PPPs and Price Parities in Benchmark Studies and the Penn ...
17 Pages
English
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

PPPs and Price Parities in Benchmark Studies and the Penn ...

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer
17 Pages
English

Description



This conference presentation describes both
University of . Exam ples of uses to
al data have been put are
These remarks were prepared for presentation at
1
on October 20-21, 1997.
ence on the Value of Real Exchange Rates in Brussels, Belgium
Confer
Eurostat's
included.
tion
which these interna
nia
Pennsylva
counts developed at the
tional Ac
Time System of Na
Space-
and the Penn World Table, a
me
Program
ison
mark studies of the International Compar-
the bench
ABSTRACT
October, 1997
CICUP 97-1


Alan Heston and Robert Summers

Uses
the Penn World Table:

Benchmark Studies and
PPPs and Price Parities in
produced for groups of countries since 1980 by the European Union
Purchasing Power Parity and real product estimates have been
societies. The conversion of countries' national currency values
national or regional income is important by itself or is included
wholesale in the sense that the Penn World Table we maintain is a
different way, whether
regional Economic and Social Commissions of the United Nations.
These have often been with the support of the World Bank and the
1
years. This paper ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 27
Language English

Exrait

                                    PPPs and Price Parities in Benchmark Studies and the Penn World Table: Uses                                                             Alan Heston and Robert Summers                                                             CICUP 97-1 October, 1997
ABSTRACTThis conference presentation describes boththe benchmark studies of the International Compar-ison Programme and the Penn World Table, a Space-Time System of National Accounts developed at theUniversity of Pennsylvania. Examples of uses towhich these international data have been put areincluded.
These remarks were prepared for presentation at Eurostat'sConference on the Value of Real Exchange Rates in Brussels, Belgiumon October 20-21, 1997.
1
Some Uses of PPPs in the Penn World TableAlan Heston and Robert SummersUniversity of PennsylvaniaI IntroductionPurchasing Power Parity and real product estimates have beenproduced for groups of countries since 1980 by the European Unionand the OECD for their member countries and associates, and by theregional Economic and Social Commissions of the United Nations.These have often been with the support of the World Bank and theregional development banks, and individual countries, like Japan inESCAP.1 We refer to these various estimating projects as benchmarkstudies involving benchmark countries and carried out for benchmarkyears. This paper reports on the uses we have made of the bench-mark studies, principally as wholesalers but also as retailers. Wewholesale in the sense that the Penn World Table we maintain is asubstantially reworked synthesis of the benchmark studies, and theTable is used extensively by others. Some of these uses aredescribed below. But we also are direct users of the benchmarksourselves; some of our work on the service-commodity and tradables-nontradables distinctions and on demand analysis are also reported.Whenever judgments based on national accounts-type informationmust be made about countries or regions, it is necessary to takeaccount of the relative values of the currency units of thedifferent countries. This is so for policymakers concerned with,to take one kind of example, assistance and assessment questions.It is also so for researchers, both economists and other socialscientists, searching for structural relationships that illuminatesocieties. The conversion of countries' national currency valuesof their national incomes or into a common numeraire currency isnecessary for valid international comparisons of incomes and thisrequires the estimation of appropriate PPPs. The cliche that nosingle number tells more about households than their incomes holdstrue for whole economies. In economic models, income may enter asa variable in its own right, as in a consumption function, or as aproxy for some other variable(s)---say stage of development orindex of relative factor prices---but nearly always income isintroduced. Repeating, but in a slightly different way, whethernational or regional income is important by itself or is includedin the analysis primarily as a noise-screening device, it is nearlyalways needed. Certainly, one of the most common uses of PPPs isto provide Gross Domestic Product numbers that are directlycomparable across countries and over time. This will be discussedin Section II below.But to foreshadow other things to come, it should be remarkedthat the effective uses of the benchmark data are by no meansrestricted to quantity comparisons, at aggregate or disaggreggate
2
levels. An important concept is the national price level of acountry. This is defined as the ratio of the country's PPP to itsexchange rate, expressed as a percentage. National price levelsacross the OECD countries frequently range from 60% to 170% of theOECD average when exchange rates and PPPs are expressed relative tothe United States dollar. The wide variation in price levelsacross countries and between the regions of countries have a numberof implications for national, regional, and firm policies withrespect to compensation, as well as for policies of central banksand exchange rate authorities. Barry Rodin of Employment Condi-tions Abroad will provide the Conference with much more detail onnational price levels and compensation policies, especially foremployees posted in countries other than that of their homeoffices. The use of national price levels for consumption or GDPare discussed in Section III below.A final introductory remark: National or regional pricelevels are perhaps even more interesting at disaggregate levels.Many of the uses here---for example, cross-section energy demandstudies---require detailed benchmark data. We report in Section IVbelow on some of our uses of the detailed data, both from the PennWorld Table (henceforth, PWT) and the benchmark studies. Unfortu-nately, it appears to us that the detailed benchmark data have beenunderutilized relative to the extensive use of secondary sourceslike PWT. In an Appendix we summarize a partial study of citationsof data sources used in articles published in social sciencejournals. Complimentary as it might be to us, we fully recognizean imbalance between the number of uses PWT has been put to com-pared with the benchmark data.II The Penn World Table and the Uses to Which It Has Been PutA. What is PWT?PWT is a first cut at the construction of a Space-Time Systemof National Accounts. The national income accounting framework,the conventional SNA, is the standard statistical device fordescribing countries' economic affairs. Entries in the usualSystem of National Accounts (SNA) are maintained by most of the170-plus members of the United Nations. The SNA is a veryeffective data system for describing the details of a country'seconomic condition at a point in time and over a period of time.Unfortunately, the SNA by itself does not permit effective compari-sons between countries. Intertemporal comparisons, YES; butinterspatial ones, NO. The SNA's intertemporal viability had nointerspatial counterpart until the price survey work---thebenchmark studies---of the United Nations International ComparisonProject (ICP) began in 1968 at the United Nations and the Universi-ty of Pennsylvania. Since 1980 the Penn researchers have moved onto generalize the benchmark work. The focus has been on integrat-ing the different benchmark studies and developing methods that
3
satisfy the need for information about countries that have notparticipated in benchmark studies and for years other thanbenchmark years. This has been accomplished through interspatialand intertemporal extrapolations of the ICP cross-section data tononbenchmark countries and years. The resulting very largeinternationally comparable PWT contains less disaggregate informa-tion (no finer than the level of Consumption, Investment, Govern-ment, and the Net Foreign Balance) but provides long time serieswith much more complete worldwide coverage.2 The very latestversion, PWT (Mark 5.6b), (to be available in November, 1997) willcover 170 countries and 27 variables for some or all of the years1950-94.PWT (Mark 5.6) has been made available to users on a 3.5"diskette accompanied by a Windows extraction program that can beused as an alternative to the DOS extraction software of earlierversions. The National Bureau of Economic Research distributes thediskette and maintains the Table on the Internet. The Table alongwith somewhat more powerful extraction and graphic software hasalso been put up on the World Wide Web at the University ofToronto. This latter action was taken without our knowledge; welearned of it from Fortune Magazine! This illustrates the public-good character of PWT and the wide interest in its availability.It also illustrates the difficulty of monitoring the Table once itis in the public domain. (A University of Bristol researcher whoasked for permission to put it up on the Internet there told usthat an English page on the World Wide Web would be very usefulbecause the trans-Atlantic communication link on the Internet wasfrequently busy for long periods of time.)PWT is a forerunner of a new kind of international data basewe anticipate will be further developed by international organiza-tions. And there is plenty of scope for further development! TheC, I, G, and NFB breakdown should be further disaggregated, andthis is planned for PWT 6. In the present version, both constant-and current-price time series are provided for GDP and each of thefour major components. The prices are so-called "international"prices. (Loosely speaking, these are weighted averages of therelative prices of all the countries in the world; they are scaledso that the total GDP of a base country measured in internationalprices is equal to the base country's GDP expressed in its owndomestic currency.) The United States serves as the base countryin ICP work, but it is only a numeraire; the ICP and PWT compari-sons do not depend on which country is chosen as the base. Thepresent PWT provides GDP information in the form of three differentstatistical concepts (fixed-year base, chain index, and in a formsdesigned to allow for changes in the terms of trade; and GDP isexpressed in per capita, per equivalent adult, and per worker form. In addition, population and rudimentary capital stock informationappear in the Table.
4
B. Some Uses of the PWT Numbers1. Levels of Real OutputMarket-size studies concerned with the demand for particularcommodities frequently take the form of a cross-section analysisthat draws on household income, relative prices, and perhaps othercountry variables. PWT provides income figures (e.g., Consumptionper capita) that give an indication of material well-being.3 Studies concerned with international commodities draw heavily onestimates of real quantities and relative prices at subaggregatelevels, and benchmark price parity4 estimates are a prime sourcefor such investigations. However, because the number of benchmarkcountries is limited and often no benchmark year is current, it isfrequently necessary to fall back on estimating equations based ona limited sample of observed benchmark countries. These equationsare then used as a basis for gauging market-size for the nonbench-mark countries or nonbenchmark years.PPP-converted GDP per capita is a variable used in a varietyof cross-section and time-series investigations of all sorts ofphenomena: demand for energy, health care, services in general,etc. In addition, it has been used to illuminate a variety ofsocio-demographic and political indicators like longevity,literacy, "freedom, etc. In these studies GDP per capita has"played both exogenous and endogenous roles. Is the PPP-convertedmeasure an improvement over what researchers used before the ICP(and even for a while after the ICP), namely exchange-rate-converted GDP per capita?5 We have examined this question (Summersand Heston, 1993) in a paper comparing the explanatory value ofexchange-rate=converted vs. PPP-converted GDPs per capita for avariety of socio-economic-demographic variables. Not surprisingly,the PPP-converted measure performed decidedly better.A country's level of real output can also be used as anindicator of its ability to support international activities, or ofits need for special treatment from the international community inthe form of, say, aid or low-interest loans. Many systems ofassessment, like those of the United Nations, were established whenthe only convertors available were exchange rates. Some countriesgain and some lose when PPPs are substituted for exchange rates, soit is hard to reach agreement on this kind of change.6 Further-more, the quality of the data submissions by countries may well becontaminated if country allocations are likely to be affected bythe outcome of the PPP estimation. Thus, while use of real outputlevels to determine international contributions and transfers seemsa logical use of PPP estimates, this is an area where we feel slow
5
adoption is justified.Two specific research-type uses of the GDP estimates in PWT byinternational organizations may be mentioned. The InternationalMonetary Fund began in 1993 to use PWT in preparing estimates ofregional and world growth rates for its World Economic Outlook.The growth rate for a region is calculated as a weighted average ofthe growth rates of the individual countries of the region, wherethe weights are the country shares of the total regional output.Before 1993 the IMF's shares were based on exchange-rate convertedGDPs from the World Bank instead of ICP ones based on PPPs. TheIMF was getting what it considered unrealistically low world growthrates because, except for Hong Kong and Japan, the fastest-growingcountries in Asia were receiving low weights and the slower-growingcountries of Europe were receiving high weights. (The systematicdifference between exchange rates and PPPs for rich and poorcountries is responsible for this perverse effect on world growthrates. Fast-growing Hong Kong and Japan were heavily weighted, butnot enough to begin to compensate for the very low weight given tothe high growth rates of the remainder of East Asia.)The other international-organization use of PPP-converted GDPfigures is in the computation of the Human Development Indexdeveloped by the United Nations Development Programme. Descrip-tions of the HDI and its underpinnings appear in the UNDP's variousHuman Development Reports.2. Growth of real outputThe explanation of economic growth has been the subject of acottage industry of researchers in recent years. (Convergenceconsiderations---e.g., "Do the rich get richer and the poor getpoorer?" or "Do the rich get richer faster than the poor getricher?" etc.---all require proper real GDP computations.) Forbetter, or some would say worse7, the ease of using PWT has made itthe most frequent data source for these studies. Real GDP percapita is a critical explanatory variable because most of thesegrowth models, following Barro and others, use the coefficient onearly-period real income as a measure of the speed of convergenceor divergence. In this work PWT's real GDP numbers provide anaggregate measure of productivity. However, for sectoral produc-tivity studies, the work of ICOP at Groningen described by Bart vanArk today is the appropriate data set with which to work.3. Price Parities and Shares of Real OutputSharply focused comparisons of various social policies acrosscountries---social security or taxation, for example---ofteninvolve real quantities rather than expenditures denominated innational currencies. Even if all economic variables enter into theanalysis in share form, (e.g., government transfers as a proportion
6
of consumption), real shares are normally needed. To illustratethe importance of using real share data, consider an analysis ofthe role of capital formation in the growth process. Any effort todevelop comparable capital stock estimates across countries bycumulating investment over time must be carried out in terms ofreal investment figures. This requires that differences in capitalgoods prices relative to all other prices across countries must beallowed for. This is especially important for developing countriesbecause their real investment share of GDP is usually one-half totwo-thirds of their nominal, domestic-price share; on the otherhand, the real share of industrial countries may well be largerthan the nominal shares.For example, in 1990 the Philippines and Japan had nominalinvestment shares of 32% and 34%, respectively. However when allpeso and yen investment expenditures are converted by the appropri-ate price parities, PPPs for GDP and the investment price parityfor investment, the respective shares are 18% and 36%! This is aconsequence of the very high relative prices of investment goods inthe Philippines. These latter shares reflect the real quantitiesof construction and machinery investment being put in place in thetwo countries. They also explain the puzzle of why many poorcountries with seemingly high investment shares---high nominalshares, that is---in fact have low growth rates.The difference between real shares and nominal (those based ondomestic prices) turns on systematic differences in price struc-tures across countries and these differences exist even amongcountries at similar levels of development. Consider a strikingexample of this in the area of consumption for the relativelyaffluent countries of the OECD. The United States' proportion oftotal spending devoted to health goods and services is typicallygreater than that of any other member of the OECD. However, whenaccount is taken of the higher relative price of health items inthe United States, one finds that the American real share of healthexpenditures ranks only 13th out of the 24 OECD countries. (Theserankings are derived from the 1993 benchmark study.)4. Exceptions to the usual superiority of PPPs over exchange rates in international comparisonsIt was remarked above that exchange rates play an importantrole along with PPPs in setting assessments. Here are two examplesof international comparison situations where PPPs and price pari-ties are not to the point. First, in comparing household savingsrates across countries, one should recognize that relative pricesinfluence behavior: what counts are the proportions of total incomespent and saved and not the quantities of goods actually purchasedor foregone. Secondly, for most external debt comparisons it isrelevant to know what exactly will have to be given up at the timeof repayment and that of course depends upon the exchange rate.
7
III Some Special Uses of Consumption Price Parities8A. Post-allowance calculationsIt is not necessary to detail in this presentation the uses towhich consumption price parities have been put to help both privateand public sectors employers compensate appropriately employeesassigned to foreign posts. That was done by the previous speaker.B. Poverty MeasuresAt the international level, the World Bank and others who havedone poverty counts typically obtain national currency povertylines by converting an international poverty line (usually based onIndia) by PWT-like consumption price parities for each country.These are then used in conjunction with country-specific surveys offamily income or expenditures to arrive at a poverty count.Michael Ward and his colleagues at the World Bank have beenactively exploring the use of price parities related to povertypopulations to get a better handle on comparable measures acrosscountries.It's also true that price parity applications to povertycounts are quite important within countries. The poverty line inthe United States is the same whether the count is being taken inNew York City, Jackson, Mississippi, or Klamath Falls, Oregon, butcan this be right? In a recent paper, Aten [1995] estimated whatthe poverty line budget threshold for the United States as a whole,$5,778 per person in 1987, implied for a high-cost area---New YorkCity---and the lowest-cost area---the North Central region. Itturns out that the counterpart of the overall United States povertyline ($5,778) was $7,507 for New York City and $4,651 for the NorthCentral region. There is a difference of 61 per cent between thetwo figures!C. Immigration StudiesIn a study of income convergence within countries, Barro andSala-i-Martin (1992) found that a major part of the explanationrevolves around migration. It seems likely that holding unemploy-ment constant, a measure of differences in wages between regionsadjusted for differences in prices across regions will be muchbetter as a predictor of internal migration than nominal wages.An interesting international immigration application drawingon consumption price parities has recently been carried out byJasso, Massey, Rosenzweig, and Smith (1997). They report theresults of an immigration survey in the United States in whichinformants reported their wages both prior to immigration and intheir current United States employment. In order to compare
8
immigrants' wages in their country of emigration with theirsubsequent United States wages, the authors converted the formerfigures at the consumption price parities from PWT.D. International Demand AnalysisAre tastes the same the world round? That is the questionthat introduced the last chapter of Kravis, Heston, and Summers(1982), a volume reporting on the 1975 benchmark study. To gainsome insight into the answer, the income and detailed price andquantity data of the study's 34 benchmark countries were examinedin a variety of ways. Beginning with a highly pragmatic, non-theoretic formulation---simply, (i) if a country's price for a goodis high, does it consume less than if its price is low, holdingincome constant? and (ii) if two countries' price structures andincomes are similar, are their output compositions also similar,and vice-versa?---we went on to search for revealed preferenceviolations, and then examined the data through the filter of atheoretical, utility-based model (the linear expenditure system).Our conclusion: Nothing we saw contradicted the "common tastes"hypothesis. Needless to say, this isn't quite the same as sayingYES, TASTES ARE THE SAME THE WORLD ROUND!IV Analytical Uses of Benchmark DataA. Service-Commodity and Tradable-Nontradable BreakdownsWe have made use of two less conventional aggregations of thedetailed expenditure data of benchmark studies. We dividedaggregate output first into its service and commodity components,and then into its tradables and nontradables components.9  Services vs. Commodities The basic conclusion arrived at wasthat the real share of services in GDP is flat with respect toincome. This striking finding contradicts the basic proposition ofColin Clark that the service share becomes larger as countriesbecome more affluent and is greater in more affluent countries.However, Clark had in mind the production side and we were dealingwith expenditures. The straightforward interpretation of what isgoing on is this: the real quantity of services being consumed as ashare of output does not rise with country income but the relativeprice of services does. This leads to the share calculated fromdomestic-prices rising with income, which was the basis of theClark proposition.Tradables vs. Nontradables When the relationship betweentradables and nontradables was examined in relation to income andother variables, it was found that the relative prices of both rosewith income, but that the nontradable prices rose more rapidly.This is consistent with the Balassa-Samuelson explanations of whynational price levels rise with income. (See Heston, Summers, and
9
Nuxoll (1994).)The conclusions about both the price parities and realquantities for the commodity-service and tradable-nontradablebreakdowns seem fairly robust across benchmark studies.B. Similarity of Price StructuresMany economic studies find it convenient to assume that acrosscountries there is a convergence of price structures over time.This is typical in projections of costs of current resource-usepatterns for the global environment. Is it reasonable to thinkthat price structures converge across countries? Examining such aquestion calls for a measure of price similarity. The one wedeveloped, a little too complicated for close definition here, wasused to examine the proposition that countries with similar incomeswill have similar price structures. Indeed, it was found in eachof the benchmark studies that countries display more similarity inprice structure the closer they are in income. A more subtleexamination of the similarity of prices of tradable and nontradablegoods across countries revealed a more complicated relationship,but one that was basically consistent with the proposition that theprices of tradables should tend to be more equal across countriesthan nontradables. (See Heston, Aten, Summers, and Nuxoll (1995).)A preliminary examination of a sample of benchmark countriesbetween the years 1970 and 1985 did not suggest convergence ofprice structures, even for countries like Japan and the UnitedStates where there had been a convergence of relative incomes(Heston and Summers(1993)). However, this result appears to besensitive to how similarity is measured from one benchmark toanother, and thus remains a subject of further research.C. Investment and Capital StockThe investment price parities in the benchmark comparisons andPWT have been used extensively in economic growth and productivitycomparisons. Uniquely, DeLong and Summers (1992) examined theproposition that the composition of a country's investment isimportant in determining its rate of growth. Using disaggregatedinvestment data from the 1980 and 1985 benchmark studies, theyfound that machinery investment contributed more to economic growththan construction, and that that was true for both benchmarkstudies. This conclusion drew on two related pieces of informationonly available through benchmark studies; the price of machineryinvestment relative to the prices of other goods and services, andthe real quantities of machinery investment in different countries. Generally speaking, investment flows are used as a proxy for theincrease in the size of the capital stock when they are used toexplain economic growth. But note that strictly speaking invest-ment should be accompanied by a denominator in the form of the size
10
of the capital stock. For this reason time-series of capital stock estimates forover 60 benchmark countries have been developed for PWT. Inaddition to capital stock estimates, the PWT 5.6 diskette containsa separate file of estimates of quantities for five fairly detailedheadings of capital formation. (In this file Producers DurablesTransport Equipment is distinguished from Other Equipment in anattempt to better capture the disparate service lives withinProducers Durables.) It is expected that future versions of PWTwill contain capital stock estimates for more countries, includingnonbenchmark ones.V ConclusionThis brief survey has reported on a major wholesale distribu-tion of international comparisons derived from the various bench-mark studies of the ICP. Besides the extended discussion of thePenn World Table, a variety of direct applications have beenpresented, our own retail uses and those of others. An Appendixlisting Penn World Table and International Comparison Programmecitations from learned journals and Internet usage has been addedto this text to give some idea of the scope of usage of theinternational comparison materials.10 We argue in the Appendixthat the data of the benchmark studies have been underutilizedcompared with the Penn World Table. We think that the long timeseries on national price levels in PWT are also underutilizedcompared to the growth and GDP per capita numbers.11In 1968 the economics community was 2 per cent of the wayalong to a Space-Time System of National account. Dare we say nowthirty-ish years later, that we are 75 per cent of the way? Yes-terday's bells and whistles soon will be our everyday standard.
11