3
$\begingroup$

If the Phillipine peso falls in value against the USD by 5% in a year, but the domestic inflation rate in the Phillipines is 10%, compared to 2% in the USA, the nominal exchange rate has fallen (by 5%), but the real exchange rate has risen by 3%.

Could anyone help me explain why "the real exchange rate has risen by 3%."?

|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The real exchange rate is the exchange rate adjusted for inflation. Try a numerical example. imagine 10p=1USD. $\endgroup$ – Jamzy Jul 28 '15 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ added self-study tag, if it's not self study, feel free to delete it. $\endgroup$ – Jamzy Jul 28 '15 at 5:28
  • $\begingroup$ What exchange rate are you using? "Dollars per One peso" or "Pesos per one dollar"? $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Jul 28 '15 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ The example doesn't clearly say any of them, but I don't think it would cause any trouble. $\endgroup$ – SiXUlm Jul 28 '15 at 14:41
4
$\begingroup$

Note that I am not 100% sure. But in my understanding, we have

Year 1

  • Price for a product in the US : $p_{US}=v$ \$
  • Exchange rate: $x$ pesos for $1$\$
  • Price of the product in the Philipines: $p_{Ph})=v.x$ pesos

Year 2

  • Price for the same product in the US : $p^\prime_{US} = (1+\alpha_v)v$ \$. The price increased due to the inflation $\alpha_v$.
  • Nominal exchange rate: $(1+\alpha_x)x$ pesos for $1$\$. A drop in value means you need more pesos for one USD.
  • Inflation in the Philipines: $p^\prime_{Ph} = \frac{P_{Ph}}{1+\alpha_p}$. Due to the inflation, the acquisitive power of the pesos is reduced.
  • Price of that product : $p^\prime_{Ph}=[(1+\alpha_v)v].[(1+\alpha_x)x].[\frac{1}{1+\alpha_p}] = \frac{(1+\alpha_v).(1+\alpha_x)}{1+\alpha_p}.v.x$

Variation

  • The effective variation compared to the previous year is thus, $\frac{(1+\alpha_v).(1+\alpha_x)}{1+\alpha_p}$, which corresponds to a rise in effective exchange rate of

$$\frac{1+\alpha_p}{(1+\alpha_v).(1+\alpha_x)}-1=2.7\%$$

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Generally,I get your point and I think it is correct. Only one thing I don't understand: in year 2, in the US, you adjusted the price by MULTIPLYING with (1+inflation in US). But then in the Phillipines, you adjusted by DIVIDING by (1+inflation in P), which I find not consistent. $\endgroup$ – SiXUlm Jul 28 '15 at 14:46
  • $\begingroup$ Also, the coefficient $(1+\alpha_v)(1+\alpha_x)/(1+\alpha_p)$ is actually not belong to any of $v$ or $x$. So it's not clear to me why it corresponds to the exchange rate. $\endgroup$ – SiXUlm Jul 28 '15 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ @SiXUlm this is why I said I wasn't sure. You want an exchange rate normalised for 1\$, which is why $v$ disappears. Plus you want the evolution of the exchange rate. This is why $x$ disappears. I divided by $1+\alpha_p$ because you get less for 1 peso in year 2 compared to year 1. But the price in dollar increased. $\endgroup$ – clem steredenn Jul 28 '15 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ I understand your argument now. Based on it, I present my understanding below. I think your whole reasoning is correct. $\endgroup$ – SiXUlm Jul 28 '15 at 15:12
3
$\begingroup$

If the Phillipine peso falls in value against the USD by 5% in a year, but the domestic inflation rate in the Phillipines is 10%, compared to 2% in the USA, the nominal exchange rate has fallen (by 5%), but the real exchange rate has risen by 3%.

 Could anyone help me explain why "the real exchange rate has risen by 3%."?

A Word of caution: it is not the RER that rises or falls. It is currencies. A currency (in this case the PH peso) either appreciates or depreciates relative to another. The PH peso appreciates in real terms when the cost of a PH basket of godos falls relative to the cost of the same basket in the US, when both baskets are expressed in the same currency. Let P be the Price index for PH and P* be the Price index for US. If E is defines as the number of dollars that must be given up in Exchange for one PH peso, then the RER can be defined as:

RER=P/EP*

This indicates the number of PH baskets that must be given up in exchange to obtain a similar basket of US godos. If this number raises then the PH peso has appreciated in real terms vis-avis the US dollar.

Taking percentage changes and ignoring second order terms:

%CH_RER=%CH_P-(%CH_E+%CH_P*)

Thus,

%CH_RER=10%-(5%+2%)=3% Voila!

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Mainly based on the idea of @bilbo_pingouin, this is my understanding:

Year 0:

  • Price of product X in the US is: 1 dollar

  • Exchange rate is $x$ pesos for 1 USD

  • So, price of X in the P is $x$ pesos

Year 1:

  • Price of product X in the US is: $(1+\pi_{US})$ dollars, due to inflation

  • Exchange rate is $(1+\alpha)*x$ pesos for 1 USD, due to depreciation of peso.

  • So price of X in the P is $(1+\pi_{US})(1+\alpha)*x$ pesos.

But this price has NOT been adjusted for inflation in the P, so its real price in the P should be: $\frac{(1+\pi_{US})(1+\alpha)}{1+\pi_P}*x$ pesos

So the real change in exchange rate should be $\frac{(1+\pi_{US})(1+\alpha)}{1+\pi_P}-1 = -2.4\%$, which corresponds to an appreciation in peso.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.