Academic literature on the topic 'Samuelson Hypothesis'

AbstractThis paper examines the purchasing power parity (PPP) theorem adjusted the “productivity-bias hypothesis” or the Balassa-Samuelson effect (Balassa, 1964; Samuelson, 1964) for eight East Asian countries including Japan, New Industrializing Economies (NIE-3: Singapore; Hong Kong, China; and Korea), the ASEAN-3 (Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This paper applies three methods of analysis i.e. univariate time series, multivariate regression and Johansen multivariate cointegration. The three methods give the same conclusions. First, the PPP hypothesis does not hold in the case of the eight East Asian countries. Second, non-traded goods give significant contribution on the PPP deviation. It is confirmed by the existence of Balassa-Samuelson effect.

Expected utility theory dominated the economic analysis of individual decision-making under risk from the early 1950s to the 1990. Among the early supporters of the expected utility hypothesis in the von Neumann–Morgenstern version were Milton Friedman and Leonard Jimmie Savage, both based at the University of Chicago, and Jacob Marschak, a leading member of the Cowles Commission for Research in Economics. Paul Samuelson of MIT was initially a severe critic of expected utility theory. Between mid-April and early May 1950, Samuelson composed three papers in which he attacked von Neumann and Morgenstern's axiomatic system. By 1952, however, Samuelson had somewhat unexpectedly become a resolute supporter of the expected utility hypothesis. Why did Samuelson change his mind? Based on the correspondence between Samuelson, Savage, Marschak, and Friedman, this article reconstructs the joint intellectual journey that led Samuelson to accept expected utility theory and Savage to revise his motivations for supporting it.

Purpose: The present study is aimed at presenting a critical appraisal of the empirical literature on the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis for emerging and developing Asian countries. Design/methodology/approach: A critical appraisal of the relevant studies is carried out across various important dimensions of the empirical estimation of the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis including the scheme of sectoral division followed, definitions and proxy variables used for constructing real exchange rate and price series, choice of output and employment series and their subsequent transformation, empirical methodology followed and (theoretically) different variants of the hypothesis chosen for empirical estimation. Findings: Only a handful of studies have investigated the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis for Asia. Nevertheless, these studies are characterized by a variety of irregularities in dealing with different important features of the theory, which may be of critical importance for yielding consistent empirical estimates. In multi-country studies for Asia, serious inconsistencies are observed whilst handling these critical aspects of the hypothesis. Such irregularities may hold serious implications for model estimates since the empirical evidence from Asia is very mixed, and in many cases, not even robust. Practical implications: The inconsistencies highlighted in this review paper hold strong implications for future research in this area. The selection of price indicators for the construction of real exchange rate series, choice of econometric methodology and the theoretical framework followed are aspects of the empirical verification of the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis that need to be handled with great caution since they turn out to be most sensitive in relation to yielding intuitively correct and robust model estimates. Originality: To our knowledge, so far, no study on Asia has presented such an extensive appraisal of literature on the productivity-real exchange rate nexus. The present study is therefore novel in the sense that it critically evaluates studies on Asia against all those features of the Balssa-Samuelson theory which may stand responsible for yielding mixed and even contrasting empirical estimates for Asia.