 can buy a collection of goods that cost 80 rupees in India, then the exchange rate will be $1 equals to 80 rupees. This report tests the validity of absolute purchasing power parity and relative purchasing power by comparing the prices of Van shoes and Fanta orange in the United States and India, and the exchange rates between the two countries.
Overview of Purchasing Power Parity Theory
Purchasing power parity theory, at its core, holds that the nominal exchange rate between different currencies is the same as the ratio of aggregate commodity price levels between the two nations. This way, the unit of currency of one nation has the same PP in another nation. Purchasing power parity has a long history, dating back many years ago (Pilbeam 2013). The primary idea behind the theory is that a unit of currency ought to buy the same basket of commodities in country A as the equivalent amount of foreign currency buy in country B. Hence, the one unit of currency across the two economies leads to parity in purchasing power.
The simplest means of determining existence of discrepancy in purchasing power parity is to compare the price of identical commodities from the basket in two different nations. For instance, the Economist newspaper normally compares the prices of MacDonaldBig Mac hamburgers around the globe with the United States dollars at prevailing market exchange rates. By doing so, it is easy to ascertain whether or the currency of country A is overvalued or undervalued against the United States’ currency at prevailing exchange rate. For instance, in July 2019, a Big Mac burger was selling at £3.29 in
United Kingdom
against $5.74 in the United States, implying an exchange rate of 0.57. The variance between the 0.57 and the actual exchange rate of 0.80, demonstrates an undervaluation of the British pound by 28.5 percent (Economist 2019).
Purchasing Power Parity and the Law of One Price
The purchasing power parity holds due to arbitrage of international commodities associated with the law of one price. This law asserts that the price of a globally traded commodity must remain the equivalent anywhere around the world as long as it is measured using a common currency. This is due to the fact that people to earn riskless profits by moving commodities from areas with low prices to areas with very high prices. If a similar commodity enters each economy’s market basket used to compute the aggregate price level, the law of one price infers that a purchasing power parity exchange rate must stay true between the two nations concerned (Lee & Yoon 2013). Proponents of purchasing power parity theory contend that the theory valid in the long run and does not need law of one price.
Even if the law does not hold for each individual good, proponents of the theory posit that prices(P) of goods and ER must not to deviate very much from the relation determined by PPP. When commodities are more expensive in one nation than in other countries the demand for its commodities and currency declines, which decreases both the domestic price and the ER to equate PPP. Conversely, low-priced domestic products lead to appreciation of currency as well as price level inflation. Purchase power parity, therefore, holds that whether or not the law of one price is untrue, the resultant economic factors will ultimately equalize the economy’s purchasing power in different nations (Krugman, Obstfeld, & Melitz 2012).
Critics of law of one price assert that the existence of transaction costs including transportation costs, tariffs and non-tariff barriers, as well as taxes, would invalidate the law of one price. In addition, some commodities are not traded between nations and different countries do not attach similar weights to same commodities in aggregate price indices. Moreover, different economies produce differentiated goods and services rather than substitutable products. Also, given that PPP is anchored on traded commodities, the law of one price can be effectively tested by using producer price indices containing the price of tradable goods instead of consumer price indices (Bahmani-Oskooee & Nasir 2015).
Types of Purchasing Power Parity
Notwithstanding the aforementioned objections, it is always held that the PPP theory of ER holds due to arbitrage with internationally manufactured goods. Commonly, PPP can hold in two ways Absolute Purchasing Power Parity (APPP) and Relative Purchase Parity (RPPP) (Liang 2013). Absolute purchasing power parity remains true when a unit currency’s purchasing power parity remains the same not only in the domestic economy, but also in foreign economy. This can only happen after conversion of the unit currency into the foreign currency at the current market exchange rate. Nonetheless, it is usually challenging to ascertain if the same basket of products can be found in different countries.
Hence, it is important to analyze relative purchasing power parity. Generally, this type of PPP assumes that a percentage change in exchange rate at a given time must balance inflation rate variations between the concerned economies over the same period of time. Generally, if APPP holds, the RPPP must also hold (Zhang & Bian 2015). However, APPP must not necessarily remain true if the RPPP remains true because it is common for nominal exchange rates variances to happen at different purchasing power levels for the two economies (Findreng 2014).
Long Run Exchange Rate
The theory of PPP, together with money demand and supply relationship, can result in a significant theory of the interaction between exchange rates and monetary factors. Since the factors that do not affect money supply and money demand do not impact this theory, this is usually known as the monetary approach to exchange rate. This approach helps in understanding the long run theory of exchange rates (Al-Gasaymeh & Kasem 2016). The monetary model to exchange rates is a long-run theory since it does not accommodate price rigidities. This is particularly important in understanding short run macro-economic developments. On the contrary, the monetary approach to exchange rate continues as though prices can adjust immediately to maintain not only purchasing power parity, but full employment as well (Abbas Ali, Johari & Haji Alias 2014).
To derive the monetary approach to ER predictions for dollar/rupee exchange rate, it is important to have an assumption that in the long-term, foreign market dictates the rate so that PPP holds.
Rupee (dollar/rupee) = Price (USA)/ Price (India)————–(i)
It is assumed that the above equation should hold if in the absence of market rigidities to avoid immediate adjustment of ER and prices to positions that are in congruence with full employment.
In the United States;
P (US) = Money supply in US/Long term aggregate money demand in the United States
While in India;
P (India) = Money supply in India/Long term aggregate money demand in India
The long term aggregate money demand falls with an increase in interest rates but also rises with an increase in real output.
Relationship between Purchasing Power Parity and Ongoing Inflation
Although a permanent rise in a nation’s level of monetary supply leads to an increase in its price levels, it does not pose any long run effects on interest rates and real output. Whereas a conceptual examination of a short run money supply change is important in determining the long run impacts of money, it is an unrealistic description of monetary policies. The reasoning is that constant growth in money supply will need an uninterrupted increase in price level or ongoing inflation. Other factors remaining constant, constant growth of money supply leads to ongoing inflation of price levels. Nonetheless, long-run changes in the rate of consumer price index do not affect the long run relative price of commodities or full employment output level (Saadon & Sussman 2018).
Link between Purchasing Power Parity and Interest Rate
Unlike ongoing inflation, there is a negative relationship between interest rate and long-run monetary supply growth rate. Whereas the long-run rate is independent of absolute monetary supply levels continuous increase in monetary supply affects interest rate (Taylor & Sarno 2004). The interest parity assumes that if people assume the RPPP to be true, the variance between interest rates provided by currency deposits of different countries must balance the difference between expected interest rates(EIR) existing between the two countries.
Strengths and Limitations of Purchasing Power Parity
The primary strength of PPP is that it always remains stable over long duration. The RPPP, in particular, proves ER should equal PPP in the long-run. The outcome can be attributed to a decline in inflation rates between two nations. It also corrects trade imbalances between a country’s imports and exports. There is need to erect trade hindrances which may distort markets. But, economists can easily correct the imbalance by observing the difference between a country’s purchasing power and strength of currency. Readjusting the currency of a country to equate PP can easily resolve the issue without the contribution of the government . Purchasing power parity also explains factors affecting balance of payment. It indicates that trade and payment between economies change due to variations in relative price(RP) levels of concerned economies. Thus, in the long run, ER are hinged on RP and changes in prices.
Nonetheless, conditions relating to prices and tariffs tend to change all the time hindering people’s ability to arrive at a stable conclusion regarding exchange rates. The purchasing power parity can only apply to a static world, but the world is dynamic. This is because, with time, the exchange rate will increase while price level continue decline leading to a situation where exchange rate is greater than price levels. Rose, Marquis and Lu (2012) indicate that internal prices and production costs are always changing. Hence, a new equilibrium between two different currencies changes on daily basis. Differences in two nation’s economic performance, especially in relation to transport and tariffs, can deviate normal exchange rates to certain levels from a currency’s intrinsic purchasing power. The exchange rate of a nation’s currency will rise while its price levels will remain constant if it decides to raise its tariffs. Shapiro (2014) indicates that PPP can only hold in the case of prices of commodities entering into foreign trade. It is illogical to apply the theory for general indices because of the lack of any relationship between domestic and international prices of products confined to domestic markets. The other limitation of the theory is that it does not take into account other balance of payments items instead of merchandise trade. This implies that the theory only works for current account transactions but not for capital account transactions.
Empirical Analysis of Purchasing Power Parity Theory
Overall, the absolute and relative purchasing power parity theories do not effectively explain the relationship between actual exchange rate data and price levels. Relative purchasing power parity, which is always considered a reasonable estimation to exchange rate data well for a given duration. An analysis of figure 1 demonstrates strengths of relative purchasing power parity by plotting the United States dollar against Indian rupee exchange rates, Erupee/$, and the ratio of India’s and the United States price levels, Pindia/Pus, between 2008 and 2018.Price levels are illustrated by indexes reported by both the Indian and the United States governments.
Relative Purchasing Power Parity
Relative purchase power parity predicts that Erupee/$ and the ratio of India’s and United States’ price levels will move proportionately, which is not the case. From 2008 to 2018, the Indian rupee gained significant strength against the United States dollar. In 2018, the exchange rate was
70.83
, which was equal to the purchasing power price. Between January 1, 2008 and July 1, 2015, the United States had higher rate of inflation than India which explains the devaluation of the United States currency against the Indian rupee. Nonetheless, the United States dollar started appreciating against Indian rupee between August 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, due to a decline in the United States’ rate of inflation relative to India’s rate of inflation. This validates the relative purchasing power parity assertion that exchange rates and price levels in two economies should equal out after a given duration. As the rate of inflation continued to decrease from 1.74 on January 1, 2008 to December 1, 2018, relative purchasing power parity also decreased from 133.68 to 70.83.
Figure 1: the Indian rupee/United States dollar exchange rate and India-U.S price levels
between 2008 and 2018
In the long-run the difference between exchange rate and purchasing power parity declined from negative 94.41 on January 1, 2008 to 0.0 in December 31, 2018 (see figure 2). The deviation can be attributed to the increase in exchange rates as well as the decline in purchasing power parity between the United States and India. The United States/India exchange rate increased from 39.27 to 70.83 from the beginning of 2008 to December 31, 2018. Purchasing power parity, on the other hand, declined from 133.68 to 70.83 over the same time period. Overall, the data validates relative purchasing power parity’s assertion that, in the long-run, exchange rate between two countries must equal purchasing power parity. Even so, the theory can only apply partially even after taking into consideration the long run understanding of both purchasing power parity and exchange rate.
Figure 2: deviation between exchange rate and purchasing power parity between 2008
and 2018
Absolute Purchasing Power Parity
To test the effectiveness of APPP theory, there is need to compare international prices of a large number of baskets of commodities by having necessary adjustments for inter-country quality variations between the identified goods and services. These comparisons normally hold that APPP is ineffective. The prices of identical goods, when converted into one currency, tend to vary across different economies. According to Çağlayan and Filiztekin (2012), even the law of one price is ineffective in explaining the relationship between PPP and ER. For instance, manufactured commodities that tend to be the same in different countries normally sell at different prices. Since the assertion that leads to absolute purchase power parity theory is anchored on the law of one price, there is no doubt that PPP is incongruent to the data. To understand the impact of APPP, there is need to compares prices of traded and non-traded commodities in different economies.
Traded Goods
In order to assess the validity of APPP, the local price of Vans men’s Doheny shoes in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom were taken into consideration. This product has been chosen because a trader can export to or import it from one country and still earn some profit. The three countries have been chosen because they have different trade policies, taxation policies, and demand and supply levels. The Vans men’s Doheny shoes costs 2,799 rupees in India,
$54.99
in the United States, and
£35.95
in the United Kingdom (see table 1). When converted to the United States dollars, the product costs $28.17 in the United Kingdom and $39.52 in India. The prices are based on the December 31, 2018 exchange rates between dollar and Indian rupee which stood at 70.833, and the exchange rate between dollar and pound which stood at 1.2763.
The differences in the price of the products, when measured in United States dollars, invalidates the APPP’s assertion that the price of the same good in different economies ought to be equal when measured using a single currency. The difference in the price of Vans men’s Doheny shoes in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States can be attributed to cost of transportation and trade barriers. Regarding transportation cost, American traders must import the product from the other countries making the price of van shoes to cost more than in India and the United Kingdom. Tariffs can also affect the price imports, where the same commodity is cheaper in the India and the United Kingdom than in the United States. These factors sever the association between prices of goods and exchange rates inferred by the law of one price.
|
Nation |
Local Price |
Exchange Rate |
Dollar Price |
PPP |
Value |
||||||
|
|
of Van Shoes |
||||||||||
| United States | $54.99 |
1.00 |
$ 54.99 |
1 | 0 | ||||||
| United Kingdom | £35.95 |
1.28 |
$ 28.17 |
0.65 |
-0.49 |
||||||
| India |
रु2,799.00 |
70.8331 |
$ 39.52 |
50.90 |
-0.28 |
Table 1: Big Mac Index for Van Shoes
Non-Tradables
Just as it is for tradable goods, APPP is irrelevant for nontradable goods. For instance, whereas a two-liter Fanta orange drink costs
$2.27
in the United States, the same product costs
£1.25
in the United Kingdom and 95 rupees in India. When converted to the United States dollar at the December 31, 2018 exchange rates, the product costs $0.98 in the United Kingdom and $1.34 in India. In the real world it costs more to acquire a two liter bottle of Fanta orange drink in the United States than in India and the United Kingdom, which invalidates absolute purchasing power parity’s assertion.
The difference in prices of the same commodity in the three counties can be attributed to such items such as insurance cost, utility costs, as well as labor costs. Generally, the higher the utility cost the higher the cost of production. The same applies to insurance costs and labor costs. These can greater affect the price that producers of Fanta in the three different countries price their products. The price of Fanta costs more in the United States than in India and the United States because of high cost of production.
|
of 2LT Fanta |
||||
| $2.27 |
$ 2.27 |
|||
| £1.25 |
$ 0.98 |
0.55 |
-0.57 |
|
|
रु 95.00 |
70.83 |
$ 1.34 |
41.85 |
-0.41 |
Table 2: the Big Mac currency table for Fanta
Factors Behind the Problem with Purchasing Power Parity
There are several factors explaining the negative empirical outcome described above. First, Lee (2010) indicates that contrary to the law of one price assumptions, other factors such as trade barriers and transportation costs exist in trade. These factors may be high enough to hinder trading of goods and services between two countries. Monopolistic practices can also interact with trade tariffs and quotas to weaken the link between prices of similar commodities sold in different economies. Furthermore, since the inflation data reported between India and the United States are based on different baskets of commodities, ER variances cannot offset official inflation measures, even in the absence of trade barriers and tradable products.
Monopolies and Oligopolies
Existence of monopoly and oligopoly, and trade hindrances can weaken linkages between price levels of different countries. An extreme scenario happens when a single organization decides to charge different prices for a given good or services in different markets. This pricing to market mechanism may result in different demand levels in different nations. For instances, economies characterized with inelastic demand tend to charge higher markup prices over a monopolistic seller’s cost of production. Bastos, Ferreira and Arruda (2018) in an analysis of company level export data found strong evidence of pervasive pricing technique to manufacturing trade markets. In the present report, it costs more to buy a Van men’s shoes in the United States than in the United Kingdom and India, when the price of the product is measured using the United States dollar. This could be due to the fact that there are fewer traders of Vans men’s shoes which hinders the cogency of absolute PPP. Shifts in demand as well as market structures can violate relative purchasing power parity.
Price Measurement Levels
Different governments across the world have different measures of price levels. One of the primary reasons for the difference in measures of price levels is that residents of different countries always spend their incomes differently. Ghosh (2018) asserts that people tend to consume higher proportions of domestic products, both tradable goods and non-tradable, than foreign made products.
Consumption Patterns
An average Indian is, therefore, more likely to consume more Indian produced Fanta than her American counterpart while an American resident is more likely to consume American produced Fanta than an Indian. As a result it is likely that the Indian government is likely to have relatively high weight on Indian produced Fanta when constructing a commodity basket for measuring purchasing power.
Price Changes in the Long Run
The aforementioned factors associated with purchasing power parity’s poor empirical test performance can lead to divergence of national prices in the long run, after all prices have adjusted to their clearing levels. But many prices may take time to adjust fully and any PPP departures can be greater in the short run rather than in the long run (AbuDalu & Ahmed 2013). A depreciation of the Indian rupee against the United States, for instance, makes van men’s shoes in the country less costly relative to similar product produced in the United States.
Price Changes in the Short-Run
Short-run departures from PPP tend to disappear over time. Even when such temporary purchasing power parity departures are not taken into consideration, the cumulative impacts of some long run trends tend to cause predictable deviations from purchasing power parity for many economies. Choji and Sek (2017) associate this trend with the positive correlation between levels of prices and real income per capita. This is to say that, a pound, when converted into local currency such as Indian rupee at the current market exchange rate performs better in poor nations than in rich ones.
Conclusion
Purchasing power parity theory, especially the absolute one, holds that exchange rate between different currencies is the same as their price ratios, as measured by reference commodity basket prices. However, assessment of tradable and non-tradable goods invalidates the assertion that similar products ought to cost the same in different economies if measured using a common currency. This is attributed to various factors such as demand and supply, government policies, and transportation cost. Absolute purchasing power parity proposes another version of purchasing power parity theory, the relative purchasing power parity, which asserts that percentage changes in exchange rate is the same as the differences in inflation rates. Overall, relative purchasing power parity theory validates the notion that exchange rate should equal price level after a given period of time. Nonetheless, the theory can hold for only a given duration because with time the exchange rate should be greater than the purchasing power parity.
Reference List
Abbas Ali, D, Johari, F, & Haji Alias, M, 2014. ‘The effect of exchange rate movements on trade
balance: A chronological theoretical review,’ Economics Research International, vol. 2014,
pp. 1-8
AbuDalu, A & Ahmed, EM, 2013, ‘The long and short run forcing variables of purchasing
power parity of ASEAN-5,’ E3 Journal of Business Management and Economics, vol. 4,
no.3, pp.66-81.
Al-Gasaymeh, A & Kasem, J, 2016, ‘Long-run purchasing power parity and exchange rates:
Evidence from the Middle East,’ The International Journal of Business and Finance
Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.41-53.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M & Nasir, ABM, 2015, ‘Purchasing power parity and the law of one price:
Evidence from commodity prices in Asian countries,’ Global Economy Journal, vol. 15, no.
2, pp.231-240.
Bastos, FDS, Ferreira, RT& Arruda, EF, 2018. ‘Speed of reversion of deviations of the
purchasing power parity for Brazilian cities,’ Revista Brasileira de Economia, vol. 72, no.1,
pp.26-40.
Çağlayan, M & Filiztekin, 2012,‘The law of one price and the role of market structure,’ Munich
Personal RePEc Archive, no. 36975, 1-38.
Choji, NM & Sek, SK, 2017, Testing for the validity of purchasing power parity theory both in
the long-run and the short-run for ASEAN-5. In AIP Conference Proceedings vol. 1905, no.
1
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5012234
Economist, 2019, ‘Burgernomics: The Big Mac index’, Economist, 10 July, viewed 2 January
2020, https://www.economist.com/news/2019/07/10/the-big-mac-index
Findreng, JH, 2014. ‘Relative purchasing power parity and the European monetary union:
Evidence from eastern Europe,’ Economics & Sociology, vol. 7, no 1, pp. 22-37.
Ghosh, J, 2018, ‘A note on estimating income inequality across countries using PPP exchange
rates,’ The Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 29, no.1, pp.24-37.
Krugman, PR, Obstfeld, M, & Melitz, MJ, 2012. International economics: Theory and policy,
9th ed, Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Lee, C, 2010, ‘Purchasing power parity and free trade area,’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive,
no. 40431, 1-10.
Lee, HT, & Yoon, G, 2013, ‘Does purchasing power parity hold sometimes? Regime switching
in real exchange rates,’ Applied Economics, vol. 45, no.16, pp.2279-2294.
Liang, BC. 2013. The pragmatic MBA for scientific and technical executives, Academic Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Paul, MT, Kimata, JD, Khan, MGM, & Campus, L 2017, ‘Purchasing power parity theory and
applications for Solomon Islands,’ Journal of Economics and Public Finance, vol. 3, no. 4,
pp. 507-530
Pilbeam, K, 2013. International finance, 4th ed, Red Globe Press, New York, NY.
Rose, PS, Marquis, MH & Lu, J, 2012. Money and capital markets 10th ed, McGraw- Hill, New
York, NY.
Ryu, D & Ko, H, 2011, ‘Decomposition into tradables and nontradables and the purchasing
power parity (ppp) hypothesis of the real won-dollar exchange rate. East Asian Economic
Review, vol. 15, no.3, pp.129-161.
Saadon, Y & Sussman, N, 2018. ‘Nominal exchange rate dynamics and monetary policy:
Uncovered interest rate parity and purchasing power parity revisited,’
CEPR Discussion
Paper No. DP13235
, viewed 2 January 2020,
https://voxeu.org/article/uncovered-interest-
rate-parity-and-purchasing-power-parity-revisited
Shapiro, AC, 2014. Multinational financial management, 10th ed, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Taylor, MP & Sarno, 2004, ‘International real interest rate differentials, purchasing power parity
and the behaviour of real exchange rates: The resolution of a conundrum,’ International
Journal of Finance & Economics, vol. 9 no.1, pp.15-23.
Zhang, Z & Bian, Z, 2015, ‘Absolute purchasing power parity in industrial countries,’ Munich
Personal RePEc Archive, no. 72788, pp. 1-17.
So the calculation we did before where wrong as we had to choose a base year and we didn’t before so I had to do the calculation all again …
You have to show knowledge and understanding for this part ? for the history behind the numbers ? the graph what they mean ? you have to interpret the graph in a professional way
…
you have to the calculation ready so use the number in there when u explain .
Say that in this relative ppp im looking at monthly data from 2000-2018 and is monthly data and I will test the theory if hold or not
I chose May 2010 as A BASE YEAR YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED IN 2010 in the economic one thing can be the global crisis . And that’s why I chose is as base year and find other relevant reasons .. and I did the calculation based on that .. my calculation are right so base you explanations on the numbers I have found please.
According to that you have to explain exchange rate and ppp before and after the base period may2010 …equilibrium .. what happened before the base year ?and what make it change after the base year ???
What is the relationship between exchange rate and ppp and how this explain the theory is the real words and data been explained as the theory stated ? yes (.you can say ppp holds because exchange rate converge (move forward)to ppp , even if we have some deviations ) they move In the same direction? the first graph what it shows ?
What happened to the prices of product before and after base year ?be critical
Then u have to explain why I had this deviation numbers and explain the deviation graph ( it can be because comparing developed and developing country >/ ? transportation cost and tariffs..and check all other reasons please we have to focus on explaining the deviation in the graph in details by referring them to the history behind that and critically discuss . talk about the main picks in the deviation graphs and what cause the deviation in what year that happened and why what happened at that time causing deviation ?
For example what happened in 2000 to have a dramatical decrease ,2006,2008, 2009, 2010, 2013 etc you have to focus on the main picks increase or decrease or constant ,?history behind data with references please .
The relationship between the deviation and the exchange rate and PPP?
…
And check why the deviation is like this ????
Explain in detail the graphs and the history behind that ?
HOW THE RELATIVE ppp explain the 2 graph ?
AND ADD ANY RELAVENT INFORMATIONS TO EXPLAIN THE 2 GRAPH THAT YOU SEE IS NEEDED IN THIS PART …..
And you have to check and change anything you have wrote that referes to the old calculations and change it to the new one and the new results