Upload
buianh
View
220
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
【論 説】
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis:
A Survey of Empirical Studies*
Mitsuhiko Satake**
1. Introduction
In its simplest form, the Fisher hypothesis postulates a one-for-one relationship
between the nominal interest rate and the expected inflation rate, i.e. that the
nominal interest rate increases by 1% for every 1% increase in the expected
inflation rate. If the Fisher hypothesis holds true, then it has important practical
implications for the monetary policy, the super-neutrality of monetary policy, the
usefulness of interest rates as monetary policy targets and the predictability of
inflation rates using nominal interest rates. However, as is often the case with
applied economics, robust results on the empirical validity of the Fisher hypothesis
are difficult to find. There is a huge volume of both empirical and theoretical
work, starting with the original paper by Irving Fisher (1930), which found a one-
for-one relationship between nominal interest rates and inflation rates. Attempts
to replicate such results have led to a wide variety of studies using varying
techniques, time periods and data from a wide range of countries 1). This paper
* I would like to thank Garry MacDonald at Curtin University of Technology, Ken Hirayama at Kwansei Gakuin University and the members of Monetary Economics Workshop for helpful and insightful comments. However, the remaining errors are entirely the author’s responsibility.** Faculty of Economics, Doshisha University, Karasuma-Imadegawa, Kamigyo-ku, 602-8580. E-mail: [email protected]) There are few surveys on testing the Fisher hypothesis, including Cooray (2003), a brief but
excellent survey.
(423) 55
第 62巻 第 4号
attempts to summarize some of the results from this body of literature by focusing
on empirical testing methods, which have changed over time as econometric
techniques have changed and developed.
The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 2 briefly discusses the meaning
and importance of the Fisher hypothesis. Sections 3 to 5 provide an overview of
testing the Fisher hypothesis according to the development of techniques. Section
3 looks at the original work of Fisher (1930) and various others who attempted
to extend and replicate his tests. Section 4 proceeds with the seminal work of
Fama (1975), which placed the testing of the Fisher hypothesis in the context
of efficient markets and rational expectations and marked a significant shift in
the methodology used to test the hypothesis. Section 5 focuses on more recent
attempts to test the hypothesis using modern time series techniques, in particular
those associated with the development of tests for nonstationarity (unit root)
and long-run relationships (cointegration). Section 6 discusses the results from a
large body of work (empirical and theoretical) that found no support for the Fisher
hypothesis and attempted to explain why the Fisher hypothesis was not supported.
The empirical literature reviewed in Sections 2 to 6 focuses largely on studies
based on US data; therefore, the final three sections of this chapter review briefly
the literature from Japan (Section 7), Australia (Section 8) and other countries (Section
9). Section 10 attempts to summarize the results discussed and puts them into
perspective.
2. The Meaning of the Fisher Hypothesis
The Fisher hypothesis is based on the following identity, which simply states
that the nominal interest rate is the sum of the ex ante real interest rate and the
expected inflation rate.
56 (424)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Rt≡Et rt+Etπt+1 , (1)
where Rt is the nominal interest from t to (t+1) and Et is the expectation
operator for period t ; therefore, Et rt is the real interest rate expected to hold
from period t to (t+1) and Etπt+1 is the expected inflation rate from period t to
(t+1). This identity is called the Fisher equation after Irving Fisher, who originally
discussed the idea that, when the interest rate is considered, it is important to
distinguish between nominal and real rates. If we then suppose that the real
interest rate is constant (as determined by the rate of return on capital), equation
(1) clearly demonstrates a one-for-one relationship between nominal interest
rates and expected inflation rates. This concept is the Fisher hypothesis, or as it
is sometimes referred to, the Fisher effect. Economists typically use the phrase
‘Fisher effect’as shorthand for the potential effects of monetary policy on interest
rates in the context of equation (1). Thus, the Fisher effect tells us that when a
loose monetary policy causes an increase in the money supply, an increase in the
expected inflation rate due to this increase in the money supply will lead to an
increase in nominal interest rates, as suggested by the Fisher equation (1). Whilst
the implications of equation (1) are that, with constant real rates of return, any
increase in expected inflation will lead to a one-for-one increase in nominal interest
rates, this strict interpretation is sometimes dropped when economists refer to the
Fisher effect. Often, the Fisher effect is more loosely interpreted as the effect of a
1% increase in expected inflation rates on nominal interest rates that increase by α
%, where 0<α≤ 1.
Before moving on to review at the empirical testing of the Fisher hypothesis, it
is worth briefly noting the importance of the hypothesis.
First, as suggested by the discussion above, empirical support for the Fisher
hypothesis suggests the super-neutrality of money. As equation (1) suggests, the
(425) 57
第 62巻 第 4号
real rate of interest equals the nominal rate minus the expected inflation rate.
These move one for one; therefore, monetary policy changes to the money supply
affect nominal variables but not real variables. This is the key statement for
classical economics: support for the Fisher hypothesis implies the impotence of
monetary policy.
The second implication is associated with the problem of the monetary policy
target, i.e. whether interest rates or a monetary aggregate are more adequate
as an instrument of monetary policy. The original theoretical discussion of this
problem was put forward by Poole (1970) in the context of a stochastic version of
the IS-LM model. Poole’s analysis clarified the choice to be made between interest
rates and quantity instruments and that the incorrect choice would lead to greater
output volatility. Gibson (1970b, 1970c) classified three effects of monetary policy
on nominal interest rates. For example, when a loose monetary policy increases
the supply of money, this increase in the money supply induces a decrease in
interest rates in the short run as a result of the liquidity effect. In the controversy
for the monetary policy target, economists thought that a loose monetary policy
decreases interest rates. Actually, a loose monetary policy increases interest rates
because of the income effect and the expected inflation effect (the Fisher effect) as
inflation occurs. In particular, the Fisher effect matters greatly during a period of
high inflation. A decrease in interest rates stimulates demand for investments and
so on, encouraging interest rates to increase through the income effect. Moreover,
an increase in expected inflation rates increases nominal interest rates more than
their original level in the long run. As a result, a loose monetary policy increases,
not decreases, interest rates. Consequently, the monetary authority cannot control
interest rates as an intermediate target for monetary policy 2). During the 1970s
in Japan and other OECD countries, with the above controversy, research for
2) See Friedman (1968) and Sargent and Wallace (1975).
58 (426)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
monetary economics produced literature on testing the Fisher effect to assess the
adequacy of interest rates as a policy target. In the 1970s, policy management has
switched to making monetary aggregate more important than interest rates when
inflation accelerated. Therefore, with respect to controlling monetary policy, it
matters whether the Fisher effect holds or not, as do the size and adjustment rate
for the Fisher effect.
Finally, an increase in money supply as a result of monetary policy does not affect
real interest rates, assuming that real interest rates are determined only by the
real sector. Therefore, in accordance with the Fisher hypothesis, a change in future
inflation rates, i.e. a change in expected inflation rates, causes the same change
in nominal interest rates. The one-for-one relationship between nominal interest
rates and expected inflation rates means that we can forecast future inflation rates
by observing movements in nominal interest rates because information on future
inflation is fully contained in such nominal interest rate movements.
As the above suggests, the Fisher hypothesis embodies important implications
for macroeconomic policy. Thus, its empirical validity or otherwise has been the
subject of a large body of empirical work. The following sections provide a brief
survey of some of this evidence.
3. Initial Tests of the Fisher Hypothesis
A. H. Gibson found evidence to suggest that a positive relationship exists
between nominal interest rates and price levels. John M. Keynes named the
relationship the Gibson Paradox 3). He referred to the finding as a paradox because
there should be a negative relationship between nominal interest rates and price
levels from the perspective of the theory at the time. According to Knut Wicksell 4),
3) On the Gibson Paradox, J.M. Keynes referred to Gibson’s series of articles in Banker’s Magazine, in particular January 1923 and November 1926. See Keynes (1930, pp. 177-186).
4) See Wicksell (1965).
(427) 59
第 62巻 第 4号
to attain the equilibrium that equates investment with saving in the real sector,
the ex ante interest rate is called the natural interest rate and is considered stable
over time. However, the actual rate, i.e. the market interest rate, tends to fluctuate
in the short run. If the market interest rate rises and becomes higher (lower) than
the natural rate, savings exceed (lag) investments. This leads to the development
of a deflationary (inflationary) gap and price levels fall (rise). Therefore, ‘Classical
Theory’ suggests a negative relationship between nominal interest rates and price
levels.
Fisher (1930, Ch. 19, pp. 399-451) explained the Gibson Paradox by noting the
distinction between real interest rates and nominal interest rates; at equilibrium,
the nominal interest rate is the sum of the returns on real assets (the equilibrium
real interest rate) and the expected inflation rate. When the purchasing power
of money is stable, the real and nominal interest rates are constant. However,
the value of money changes over time. If fluctuations in the value of money are
perfectly foreseen and the purchasing power of money decreases by 1%, then
nominal interest rates become 1% higher than real interest rates. Therefore, the
inverse one-for-one relationship between the change in the purchasing power of
money and that of the nominal interest rate is clear and implies a positive one-
for-one relationship between nominal interest rates and inflation rates, since an
increase in inflation implies a decline in the value of money. However, in practice, it
is frequently the case that changes in the value of money are not perfectly foreseen
and agents make forecasts of expected changes. Expected inflation rates forecast a
change in the purchasing power of money, and Fisher argued that expected inflation
rates could be deduced from a distributed lag of prior inflation rates. This suggests
that a positive relationship exists between nominal interest rates and price levels
that are explained by the accumulation of lags in prior inflation rates.
This idea formed the basis of the initial empirical work that was carried out by
60 (428)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Fisher, who estimated the correlation coefficient between the return on the long-
term bond and the expected inflation rate (proxied using a linear distributed lag of actual
inflation). His initial results showed that:
• Using quarterly US data for the period 1890-1927, the maximum correlation
coefficient was 0.857 and used a lag length on inflation rates for the past 20
years.
• Using quarterly UK data for the period 1898-1924, the maximum correlation
coefficient was 0.98, with a lag length of 28 years.
Therefore, the Gibson Paradox, which is the positive relationship between long-
term bond returns and price levels, is interpreted as a response of the long-term
bond return to expected inflation rates. However, Fisher’s results suggested that
actual inflation rates affect expected inflation rates for a surprisingly long time,
with lags of 20 to 30 years, thus leading to the highest positive correlations in the
data.
In summarizing his ideas in the final part of chapter 19 of Fisher’s (1930), The
Relation of Interest on Money and Price, he indicated that there is a remarkably high
correlation between inflation rates and interest rates. However, he also indicated
that changes in interest rates lag inflation rates for a long time and sometime for
a surprisingly long time. He concluded that interest rates change according to
changes in the real sector when the purchasing power of money is stable. On the
other hand, interest rates change according to a change in the purchasing power
of money when the purchasing power of money is unstable. It is perhaps worth
quoting some of his comments from the summary of chapter 19:
‘We have found evidence general and specific, from correlating P’ 5) with both bond yields
5) Note that P’ means the inflation rate.
(429) 61
第 62巻 第 4号
and short term interest rates, that price changes do, generally and perceptibly, affect the
interest rate in the direction indicated by a priori theory. But since forethought is imperfect,
the effects are smaller than the theory requires and lag behind price movements, in some
periods, very greatly. When the effects of price changes upon interest rate are distributed over
several years, we have found remarkably high coefficients of correlation, thus indicating that
interest rates follow price changes closely in degree, though rather distantly in time.
The final result, partly due to foresight and partly to the lack of it, is that price changes
do after several years and with the intermediation of change in profits and business activity
affect interest very profoundly. In fact, while the main object of this book is to show how
the rate of interest would behave if the purchasing power of money were stable, there have
never been any long period of time during which this condition has been even approximately
fulfilled. When it is not fulfilled, the money rate of interest, and still more the real rate of
interest, is more affected by the instability of money than by those more fundamental and
more normal causes connected with income impatience, and opportunity, to which this book
is chiefly devoted.’ (Fisher, 1930, p. 451, Chapter 19, Section 13 Summary)
Thus, Fisher (1930) found surprisingly long distributed lags in estimating
expected inflation rates. Although he argued that the cause of the longer lags
was potentially the result of the incompleteness of both expectations and the
adjustment in the determination of expected inflation rates, the lag length of the
expected inflation rate in the empirical work was seen as troublesome and difficult
to justify in reality. Fisher (1930) did not test the size of the Fisher effect, but
simply estimated the correlation coefficient between nominal interest rates and
expected inflation rates and postulated that a 1% increase in expected inflation
rates leads to a 1% increase in nominal interest rates.
Since the 1970s, when the major economies of the world started to experience
both higher and more volatile inflation rates, the literature on testing the Fisher
62 (430)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
effect focused on two key issues: the length of the lag and the size of the Fisher
effect. To confirm the results of Fisher (1930), papers such as Meiselman (1963),
Sargent (1969), Gibson (1970a), Yohe and Karnosky (1969) and Lahiri (1976)
forecasted expected inflation rates using a range of distributed lag models, tested
the Fisher hypothesis and estimated the size of the Fisher effect using the
following basic model structure.
Rt=Et rt+Etπt+1 (2)
Rt=α+βEtπt+1+ε (3)
Equation (2) simply recalls the original Fisher equation as denoted in Section 2.
Assuming that the ex ante real interest rate is a constant α, the Fisher hypothesis
is that β=1 can be tested using equation (3).
Etπt+1=∑i
wiπt-i (4)
Rt=r̄+∑i
wiπt-i+εt (5)
Expected inflation is estimated using the distributed lag model in (4). Putting the
estimated value of expected inflation rate from the regression model (4) into the
second term on the right-hand side of (3) can test whether the hypothesis that β
=1 in (3) is supported or not. Most literature substitute equation (4) in equation (3)
and estimate model (5) to test whether the sum of the values of the coefficients in
the distributed lags is equal to or less than one. Note that the test using model (5)
could not identify the difference between the hypothesis β=1 and the size of the
effect of the expected inflation rate from the distributed lag model. Basically, we
should test the Fisher hypothesis using model (3) with the expected inflation rate
derived from (4). However, we also summarize the testing in the literature based
on model (5).
We first review some of the results in the context of the required length of the
distributed lags. Meiselman (1963), Sargent (1969) and Gibson (1970a), who employed
(431) 63
第 62巻 第 4号
several distributed lags, i.e. Koyck, geometric decreasing and unconditional
distributed lags respectively, found that by using data before World War II the
estimated length of distributed lag models was enough to support Fisher (1930).
Meiselman (1963), using annual US data on returns on corporate bonds and WPI
for the period 1873-1960, applied the adaptive expectations and found a mean lag of
13 years, which supported the long lag length although the size of the Fisher effect
was very small before World War II. Sargent (1969), using annual US data for the
period 1902-1940, determined the effect on nominal interest rates of surprisingly
long distributed lags for price change variables, even while taking into account
the other monetary and real variables. Gibson (1970a) used annual short- and long-
term interest rate data for the period 1869-1963 and quarterly data for the period
1948-1963 and found the long-run effect of the expected inflation rate on nominal
interest rates, although the size of the effect is less than one.
In another aspect of the literature, Yohe and Karnosky (1969), Feldstein and
Eckstein (1970), Carr and Smith (1972) and Lahiri (1976) showed that the length
of the lag required to capture the formation of the expected inflation rate was
shortened in the 1960s. Using monthly data from the US for the period 1952-1969,
Yohe and Karnosky (1969) analysed the relationship between nominal interest rates
and inflation. The yield on 3A corporate bonds was used as long-term rates, the
four to six month CP (Commercial Paper) rate was used as a short-term rate and the
inflation rate was measured using the CPI. Yohe and Karnosky (1969) conducted
regression analyses, in which the regressand was the nominal interest rate and
the distributed lags of prior inflation rates were regressors. Almon distributed
lag models 6) were adopted and three types of lag lengths, 24, 36 and 48 months,
were used to estimate the regression models. The results are summarized by
6) The Almon distributed lag model is one of the distributed lag models and assumes that the shape of the distribution is polynomial, meaning that we can flexibly determine the shape.
64 (432)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
two points. First, the maximum of the determination coefficients was 0.771,
using short-term interest rates in the case of the three-year lag length and 0.549,
using the long-term interest rates in the case of the four-year lag length. The
determination coefficients were rather large, although not as large as in the case
of Fisher (1930). Second, the duration of the effect of expected inflation on the
nominal interest rate is within two years and the latest period has the maximum
effect. Therefore, Yohe and Karnosky (1969) showed that the distribution lags
were not as long as Fisher (1930) insisted. This tendency appeared in Feldstein and
Eckstein (1970) and Carr and Smith (1972), which employed the Almon distributed
lag model. Polynomial distributed lag models are considered to have shorter lags
than monotonic decreasing distributed lags. Moreover, Lahiri (1976) found that the
some formations expect the inflation to adjust much faster.
The reduction in the lag length of the distributed lags model depends not
only on the type of the model but also on the period during which the study was
undertaken. Dividing the sample periods between the 1950s and the 1960s, Yohe
and Karnosky (1969) and Gibson (1972) found that the adjustment rate accelerated
and the lag length shortened in the 1960s compared with the 1950s. Gibson
(1972) indicated that the expected inflation rate obtained from the Livingstone
survey data, which contain forecasts of future inflation rates for six or 12 month
in the future and could explain most of the variation in actual inflation during the
1960s. This suggests that the adjustment rate of the expected inflation effect on
nominal interest rates accelerated in the 1960s more than in the 1950s. Feldstein
and Eckstein (1970) and Carr and Smith (1972) conducted the analyses using data
mainly from the 1960s. It is believed that the adjustment rate of the effects of
expected inflation on the nominal interest rate accelerated. The reason might be
because agents needed to incorporate inflation expectations into the determination
of nominal variables more rapidly to insulate themselves from losses, considering
(433) 65
第 62巻 第 4号
that inflation was insistent in the 1960s.
When researchers turned to analyse the size or magnitude of the Fisher effect,
they found evidence that it became larger in the 1960s than in the 1950s at the
same time that the lag length shortened. Thus far, the studies used the expected
inflation rate formulated by distributed lag models. However, we have a problem in
selecting distributed lag models because of the arbitrariness in selecting the shape
and lag length of such models. We need directly observed data, i.e. survey data to
make us escape from fear to determine whether we have a wrong price formation.
Although the frequency of such data is limited, the Livingstone survey data 7)
is available in the US since 1946. Using survey data, we can examine, without
doubting whether the price formation is correct, the magnitude of the Fisher
effect. We briefly summarize the literature using the survey data, i.e. Gibson (1972),
Pyle (1972), Cargill (1976), Lahiri (1976) and Cargill and Meyer (1980).
Gibson (1972) used the Livingstone survey data as expected inflation rate instead
of the distributed lag model. Using US data between 1952 and 1970 and dividing
the entire period into two periods, i.e. the 1950s and 1960s, Gibson (1972) found
that the estimated coefficient of the expected inflation rate in the 1950s was less
than 0.5, while that estimated coefficient during the 1960s was nearly one. Yohe
and Karnosky (1969) indicated the same results. Using the Livingstone Survey
data, Cargill (1976) also tested the Fisher effect by dividing the sample period into
two periods, i.e. the 1950s and 1960s. He found that most of the results of the
estimation coefficients for the expected inflation rate were not significant in the
1950s, while the coefficients were almost significant and their size was supported
to be one in the 1960s. Therefore, the faster the inflation rate grew in the 1960s,
7) The Livingstone Survey is produced by Joseph Livingstone, who was a nationally syndicated financial columnist. It has surveyed twice a year since 1946 from a group of business, government, labor and academic economists on their expectations of future values of macroeconomic variables including the consumer price index. See Gibson (1972).
66 (434)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
the larger the effect on nominal interest rates. However, Cargill and Meyer (1980)
examined the Fisher effect, dividing the period into three subperiods, i.e. 1954-59,
1960-69 and 1970-75. As a result, the relationship between the nominal interest
rate and inflation is fairly unstable, which is inconsistent with the other two
studies.
Although they did not divide the sample period, Pyle (1972) and Lahiri (1976)
examined the Fisher effect using the Livingstone survey data. Pyle (1972), using
US data for 1954-1969, obtained the results that the coefficient was nearly 1.0
when using 12-month forward data, while the result using six-month forward
data was less than one. For the 1952-1970 samples, Lahiri (1976) incorporated the
Livingstone survey data into four expectation formations and found that the size
of the effect was 0.7-0.9. The coefficient increased because both studies contained
data from the entire 1960s.
As described above, the length of the distributed lags was shorten in the 1960s
and the result was accepted by researchers. Moreover, the magnitude of the Fisher
effect grew. However, this magnitude had been by and large less than one since
Yohe and Karnosky (1969). Therefore, it is conceivable that the Fisher hypothesis
is not fully supported in empirical studies.
Since the seminal work of Fisher (1930), a large volume of literature has been
devoted to empirical work to test the Fisher effect. Research following Fisher
had two questions related to the results in Fisher (1930), i.e. far longer length of
distributed lags and the one-for-one relationship between the nominal interest rate
and inflation. Up to today, whilst the adjustment rate of the effect of the expected
inflation rate on nominal interest rates was very slow when inflation was stable
before the 1950s, it accelerated in the 1960s. Moreover, Fisher (1930) believed in
the one-for-one relationship. However, many studies following Fisher found that
the size of the Fisher effect was less than one, although it grew in the 1960s. We
(435) 67
第 62巻 第 4号
will follow the literature using new approaches from here on.
4. The Influence of Fama (1975) on Tests of the Fisher Hypothesis
A major change in the way in which applied studies approached the testing of
the Fisher hypothesis occurred with the publication of Fama’s seminal paper in
1975. Since Fisher (1930), regression models used to test the Fisher hypothesis
assumed that current nominal interest rates could be explained by the expected
inflation rate, which was estimated by some form of distributed lag model of past
inflation rates. Therefore, the implicit assumption was that causality flowed from
the inflation rate to nominal interest rates and that expectations were formed
adaptively, i.e. that agents were backward looking when forming expectations.
Fama (1975) assumed that the market was forward looking and could correctly
forecast future inflation as a stochastic expected value. If the short-term financial
market is an ‘efficient market’, in the sense that it uses all available information
in the determination of the equilibrium short-term nominal interest rate, the
current nominal interest rate contains all of the information contained in the lags
of the actual inflation rate, making distributed lag models redundant. In this model,
current interest rates should therefore be good predictors of future inflation rates
and the causation runs from nominal interest rate to inflation rate. Fama (1975)
therefore incorporates two assumptions in the testing framework: that the market
is efficient (see Fama (1970)) and that agents are rational (see Muth (1960)).
Fama (1975) estimated regression models in the form of equation (6), in which
the regressand is the one-period-ahead inflation rate and the regressor is the
current nominal interest rate.
πt+1=α+βRt+ut , (6)
where π is the inflation rate, R the nominal interest rate, α is a constant term
and equal to the minus real interest rate and ut is the error term. Whether or not
68 (436)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
the market is efficient can be examined 1) by testing the hypothesis that β=
1, which derives the constancy of the ex ante real interest rate and 2) by testing
the hypothesis that there is no serial correlation in the error term, which is
interpretable as reflecting market efficiency. When these hypotheses hold, the
Fisher hypothesis is completely supported and the nominal interest rate contains
complete information about past inflation under rational expectations and the
constant ex ante real interest rate.
Using monthly US data between 1953 and 1971, with the reciprocal of the
rate of one-period changes in CPI as the change in purchasing power of money
and using one- to six-month Treasury Bills as the nominal interest rate, Fama’s
(1975) results suggested that the hypothesis that the coefficient of the nominal
interest rate is one could not be rejected. He calculated the autocorrelations of
inflation rates and real interest rates from one to twelve months and found a high
autocorrelation of inflation rates, showing that past inflation rates have information
on expected inflation rates. Moreover, he found no autocorrelation of real interest
rates, indicating that real interest rates are constant. Fama (1975) also estimated
the regression model in (6) augmented with the addition of a one-period lag of
the inflation rate as a regressor and found that the coefficient of the one-period
lag inflation rate was not significant. Fama (1975) argued that the current nominal
interest rate contains all of the information to predict one-period-ahead inflation.
Overall, Fama (1975) interpreted the results as supporting the notion that the
market was efficient, with the short-term interest rate fully incorporating all past
information on inflation, and that real rates were constant.
Fama’s (1975) overwhelming empirical result induced a series of comments in
the American Economic Review in 1977, i.e. the comments by Carlson (1977), Joines
(1977) and Nelson and Schwert (1977) and the reply by Fama (1977). Essentially,
these papers attempted to find flaws in Fama’s analysis, usually by including other
(437) 69
第 62巻 第 4号
variables to test whether they had significant predictive power for inflation, thus
invalidating the idea that the current short-term interest rate fully incorporated all
information on past inflation.
For example, Joines (1977) added the Wholesale Price Index and Hess and
Bricksler (1975) and Nelson and Schwert (1977) added the forecasting value of
inflation into Fama’s regression model. The coefficients of these variables turned
out to be significant. Carlson (1977) questioned Fama’s (1975) result that all
information in future expected inflation rate falls within the nominal interest rate
given that his finding of the addition of a variable measuring business cycle factors
into the Fama’s model is significant. Moreover, Carlson (1977) found that the real
interest rate is not constant using results based on his analysis of the Livingstone
survey data on the expected inflation rate.
On the other hand, significant research (e.g. Shiller, Campbell, Schoenholtz and
Weiss (1982), Campbell and Shiller (1987) and so on) focused on the information in the
term structure of interest rates whether or not the relationship between interest
rates for different maturities can predict the future movement of the short-term
interest rate. Combining this idea with Fama’s (1975) approach, Mishkin (1990a)
proposed a method to examine the predictability of the term structure of nominal
interest rates on the future inflation rate. Mishkin (1990a) examined whether the
term structure of interest rates can predict the inflation rate and estimated the
relationship between the term structure of interest rates and the inflation spread
in the following model:
πtm-πt
n=α+β[Rtm-Rt
n ]+et , (7)
where Rtm is the nominal interest rate of the m period matured, Rt
n is that of the
n period matured; therefore [ R tm-R t
n ] is the nominal interest spread matured
between the m period and the n period and [πtm-πt
n ] is the inflation spread
according to the nominal interest spread.
70 (438)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
If β=1 in equation (7), the nominal interest rate spread can completely forecast
the inflation spread in the sense that the change in the nominal interest rate
between different maturities, i.e. the term structure of nominal interest rates, is
fully reflected in the change in inflation at different periods; therefore, the complete
Fisher hypothesis holds. If 0<β<1, the nominal interest spread partly forecasts
the Fisher effect and the nominal interest spread contains the future inflation
rate. Equation (7) means the difference of the two equations in (6) with respect to
different maturities. Accordingly, the complete Fisher hypothesis is supported if
coefficient β in equation (7) is one. On the other hand, if β is less than one and
greater than zero, the Fisher effect is partly considered to be found.
Mishkin (1990a) examined equation (7) for short-term TB rates in the US and
found that the coefficients of the nominal interest rates spreads were 0<β<
1, concluding that the nominal interest rates have the ability to predict future
inflation. Mishkin (1990b) also examined equation (7) for the longer terms in
the US, between one and five years. As a result, Mishkin (1990b) found that the
nominal interest rates spreads for longer terms contained information on future
inflation rates. Moreover, Jorion and Mishkin (1991) analysed data in the UK,
West Germany and Switzerland for the nominal interest rate maturing in one to
five years. The coefficients of the nominal interest rate spread were 0<β<1,
indicating that the nominal interest spread partly contained information on future
inflation rates. Moreover, the longer the maturity, the more information on inflation
was contained.
Fama (1975) indicated the overwhelming result that the full Fisher effect was
supported by data in the US on one- to twelve-month TB rates and the CPI for
1953-1971, i.e. that nominal interest rates contain all information for one-period-
ahead inflation rate. Since Fama (1975), many studies have been conducted as
described above and studies examined the constancy of real interest rates, such
(439) 71
第 62巻 第 4号
as Mishkin (1981), Fama and Gibbons (1982) and Huzinga and Mishkin (1986).
Moreover, a series of Mishkin’s studies were conducted to examine whether the
term structure of nominal interest rates contain information on future inflation. In
general, the results in this section also indicate that the size of the coefficient β in
both (6) and (7) is 0<β<1, indicating that the partial Fisher effect is obtained.
5. The Use of Modern Time Series Techniques to test the Fisher Hypothesis
The next key development in testing the Fisher hypothesis was the utilization
of the framework of modern time series analysis, most particularly the unit root/
cointegration framework. The finding that most macroeconomic time series are
nonstationary I(1) processes and the development of techniques to deal with
the issues that arise from this have had implications for all applied work using
time series data. The literature on unit root and cointegration is very large and
the intent is not to survey this here. Equally, the literature on testing the Fisher
hypothesis using some variant of the techniques proposed in this literature is also
large and once again a full survey is not intended here. Rather, this section aims
to simply outline the nature of the tests used, the variants and problems that have
arisen and to summarize briefly the results for the US, with Sections 7 and 8 doing
the same for Japan and Australia.
The Fisher hypothesis, as has been made clear, implies a one-for-one relationship
between the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate. In the context of recent
time series literature, this suggests that the applied researcher should first carry
out unit root tests on the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate. If the two
series are (as might be expected) nonstationary I(1) processes, then cointegration
tests are implemented. If the cointegrating vector is (1, -1) (evidence of cointegration
between the two series), then it is regarded that the one-for-one relationship between
the nominal interest rate and inflation rate, i.e. the Fisher hypothesis, is supported.
72 (440)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
On the other hand, literature exists that simply tests the stationarity of the real
interest rate, arguing that support of the Fisher hypothesis is found in the case in
which the real interest rate is stationary.
Table 1 below provides a perspective on a selection of studies between 1988
and 2008 that used some form of ‘modern’ time series approach to test the Fisher
hypothesis. As noted above, there are now a large number of variants of the basic
unit root and cointegration tests and the footnotes to the table provide a brief key to
the various methods used in these papers.
Table 1 reveals a wide range of results, with some authors finding evidence in
favour of the Fisher hypothesis and others failing to do so. Two general points can
be made about the papers reported in Table 1.
First, most studies using Johansen’s (1988) approach to test the relation
between the two variables support the Fisher hypothesis more than using Engle
and Granger’s (1987) approach. Some others approaches also tend to support the
Fisher hypothesis, for example, Lee, Clark and Ahn (1998), who applied methods
suggested by Ahn and Reinsel (1998), and Westerlund (2008), who applied the panel
cointegration test to 20 OECD countries.
Second, all of the three studies, Lanne (2001), Mehra (1998) and Mishkin (1992),
divided their sample at the start of financial deregulation in 1979 and found that
the Fisher hypothesis holds true before, but not after, 1979. Referring to the
existing literature 8) , Mishkin indicated evidence of a lack of support for the
Fisher hypothesis in the pre-World War II data and the period after October 1979
until 1982, although the Fisher hypothesis is widely supported for the period
between 1951 and 1979. Mishkin (1992) observed that there are unit root in both
8) Mishkin (1992) referred, for example, to Fama (1975), Mishkin (1981, 1988) and Fama and Gibbons (1982) as supporting evidence for the Fisher effect after the Fed-Treasury Accord in 1951 until the monetary regime shift in October 1979 and referred, for example, to Barsky (1987) and Huzinga and Mishkin (1986) as no supportive evidence existed before World War II and between 1979 and 1982.
(441) 73
第 62巻 第 4号
Table 1 The Literature on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis Using Time Series Analyses without Consideration of Structural Break in the United States
Literaturea Period Frequency Approachb Resultc
Atkins (1989)* 1965-1981 Quarterly COINT(JOH), ECM FH: Supported
Atkins and Coe (2002)* 1953-1999 Monthly ARDL Bounds TestFH: Supported before-tax rate,Not after-tax rate
Atkins and Serletis (2003)* 1880-1985 Annual ARDL Bounds Test FH: Not Supported
Bekdache (1999) 1961-1991 MonthlyMS Model, Time Varying Parameter Model
r: Shifted Twice, FH: Not Supported
Bonham (1991) 1955-1990 Monthly COINT(EG) FH: Supported in consideration for r
Choudhry (1996) 1879-1913 Annual COINT(JOH) FH: Supported
Crowder and Hoffman (1996) 1952-1991 Quarterly COINT(JOH), ECMFH: Supported in the longrun, considering tax
Crowder and Wohar(1999) 1950-1995 Annual COINT(Several) FH: Supported
Daniels, Nourzad, and Toukoushian (1996)
1952-1992 Quarterly COINT(JOH), ECM FH: Supported
Engsted (1995)* 1962-1993 Quarterly VAR with PVM Constraint FH: Not Supported
Ghazali and Ramlee (2003)* 1974-1996 MonthlyARFIMA Models, Fractional COINT Test
FH: not Supported
Kasman, Kasman, and Turgutlu (2006)*
1964-2004 Monthly Fractional COINT Test FH:Supported
Koustas and Serletis (1999)* 1957-1995 QuarterlyVAR with King=Watson's (1997) Method
FH: Not Supported
Lai (1997) 1965-1994 Monthly UNIT(DF-GLS) r: Stationary, FH: Supported
Lanne (2001) 1953-1990 Monthly Near UNIT(CES) TechniqueFH: Supported until 1979, Not after 1979
Lee, Clark and Ahn (1998) 1953-1990 Monthly COINT, ECM FH: Supported
MacDonald and Murphy(1989)*
1955-1986 Quarterly COINT(EG)FH: Not Supported, except Fixed Exchange Rate Sytem
Mehra (1998) 1961-1996 Quarterly COINT(JOH), ECMFH: Supported until 1979, Not after 1979
Mishkin (1992) 1953-1990 Monthly COINT(EG)FH: Supported until 1979, Not after 1979
Moazzami (1991)* 1953-1978 Quarterly UNIT, ECM FE: Partial
Peláez (1995) 1959-1993 Quarterly COINT(EG, JOH) FH: Not Supported
Peng (1995)* 1957-1994 Quarterly COINT(JOH) FH: Not Supported
Rapach and Weber (2004)* 1957-2000 Monthly UNIT, COINT(Several) π~I(0), R~ I(1), FH:Not Supported
74 (442)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate for the monthly US data during the
periods between 1953 and 1979 and between 1953 and 1990. He also observed a
cointegrating relationship between them, making it clear that the there is a Fisher
effect in the long run in these periods and not in other periods. Therefore, Mishkin
(1992) argued that the Fisher effect occurred only when a stochastic trend in both
the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate was present. As Mishkin (1992)
indicated, nominal interest rates and inflation rates have had a common trend since
World War II and until 1979. Therefore, it could be credible that the cointegration
relationship between such variables can be found and they have a common trend.
Mishkin’s findings were echoed by a number of other papers that found evidence
of support for the Fisher hypothesis over certain spans of data but not others.
Some papers, such as Bonham (1991), attempted to relate these sorts of findings
to factors influencing the economy and to determine whether the nature of the
exchange rate affected the results of the Fisher equation by dividing the sample
into periods of fixed and floating exchange rate regimes in the US. As a result,
Rose (1988)*Annual:1892-1970,1901-1950, Monthly: 1947-1986
UNITπ~I(0), R~ I(1), r~I(1),FH: Not Supported
Strauss and Terrell (1995) 1973-1989 Quarterly COINT (JOH) FH: Supported
Wallece and Warner (1993) 1948-1990 Quarterly COINT(JOH) FH: Supported
Westerlund (2008)* 1980-2004 Quarterly Panel COINT Test FH: Supported
Yuhn (1996)* 1979-1993 Quarterly COINT( JOH) FH: Supported in the lon run
(Notes)a Literature attached * tests in multiple countries including the US. The result is shown in the US only.b UNIT is Unit Root Test, COINT is Cointegration test, EG is Engle and Granger Test, JOH is Johansen
test, ECM is Error Correction Model. MS model means Markov Switching Model. ARDL Bound Test is Autoregressive Distributed Lag Bound test, that does not require the standard univariate time series of the data. The ARFIMA model is Autoregressive Fractional Moving Average model. CES is Cavanagh, Elliot and Stock's (1995) method, which has the advantage to be asymptotically valid whether the variable is I(1) or I(0), or near unit root based on ECM.
c R is nominal interest rate, r is real interest and π is infaltion rate. FH is the Fisher Hypothesis, which is a one-for-one long-run relationship between R and π. FE is the Fisher effect, whose size is classified into full, partial and non. 'full' means the support for the Fisher hypothesis.
(443) 75
第 62巻 第 4号
there is evidence supporting the Fisher effect in consideration of ex ante real
interest rates regardless of sample periods.
The results in Table 1 suggest the potential for structural breaks and changes to
impact the results of the Fisher hypothesis tests. The finding that structural breaks
can impact the results of unit root and cointegration tests is now well known. The
results in Table 1 are limited to papers that tested the Fisher hypothesis using
time series analysis without consideration for structural breaks in the US.
Clearly, Fisher hypothesis tests should consider the possibility of structural
breaks in the series and the relationship between nominal interest rates and
inflation. Table 2 provides a selection of papers that have re-tested the Fisher
hypothesis, allowing for breaks.
We can classify the literature into the following three groups with respect to the
different techniques used:
• unit root and cointegration tests that have been modified to allow for the
consideration of structural breaks;
• threshold models such as the Threshold Autoregressive (TAR) models and
Smooth Transition Autoregressive (STAR) models; and
•Markov Switching (MS) models.
First, the Fisher hypothesis test was conducted mainly using the unit root test
for the real interest rate, with consideration for structural breaks. The stationarity
of the real interest rate with break shifts is found in the US by Bai and Perron
(2003), Caporale and Grier (2000), Lai (2004) and Million (2003), supporting the
Fisher hypothesis. While Rapach and Wohar (2005) found the stationarity of real
interest rates with structural breaks in 13 OECD countries, they also found that
breaks in the inflation rate negatively corresponded to those in the real interest
rate, indicating less support for the Fisher hypothesis. The study by Klug and
76 (444)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Nadav (1999) is the only one to reject the Fisher hypothesis and they applied
Mishkin’s (1990) formula in constructing the structural break. Silvapulle and
Hewarathna (2002) applied Gregory and Hansen’s (1996) cointegration test, with
one structural break in the nominal interest rate and inflation rate in Australia and
found cointegration supportive of the Fisher effect. Atkins and Chan (2004) and
Malliaropulos (2000) found a trend-stationarity in the nominal interest rate and
inflation rate with a break shift in the US. They applied the VAR approach to the
detrended data and found evidence supportive of the Fisher effect. As a result of
the unit root and cointegration tests with break shifts, we find that every study
except for Klug and Nadav (1999), whose formulation is different from others,
supported the Fisher hypothesis when considering structural breaks, while Atkins
and Chan (2004) only obtained a partial Fisher effect.
Second, Bajo-Rubio, Díaz-Roldán and Esteve (2005), Lanne (2006), Maki
(2005) and Million (2004) all use nonlinear threshold models mainly applied to
cointegration tests, which used threshold models to examine the residuals derived
from cointegrating regression. All of these studies found supportive evidence for
the Fisher hypothesis, except that Bajo-Rubio, Diaz-Roldan and Esteve (2005)
found the partial Fisher effect. Another approach using nonlinear models was
conducted by Choi (2002) and Christopoulos and León-Ledesma (2007). They
constructed nonlinear models to take two regimes into account and found evidence
supportive of the Fisher hypothesis. The literature using nonlinear models
indicated strong evidence that supports the Fisher hypothesis by allowing for the
existence of nonlinearities in the Fisher relation.
Finally, the Markov switching model, another approach to considering multiple
regimes instead of threshold models, was adopted by Evans and Lewis (1995) and
Garcia and Perron (1996). Evans and Lewis (1995) applied the Markov switching
model to obtain the expected inflation rate to test the relationship between nominal
(445) 77
第 62巻 第 4号
Table 2 The Literature on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis Using Time Series Analyses Allowing for Structural Breaks
Literature Coutries Periods Frequancy Approacha Resultsb
Atkins and Chan (2004) US,Canada 1950-2000 QuarteryUNIT with SB, ARDL Bounds Test
FE: Partial
Bai and Perron (2003) US 1961-1986 Quartery UNIT(BP) r: I(0) with SB, FH: Supported
Bajo-Rubio, Díaz-Roldán and Esteve (2005)
Spain 1963-2002 Annual TAR COINT Test Partial FE
Caporale and Grier (2000) US 1961-1992 Quartery UNIT(BP)r: I(0) with SB, FH: Supported, shifts in response to Political Changes
Choi (2002) US 1947-1997 Monthly TAR ModelIFH: Supported in low infaltion, FH: Supported in high inflation
Christopoulos and Léon-Ledesma (2007)
US 1960-2004 Quarterly STAR Model FH: Supported Volker-Greenspan ear
Evans and Lewis (1995) US 1947-1987 Monthly MS Model FH: Supported
Garcia and Perron (1996) US 1961-1986 Quarterly MS Model FH: Supported with SB
Klug and Nadav (1999) US 1920-1940 Monthly Mishkin with SB FH: Not Supported
Lai (2004) US 1978-2002 Monthly UNIT (VP, BLS)Real Interest Rate: Stationary with SB, FH: Supported
Lanne (2006) US 1953-2004 QuarterlyVECM incorporating TAR model into EC term
FH: Supported
Maki (2005) Japan 1963-2002 Quarterly TAR COINT test FH: Supported
Malliaropulos (2000) US 1960-1995 Quarterly IRF from VAR using Detrended Data with Trend Stationary
FH: Supported
Million (2003) US 1951-1999 MonthlyNear UNIT Test with SB
FH: Supported
Million (2004) US 1951-1999 MonthlyCOINT(GH), apply STAR Model to Residual as r
r: I(0) with SB, FH: Supported
Rapach and Wohar (2005)OECD 13 Countries
1960-1998 Quarterly UNIT (BP)r: I(0) with SB, π:I(0)with SB in accodance with r, FH: Not Supported
Silvapulle and Hewarathna (2002)
Australia 1968-1998 Quarterly COINT (GH) Test FH: Supported
(Notes)a SB is structural break. UNIT is unit root test including Bai and Perron (1998) (BP), Vogelsang and
Perron (1998)(VP) and Barnejee, Lamsdane and Stock (1992)(BLS). COINT is cointegration test. GH is Garegory and Hansen (1996) coitegration test. MS model is Markov Switching model. TAR and STAR models means Threshold Autoregressive and Smooting Trasition Autoregressive models. IRF is Impulse Response Function. VECM is Vector Erroe Correction Model. ARDL Bound test is the same as Table 1.
b R is nominal interest rate, r is real interest and π is infaltion rate. FE is the Fisher effect, FH is the Fisher hypothesis, and SB is structural break. IFH is the Inverted Fisher Hypothesis.
78 (446)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
interest rates and inflation rates. Garcia and Perron (1996) applied the Markov
switching model directly to ex post real interest rates. Both of the two studies
supported the Fisher hypothesis.
Mishkin (1992) indicates that the Fisher effect appears only when both the
nominal interest rate and the inflation rate have stochastic trends. Therefore,
many studies that have applied linear models to the analysis, do not support the
Fisher hypothesis in long-term samples. However, once the nonlinear models, that
considers multiple regimes and the unit root test and cointegration tests with the
consideration of the structural breaks, applies, i.e. once breaks are allowed for in
the test procedure, the literature gets more supportive for the Fisher hypothesis.
6. Explanations for Non-Support of the Fisher Hypothesis
Before reviewing the empirical literature on the Fisher hypothesis in Japan,
Australia and other countries, it is worth briefly considering the impact on the
literature of the large number of studies that found no support for the Fisher
hypothesis. Justifications for the empirical failure of the Fisher hypothesis
generally fall into three categories:
•the inverted Fisher hypothesis.
•asset effects (the Mundell–Tobin effect).
•tax effects (the Darby–Feldstein effect).
Carmichael and Stebbing (1983) turned the Fisher hypothesis on its head by
arguing that the nominal interest rate is constant and that the real interest rate
responds inversely one-for-one to the inflation rate. This hypothesis became
known in the literature as, for obvious reasons, ‘the inverted Fisher hypothesis’.
According to Carmichael and Stebbing (1983), people hold money because it has
implicit returns like liquidity, although the nominal interest rate on money is
(447) 79
第 62巻 第 4号
zero. The implicit return is almost constant and equal to the nominal return on
financial assets when there is high substitutability between monetary assets and
money. Therefore, the real interest rate inversely responds one-for-one to the
inflation rate. Carmichael and Stebbing (1983) found initial support for an inverted
Fisher effect with their results that showed a negative one-for-one relationship
between the real interest rate and the inflation rate using data from 1953–1978 in
the US and from 1965-1981 in Australia. Barth and Bradley (1988) re-examined the
inverted Fisher hypothesis, extending the period used by Carmichael and Stebbing
(1983). They found that the inverted Fisher hypothesis was not supported and that
the value of the coefficient used to test the hypothesis decreased to much less than
one in the sample from 1953 to 1984. In interpreting their results, they argued
that a structural break in the Fisher relationship occurred after 1979. After the
1990s, the inverted Fisher hypothesis was tested by Inder and Silvapulle (1993) in
Australia and Choudhry (1997) in Belgium, France and Germany. They found that
the inverted Fisher hypothesis was rejected. However, Choi (2002) found that the
inverted Fisher hypothesis was supported when inflation is low and stable and that
the Fisher hypothesis was supported when inflation persists, using the threshold
autoregressive model (TAR model) with two regimes. Similar to the original Fisher
hypothesis, it appears that evidence on its inverted version is mixed.
The second variation on this theme is the so-called Mundell-Tobin effect (see
Mundell (1963) and Tobin (1965)), which argues that real money balances decrease
with increases in inflation, resulting in a fall in the real asset holding of agents.
Therefore, agents increase their savings and the real interest rate decreases. As
a result, a 1% increase in the inflation rate leads to a less than 1% increase in the
nominal interest rate. Many authors used the idea of the Mundell–Tobin effect to
justify the finding that the Fisher effect is less than one-for-one. For example, see
Woodward (1992), Crowder and Hoffman (1996) and Coppock and Poitras (2000).
80 (448)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Finally, as originally formulated in the Fisher equation, the nominal interest rate
that agents consider as the signal for deciding the level of their investment is the
after-tax rate. Therefore, the effect of a change in the expected inflation rate on
the before-tax nominal interest rate, which is frequently used in applied studies,
could be greater than one. This theoretical argument was first suggested by Darby
(1975) and Feldstein (1976). Following their theoretical argument, empirical studies
were conducted. Although Peek (1981) strongly supported the Darby-Feldstein
effect, most empirical studies, for example Tanzi (1980), Cargill (1977) and Carr,
Pesando and Smith (1976), found that the Fisher effect was equal to or less than
one, rejecting the Darby-Feldstein effect. Yun (1984) and Crowder and Wohar (1999),
using both taxable and tax-exempt bond rates, found that the coefficient for the
former rate was greater than that for the latter, supporting the Darby-Feldstein
effect. As it is hard to distinguish one effect, such as the Darby-Feldstein effect,
from others, such as the Mundell-Tobin effect, the evidence is mixed.
7. The Fisher Hypothesis in Japan
This section reviews the literature on testing the Fisher hypothesis in Japan in
more detail. The literature on testing the Fisher hypothesis in Japan has grown
rapidly since the late 1970s, when the inflation rate rose substantially and became
quite volatile. Table 3 lists some of the key papers in the area and, once again, it
seems sensible to divide these papers into three categories.
1. Papers that use the traditional methods of analysis to calculate the expected
inflation rate using distributed lag models.
2. Papers that apply the testing methods suggested by Fama (1975) and
Mishkin (1990a).
3. Papers that use ‘modern’ time series methods.
(449) 81
第 62巻 第 4号
Table 3 The Results in the Tests on the Fisher Hypothesis in Japan
Literature Periods Frequency Interest Ratea Inflation Rateb Methodc Resultsd
Shimizu (1978) 1966-1976 Monthly Long & Short CPI Fama FE: Partial
Oritani (1979) 1967-1978 Monthly Short WPI TraditionalFE: Partial, Lags:within 2 years
Kama(1981) 1967-1978 Monthly Long CPI, WPI TraditionalFE: Partial, Lags: within 3 years
Tatsumi (1982) 1955-1975 Monthly Short CPI, WPI Fama FE: Partial
Kuroda (1982)1977-1980 Cross, Time & Panel
Quarterly Long WPI:Expected Fama FE: Partaial
Miyagawa(1983)
1969-1978 Quarterly Long & Short WPI, CPI TraditionalFE: Partial, Lags: within 3 years
Furukawa(1985)
1965-1982 Quarterly Long & ShortWPI, CPI, GNP deflator
TraditionalFE: Partial, Lags:within 2 years
Yamada (1991) 1979-1989 Monthly Long & Short CPI Fama, Mishkin FE: Partaial
Bank of Japan (1994)
1971-1994 Monthly Long & Short CPI Mishkin FE: Partaial
Engsted(1995) 1974-1992 Quarterly Long CPIVAR with PVM constraint
FH: Supported
Satake (1997) 1972-1995 Quarterly Long WPIVAR with PVM constraint
FE: Partaial
Kamae (1999) 1977-1995 Monthly Long CPI: Expected COINT FH: Supported
Ito (2005) 1990-1999 Monthly Long & Short CPI1) Mishkin,2) COINT
1)FE: Partial,2)FH: Supported
Maki (2005) 1963-2002 Quarterly Short CPI TAR COINT test FH: Supported
Satake(2005a) 1971-2002 Quarterly Short CPI COINT etc FH: Not Supported
Satake (2005b) 1971-2002 Quarterly Short CPI IRF with SB FE: Partaial
Satake (2006) 1971-2002 Quarterly Short CPI TAR modelFE: Partial, IFE: Patial, But larger than Linear Model
(Notes)a Interest rate is classified into two categories, i.e. Short and Long. 'Long' contains NTT coupon and
Government bonds, and Short does Call , Gensaki and CD Rate.b Expected means to use expected infaltion rate derived from ARMA or Kalman filter model.c Traditional is the approach using Distributed Lag Models. Fama and Mishkin is the approach using (6) and
(7) respectively. COINT is Cointegration analysis. PVM is Present Value Model. SB is Structural Break. IRF is Impuls Respense Function. TAR is Thoreshold Autoregresion.
d FE is Fisher Effect, FH is the Fisher Hypothesis, and IFE is the inverted Fisher Effect. Lags is the lags of distributed lag models.
82 (450)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
7.1 Literature Related to Monetary Policy Target: Traditional Testing Methods
Oritani (1979), Kama (1981), Miyagawa (1983) and Furukawa (1985) conducted
Fisher hypothesis tests to discuss the potential role of an interest-rate target as
a monetary policy objective and all use some variant of the ‘traditional’ method of
testing the Fisher effect with some form of distributed lag to proxy for expected
inflation. Oritani (1979) examines the magnitude of the Fisher effect to calculate
the expected inflation rate using time series models as well as distributed lag
models. The empirical work in this paper uses the three-month Gensaki 9) rate as
the nominal interest rate and the wholesale price index (WPI) as the price level
for monthly Japanese data from February 1967 to December 1978. An Almon
lag model with three degrees and 24-month lags is adopted. It was found that
inflation fluctuation lags two years earlier affect current nominal interest rates.
The estimation by the Koyck lag model indicates that the coefficient of the one-
period nominal interest rate is 0.85 and that of the inflation rate is 0.17, therefore
finding that the effect continues about two years and its size is less than one as
same as the case of Almon lag model, so that the lag length of the effect is not as
long as the result of Fisher (1930). In the analysis using ARMA models to estimate
the expected inflation rate, Oritani (1979) found that the coefficient of the expected
inflation rate was significant but less than 0.25, contrary to the result of 1.0 (for US
data) in Feldstein, Summers et al. (1978).
Kama (1981), Miyagawa (1983) and Furukawa (1985) conducted the traditional
approach of deriving the expected inflation rate from Almon lag models for almost
the same period as Oritani (1979). They found that the lag length of the Almon lag
models is less than three years, quite shorter than the evidence in Fisher (1930)
and that the size of the Fisher effect is far less than one.
To test the Fisher effect, Kama (1981) estimated the Almon lag models using
9) Gensaki means repurchase agreements.
(451) 83
第 62巻 第 4号
the return on NTT coupon bonds as the long-term interest rate, the call rate as
the short-term interest rate and the WPI and CPI to calculate the inflation rate
during the period from October 1967 to December 1978. The lag lengths of 18, 24
and 30 months and three or six polynomial degrees are adopted. The results are
as follows: 1) as the significance of the coefficients of the lagged inflation rates
disappeared by the thirtieth lag, it is considered that the inflation rate three years
prior does not affect the nominal interest rate. Therefore, the effect from the long
lag length as in Fisher (1930) could not be found. 2) The sum of the coefficients of
lagged variables is far less than one, converted at the annual rate, indicating that
the Fisher effect is partial. Moreover, 3) the lag length and the size of the Fisher
effect in the case of WPI are larger than in the case of CPI and the lag length of the
long-term interest rate is shorter than that of the short-term interest rate. As the
serial correlation in the residual term is substantially high, Kama (1981) indicates
the possibility of missing explanatory variables. Therefore, Kama (1981) conducted
the estimation adding real income (to test the income effect) and real money supply
(to test the liquidity effect) as regressors into the equations. It is found that 1) the
coefficient of the real money supply is only significant in the case of the long-term
interest rate and that 2) there is no difference in the effect of the expected inflation
rate both with and without adding two other regressors.
Miyagawa (1983) conducted a test of the Fisher effect, estimating the Almon
lag models with three polynomial degrees and thirty months of lag for monthly
Japanese data. The monthly change rates of WPI and CPI were adopted as the
inflation rate, the return on NTT coupon bonds were used as the long-term
interest rate and the call rate was used as the short-term interest rate, similar
to Kama (1981), between January 1969 and December 1978. Finding that the
signs of the coefficients were all significantly positive and the coefficient of the
determination was more than 0.9, Miyagawa (1983) insisted that the results show
84 (452)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
evidence to support the Fisher hypothesis while not mentioning that the size
of the effect, which considers the sum of the coefficients of the distributed lags
converted at the annual rate, was far less than one. Although the coefficients of lag
lengths up to thirty months are significant, a lagged inflation rate longer than thirty
months does not affect the nominal interest rate. As described above, the result of
Miyagawa (1981) was very similar to that of Kama (1981).
Furukawa (1985) conducted an estimation of the Fisher effect for quarterly
Japanese data from 1965 to 1982 using the return on NTT coupon bonds as the
long-term interest rate, the call rate and the Gensaki rate as short-term interest
rates and the WPI, the CPI and the GNP deflator as price indices. The results are
as follows. 1) The effect of the lags continues for one year in the case of the GNP
deflator and for two years in the case of the WPI. It is shorter than that of Fisher
(1930). 2) The sum of the lag coefficients is far less than one, indicating that the
Fisher effect is incomplete. 3) The size of the sum of the coefficients is larger than
the Gensaki rate, the call rate and the return on the NTT Bond, in that order. The
effect of long-term interest rates is less than that of short-term interest rates.
This result is consistent with Yohe and Karnosky (1969), Gibson (1970a, 1972) and
Cargill and Meyer (1980). Furukawa (1985) , as well as Kama (1981), conducted an
estimation of the equation with real money supply and real income as additional
regressors. He found that, compared with the estimation of the model without
additional explanatory variables, 1) the sign conditions were both satisfied and the
coefficient of determination rose, 2) the liquidity effect disappeared over a short
period while the income effect was persistent and 3) the results with additional
explanatory variables were not different from those without them, similar to Kama
(1981).
Essentially then, the results in this section suggest that the size of the Fisher
effect is less than one and that lag lengths of up to three years are required to
(453) 85
第 62巻 第 4号
capture the impact of inflation.
7.2 Empirical Studies of the Fisher Hypothesis Using the Methods of Fama and
Mishkin
Fama’s (1975) approach was adopted by Shimizu (1978), Tatsumi (1982), Kuroda
(1982) and Yamada (1991). Fama (1975) estimated the regression of the nominal
interest rate on the inflation rate in equation (6) and tested whether or not the
coefficient β is one.
Shimizu (1978) was the first to apply Fama’s (1975) approach to Japanese data.
Using the call rate as the short-term interest rate and the CPI as the price index,
he found that 1) there is a serial correlation in the residual term, while the
hypothesis β=1 in equation (6) was not rejected and 2) the coefficient of the one-
period lagged inflation rate was significant. Therefore, the efficiency in the call
market was rejected.
Tatsumi (1982) also tested Fama’s (1975) efficient market hypothesis for whether
the coefficient β in equation (6) is one by estimating the regression model of the
nominal interest rate on the inflation rate using monthly Japanese data for the full
and sub samples during the period from 1955 to 1975, with the call rate and the
Gensaki rate as the short-term interest rate and the CPI and WPI as the inflation
rate. The efficient market hypothesis was basically rejected and supported for
the only period when interest rates moved freely. This did not support the Fisher
hypothesis. However, as there are many cases in which the hypothesis β=0 is
rejected, we could construe that the nominal interest rate has partial information
on future inflations.
Kuroda (1982) used quarterly Japanese data from 1977 to 1980, with government
bond (listed, compounded, yield to maturity) returns as the long-term interest rate
and the WPI as the inflation rate. Kuroda (1982) calculates the expected inflation
86 (454)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
rate at each maturity according to the government bond return from forecasting
values estimated by ARMA models. The examinations are grouped into three
categories: 1) the time series data at each maturity, 2) the cross-sectional data at
each forecasting period of the inflation rate and 3) the panel data congregating the
time series and the cross section data. The results were as follows: 1) the size of
the Fisher effect was between 0.3 and 0.4 in the panel data set and 2) in the case of
the time series data, the results of the longer maturity show a larger Fisher effect,
although the size at maturity during year nine was the largest at 0.77.
As described above, an examination of the hypothesis based on Fama’s (1975)
approach suggests that the Fisher hypothesis and the efficient market hypothesis
are not supported by short-term financial markets in Japan, contrary to most of
the results for the US. The size of the Fisher effect in Japan is smaller than that
in the US. Evidence shows that the efficient market hypothesis is supported for
the period during which the interest rate was deregulated, but not supported for
regulated periods. Therefore, the assertion that the short-term financial market in
Japan was inefficient is basically true.
The interest rate, described above, was regulated for most of the period of the
empirical studies in Japan. Yamada (1991) applied Fama’s (1975) approach to recent
data when the interest rate was deregulated from May 1979 to January 1989, using
the one- to twelve-month matured interest rate. He found that 1) the hypothesis β
=0 in equation (6) was rejected for one- to twelve-month interest rate maturities,
indicating that the nominal interest rate contains information on the future inflation
rate and 2) the hypothesis β=1 was not rejected for shorter maturities, e.g. one
month and three months, but was rejected for six and twelve month maturities. It
is generally considered that the interest rate partially contains information on the
future inflation rate, implying that the partial Fisher effect was detected in Japan.
Studies applying Mishkin’s (1990a) approach can be found in Japan in Yamada
(455) 87
第 62巻 第 4号
(1991), the Bank of Japan (1994) and Ito (2005). Yamada (1991) estimated equation (7)
to test the size of the coefficient of the spread of nominal interest rates for different
maturities, for the period from May 1979 to January 1989. The results show that
1) the hypothesis β=0 is rejected only in the case of the short-term spread in
nominal interest rates from one month to three month and 2) the hypothesis β
=1 is rejected in all cases. Therefore, the Fisher hypothesis was not supported.
However, it can be suggested that the nominal interest rate within a one-year
maturity in Euro-Yen data partly contains the information on future inflation and
not in the long term. Applying Mishkin’s (1990a) approach, the Bank of Japan (1994)
also investigated whether the nominal interest rate spread can be an effective
indicator for forecasting future inflation rates for the term structures of nominal
interest rates from one month to ten years, including for maturities longer than
two years. The result was that, in the case of the spread between the overnight
call rate and the three-month Gensaki rate, both hypotheses β=0 and β=1 were
rejected, suggesting that 0<β<1. As described above, the Fisher hypothesis was
not supported in the relationship between the term structure of nominal interest
rates and the inflation rate spread in Japan. However, the results suggest that the
term structure of nominal interest rates contains information on future inflation
only for a very short-term.
Ito (2005) applied Mishkin’s (1990a) approach to the monthly Japanese data for
the Euro-Yen LIBOR rate from one month to twelve months and the yen swap
rate with two-year to seven-year maturity during the period from February 1990
to August 1999. Basically, the term structure was found to have information on
future inflation in most of the term structures. The coefficient of determination in
the estimation results for short-term relationships was noted to be lower and the
higher the coefficient of determination approached a one-for one in the response to
the inflation rate spread the longer the maturity becomes. The result in Ito (2005)
88 (456)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
is different from those in Yamada (1991) and the Bank of Japan (1994) with respect
to maturity.
7.3 Empirical Results from Time Series Analyses Testing in Japan
In accordance with the development of recent time series analyses, the testing
method of the Fisher hypothesis was conducted mainly by cointegration analysis
and the VAR (Vector Autoregression) approach. Studies in Japan were undertaken
by Engsted (1995), Satake (1997), Kamae (1999), Ito (2005), Maki (2005) and Satake
(2005a, 2005b, 2006).
Kamae (1999) applied the cointegration test by Engel and Granger’s (1987)
method to monthly Japanese data from June 1977 to June 1995 to examine the
Fisher hypothesis using the expected inflation rates derived from the time series
model by the Kalman filter method. It was found that the Fisher hypothesis was
supported in most cases.
Ito (2005) conducted the Engle and Granger cointegration test using monthly
Japanese data for the one-month to ten-year nominal interest rate and the CPI in
the 1990s. Ito (2005) supports the Fisher hypothesis, consistent with the results of
Kamae (1999). However, the cointegration relationship does not hold for short-term
maturities.
Satake (2005a) used quarterly Japanese data for the CPI and CD rates during
the period from 1971 to 2002 and examined the Fisher hypothesis by using two
cointegration tests, i.e. the Engle and Granger test and the Johansen (1988) test.
The analysis was conducted for the full sample and the two subsamples after a high
inflation period for oil shocks. As a result, there is no cointegration relationship
between the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate in most cases, while the
Fisher hypothesis was supported in some Johansen test cases, as opposed to
Kamae (1999) and Ito (2005). This may be the result of the difference in the data and
(457) 89
第 62巻 第 4号
the sample periods.
Engsted (1995) also applied the long-run Fisher hypothesis by testing the
constraints on the present value model for Japan. He found that the long-term
nominal interest rate reflects the long-term expected inflation rate using quarterly
data for the long-term interest rate and CPI for the period from 1974 to 1992,
suggesting that the Fisher hypothesis is supported. Satake (1997) examined the
robustness of the results in Engsted (1995) using the WPI instead of the CPI in
Japan. It was also suggested that the long-term nominal interest rate reflects
the long-term expected inflation rate, while the parameters’ constraints on the
present value model was not supported.
Recently, approaches considering structural breaks on time series analyses like
unit root and cointegration tests were developed. In testing the Fisher hypothesis,
two types of approaches were basically applied; one is the cointegration test in
consideration of structural breaks and the other is to apply a nonlinear model to
the analysis to take multiple regimes into account.
Using quarterly Japanese data for the period from 1971 to 2002, Satake (2005b)
confirmed that the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate are trend-stationary
with one structural break and applied the Malliaropulos’ (2000) approach to the
data, removing the trends from the variables that considered the structural break
to test the Fisher hypothesis. He found that the partial Fisher effect was detected.
Maki (2005) implemented the cointegration test incorporating the nonlinear TAR
(Threshold Autoregressive) model, which divided the period into two regimes, into
the Japanese nominal interest rate and inflation rate and found the cointegration
between the two and supported the Fisher hypothesis.
Subject to Choi’s (2002) method, Satake (2006) examined whether the Fisher
hypothesis or the inverted Fisher hypothesis was supported by using the TAR
model, which is the nonlinear model to divide the sample period into two regimes,
90 (458)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
one in which the inflation rate was high and volatile and the other in which it
was stable. Whether the Fisher hypothesis or the inverted Fisher hypothesis in
each regime was supported was tested. Results showed that the partial Fisher
and partial inverted Fisher effects are detected in each regime. It was also found
that the inverted Fisher effect when the inflation rate is stable is larger than the
estimate of the linear model.
The results described above can be summarized as follows. 1) The partial
Fisher effect, which means that the increase in the expected inflation rate partially
induces an increase in the nominal interest rate, was mainly detected. 2) few
studies support the Fisher hypothesis in that a one-for-one relationship exists
between the variables. However, 3) Kamae (1999) and Ito (2005) conducted the
cointegration tests and found support for the Fisher hypothesis.
8. Summary of Test Results in Australia for the Fisher Hypothesis
There are several empirical studies on testing the Fisher hypothesis in Australia.
The results are summarized in Table 4. In summary, the results from this set of
papers seems to find evidence of a Fisher effect, with the hypothesis that 0<β<
1 in (6) is on the whole supported, while the hypothesis that β=1 in (6), i.e. a ‘full’
Fisher effect, found little support in Australia. We should make three points on the
existing literature in Australia.
First, although three of the studies in Australia insisted on rejecting the long run
Fisher hypothesis, i.e. Carmichael and Stebbing (1983), Inder and Silvapulle (1993)
and Engsted (1995), these results were interpreted as supportive of a partial Fisher
effect. While Carmichael and Stebbing (1983) found the evidence supportive of
the inverted Fisher hypothesis, Moazzami (1991) supported a partial Fisher effect
using the same data as Carmichael and Stebbing (1983) with a unit root test and
error correction models. Inder and Silvapulle (1993) showed that the real interest
(459) 91
第 62巻 第 4号
rate decreases 0.5% in response to a 1% increase in inflation rate, concluding
the rejection for the Fisher hypothesis. However, it is construable that a partial
Fisher effect exists. Engsted (1995) tested the restriction of the Fisher hypothesis
from the present value model, which is the test that β=1. As the alternative
hypothesis, β≠1 contains the possibility that 0<β<1 in this test and we cannot
reject a partial Fisher effect.
Second, although Atkins (1989) and Mishkin and Simon (1995) supported the
Fisher hypothesis in the long run, Olekalns (1996, 2001) and Hawtrey (1997) found
mixed evidence for the Fisher hypothesis within subperiods. They showed that
the Fisher hypothesis is not supported in the period before financial deregulation
in 1983, but supported after the deregulation. Therefore, financial liberalization
makes the Fisher hypothesis supportive, although we mainly have evidence for a
Table 4 The Results in the Tests on the Fisher Hypothesis in Australia
Literature Perioda Interest Rateb Methodc Resultsd
Carmichael and Stebbing (1983) 1965-1981 Long & Short OLS IFH: Supported
Atkins(1989) 1965-1981 Short COINT(EG) FH: Supported
Moazzami (1991) 1965-1981 Long & Short UNIT, ECM FE: Partial
Inder and Silvapulle(1993) 1964-1990 Short Several COINT tests FH: Not Supported
Mishkin and Simon (1995) 1962-1993 Short COINT(EG) FH: Supported
Engsted (1995) 1969-1993 Long VAR with PVM Constraint FH: Not Supported
Olekalns(1996) 1969-1993 Short VAR(Keating, 1990) FH: Supportted(Post), Not(Pre)
Hawtrey(1997) 1969-1994 Long & Short COINT(JOH) FH: Supportted(Post), Not(Pre)
Olekalns(2001) 1969-2001 Short VAR(Keating, 1990), SB test FH: Supportted(Post), Not(Pre)
Silvapulle and Hewarathna (2002) 1968-1998 Short COINT with SB FH: Supported
(Notes)a The frequency of the data is quatrerly in all studies.b Interest rate is classified into two categories, i.e. Short and Long. 'Long' contains 10 years corporate bond
and 10 years government bond, and 'Short' does 3 month Bank Accepted Bill and Treasury Bill rates.c UNIT is Unit Root test. COINT is Cointegration test, EG is Engle and Granger test, and JOH is Johansen
test. PVM is Present Value Model. SB means Structural Breaks. ECM is Error Correction Model.d FE is Fisher Effect, FH is the Fisher Hypothesis, and IFE is the Inverted Fisher Effect. Pre is pre-
deregulation period, and Post is post deregulation period.
92 (460)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
partial Fisher effect.
Finally, using a cointegration test with consideration for a structural break,
Silvapulle and Hewarathna (2002) stated that there was a structural break in the
first quarter of 1980 and that the Fisher hypothesis is supported for all of the
samples from 1968 to 1998.
As described above, the results for testing the long-run Fisher hypothesis are
clear. Although in Olekalns (1996) and Hawtrey (1997), the hypothesis that β=1
in (6) is only supported after the deregulation period, as well as the partial Fisher
hypothesis that 0<β<1 is almost supported, a recent study by Silvapulle and
Hewarathna (2002) supported the Fisher hypothesis regardless of sample periods.
9. Summary of Test Results on the Fisher Hypothesis in Other Countries
9.1 Results for Other Developed (OECD) Countries
Table 5 summarizes some of the key papers essentially from OECD countries.
The literature reviewed here is categorized into two techniques, i.e. Fama’s or
Mishkin’s methods and time series analyses as unit root and cointegration tests
and VAR models.
The main studies on developed (OECD) countries using regression analyses
for Fama’s or Mishkin’s models are put forward by Caporale and Pitts (1998),
Gerlach (1997), Jorion and Mishkin (1991), Koedijk and Kool (1995), Mishkin (1984)
and Mishkin (1991), all which found evidence for a partial Fisher effect, except for
Caporale and Pitts (1998), which insisted on rejecting the Fisher effect because of
the rejection of the hypothesis β=1 in (7).
Miskin (1984) examined the Fisher hypothesis by testing the constancy of the
real interest rate in the Euro deposit market using seven OECD quarterly data
for the period from 1967 to 1979. Mishkin (1984) found that the constancy of
real interest rates was rejected and a negative correlation between real interest
(461) 93
第 62巻 第 4号
Literature Countires Period Frequency Approacha Results
Andrade and Clare (1994)
UK 1969-1991 QuarterlyKalman Filter, COINT (JOH)
FH: Not Supported
At k i n s a n d C o e (2002)
US, Canada 1953-1999 Monthly ARDL Bounds TestFH: Supported in the long run before-tax rate not after-tax rate
Berument and Jelassi (2002)
12 Developed Countries
-1998 Monthly COINT Regression FH: Supported in 9 of 12 Countries
Caporale and Pittis (1998)
OECD 8 countries 1981-1992 Monthly Miskin FE: Non, Not reject β =0 in (7)
Choudhry (1997)Belgium, France, German
1955-1994 Quarterly COINT Regression FE: Partial, IFH: Rejected
Crowder (1997) Canada 1960-1991 Quarterly COIT(JOH), VECM FH: Supported
D u t t a n d G h o s h (1995)
Canada 1960-1993 Quarterly COINT(JOH, FM-OLS) FH: Not Supported
Engsted (1995) OECD 13 countries 1962-1993 QuarterlyVAR with PVM Constraints
FH: three groups, supportive, less supportive, not supportive
Gerlach (1997) German 1967-1995 Monthly Miskin FE: almost Full
Ghazali and Ramlee (2003)
G7 Countries 1974-1996 Monthly Fractional COINT Test FH: Not Supported
Jorion and Mishkin (1991)
US, UK, Germany, Switzerland
1973-1989 Monthly MiskinFE: Par t ia l for L ong Ter m Maturities
Kasman, Kasman and Turgutlu (2006)
33 countries -2004 Monthly Fractional COINT Test FH:Supported
Koedijk and Kool (1995)
OECD 7 Countries1982(1976)-1991
Monthly MiskinFE: Partial for Short Maturity, Full for Long Maturity, Not in Belgium, France and Germany
Koustas and Serletis (1999)
OECD 11 countriesUS:1957-1995
QuarterlyKing=Watson's (1997) VAR Method
FH: Not Supported
MacDonald and Murphy (1993)
US, UK, Canada , Bergium
1955-1986 Quarterly COINT(EG)FH: Not Supported, except Fixed Exchange Rate Sytem in US & Canada
Mishkin (1984) OECD 7 countries 1967-1979 QuarterlyRegression of π on Ex Ante r
FH: Not Supported, Rejected Constanacy of r
Mishkin (1991) OECD 10 countries 1973-1986 Monthly Miskin FE: Partial
Nievas (1998) EU 10 countries 1980-1996 Quarterly COINT(JOH)FH: Supported in France, Italy and the UK before EMU, Not after EMU
Peng (1995)Fr a n c e , U K , U S , German, Japan
1957(1960)-1994
Quarterly COINT(JOH) FH: Not Supported
Table 5 The Literature on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis in OECD countries
94 (462)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
rates and expected inflation appeared for all seven countries. This showed that
short-term bonds are a poor inflation hedge not only in the US but also in other
countries. Mishkin (1991) tested the forecastability of the term structure of interest
rates on inflation in 10 OECD countries using equation (7) by Mishkin (1990a) and
found evidence for a partial Fisher effect. In Gerlach (1997), Jorion and Mishkin
(1991), Koedijk and Kool (1995) and Woodward (1992), the literature applying
Mishkin’s method found evidence for a stronger Fisher effect for a longer maturity
of government bonds for OECD countries, although Koedijk and Kool (1995)
found weak evidence for the Fisher effect in Belgium, France and Germany. We
have mixed evidence using Mishkin’s method, although by and large we obtained
evidence for 0<β<1, which is the coefficient for the size of the Fisher effect in
equation (7).
The main studies on developed (OECD) countries using cointegration tests were
put forward by Andrade and Clare (1994), Berment and Jelassi (2002), Choudhry
(Notes)a R is nominal interest rate, r is real interest and π is infaltion rate. Fama and Mishkin is the approach
using (6) and (7) respectively. UNIT is unit root test, COINT is Cointegration analysis, EG is Engle and Granger Test, JOH is Johansen test, VECM is Vector Error Correction Model. PVM is Presen Value Model. TAR is Thoreshold Autoregresion. ARDL Bound test is the same as Table 1.
b R is nominal interest rate, r is real interest and π is infaltion rate. FE is Fisher Effect, FH is the Fisher Hypothesis, and IFH is Inverted Fisher Hypothesis.
Rapach and Weber (2004)
OECD 16 Countries 1957-2000 Monthly UNIT, COINT(Several)π~I(0), R~ I(1), FH: Not Supported
Rose (1988) US, OECD18 countries
US:1892-1970, 1901- 1950(Annual)1947-86 (Monthly), OECD:1957-(Quarterly)
UNITπ~I(0), R~ I(1), r~I(1), FH: Not Supported
Westerlund (2008)20 OECD coutries' Panel Data
1980-2004 Quarterly Panel COINT Test FH: almost Supported
Woodward (1992) UK 1982-1990 MonthlyFama, using Eπderived from Indexed Bond.
FE: Partial for Short Maturity, Full for Long Maturity
Yuhn (1996)US, UK, Japan, German, Canada
1979(1982)-1993
Quarterly COINT( JOH)FH: Supported in the long run in the US, German and Japan
(463) 95
第 62巻 第 4号
(1997), Crowder (1997), Dutt and Ghosh (1995), Ghazali and Ramlee (2003), Kasman,
Kasman and Turgutlu (2003), MacDonald and Murphy (1993), Nievas (1998), Peng
(1995), Westerlund (2008) and Yuhn (1996).
The literature has several issues with respect to testing the Fisher hypothesis,
i.e. monetary policy changes, a regime change for exchange rate systems and the
initiation of the European Monetary Unit (EMU).
For the first issue, for example, Peng (1995) tested the Fisher hypothesis using
Johansen cointegration test in the US, UK, France, Germany and Japan for the
period between 1957 and 1994. He found strong evidence for the cointegration
relationship between the nominal interest rate and inflation in the US, the UK and
France, while there was weak evidence in Germany and Japan and guessed that
the strong anti-inflation policy in Germany and Japan weakened the Fisher effect.
On the other hand, Yuhn (1996) reported that the Fisher hypothesis was supported
in the US, Germany and Japan, and not in the UK and Canada for the period from
1979 to 1993, and that the results were robust to policy changes, contrary to
Mishkin (1992).
The second issue with respect to testing the Fisher hypothesis was whether
the nature of the exchange rate regime used in countries impacted the empirical
testing of the hypothesis. For example, MacDonald and Murphy (1989) analysed the
Fisher hypothesis in the US, the UK, Canada and Belgium for the period from 1955
to 1986. Results indicated that the cointegration relationship was detected in the
US and Canada for the period of the fixed exchange regime, but not in all countries
with a floating exchange regime. The results for the US were consistent with
Bonham (1991). It is conceivable that inflation was not constrained from monetary
policy, although monetary policy was not free during the fixed exchange rate
regime.
Finally, Nievas (1998) tested the Fisher hypothesis to examine the effects of the
96 (464)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
initiation of the EMU in 1989 for the impact of the inflation rate and the German
interest rate on the interest rate of other European countries. He found that the
Fisher effect disappeared in the three countries after initiation, while German
interest rates affect the interest rates of other EU countries because interest rates
in EU countries are controlled by German monetary policy.
With respect to other studies using modern time series analyses, as shown in
Table 5, mixed evidence exists and it is very hard to find a clear message. As we
have referred to these papers in Section 5, when reviewing them in the US, we do
not argue about it.
9.2 Results for Other Developing Countries
A number of studies test the Fisher hypothesis in developing countries. Table
6 summarizes some of the key papers that essentially come from Latin American
and South-East Asian economies.
Most Latin American countries experienced high inflation and, therefore,
as might be expected we have clearer evidence that the Fisher hypothesis is
supported. Tests that rely on the cointegration framework tend to find evidence
of a common trend in nominal interest rates and inflation rates, where interest
rates adjusting promptly to keep real interest rates constant in response to high
and volatile inflation. The literature on Latin America includes papers by Boschen
and Newman (1987), Carneiro, Divino and Rocha (2003), Choudhly (2001), Garcia
(1993), Mendoza (1992), Phylaktis and Blake (1993) and Thornton (1996). Berument
and Jelassi (2002) test the Fisher hypothesis in a cross-section of 26 countries
containing six Latin American countries and Kasman, Kasman and Turgutlu (2006)
tested 19 developing countries, which included seven Latin American countries.
Phylaktis and Blake (1993) examined the Fisher hypothesis for three Latin
American countries, i.e. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, using monthly data from the
(465) 97
第 62巻 第 4号
1970s and 1980s. Using the unit root and cointegration tests, Phylaktis and Blake
Table 6 The Literature on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis in Developing Countries
Literature Countires Period Frequency Approacha Resultsb
Berument and Jelassi (2002)
26 Countries -1998 Monthly COINT RegressionF H : S u p p o r t e d i n 7 o f 1 4 Developing Countries
Boschen and Newman (1987)
Argentina 1976-1982 MonthlyRegression of E π on r derived from Indexed Bond
Negative Relation, FH: Not Supported
Carneiro, Divino and Rocha (2002)
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
1980-1997 Monthly COINT(JOH)FH: Supported in Argentine and Brazil, Not in Mexico
Choudhry (2001)Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela
1981(1985)-1998
MonthlyUNIT, Regression of π on Stock Return
FH: Supported in Argentina and Chile, Not in Mexico and Venezuela
Cooray (2002) Sri Lanka1952-1998(Annual),1978-1998 (Quarterly),1990-1998(Monthly)
COINT(EG), Regression of Eπderived from AE & RE on R
FH: Suppor ted only in the Annual Full Sample
Garcia (1993) Brazil 1973-1990 Monthly Regression of Eπ & R on r FH: Supported
Kandel, Ofer and Sarig (1996)
Israel 1984-1992 MonthlyRegression of r derived from Bond Price on π
Negative Relation found, FH: Rejected, but FE: Partial
Kasman, Kasman and Turgutlu (2006)
1 9 D e v e l o p i n g Countries
-2004 Monthly Fractional COINT TestFH: Suppor ted in 15 o f 19 Countries, But Partial FE
Kutan and Aksoy (2003)
Turkey 1985-2000 MonthlyRegression of πon R using Stock Returns
FH: Supported only for Stock Return in Financial Sector
Mendoza (1992) Chili 1986-1990 MonthlyRegression using Indexed Bond
FH: Supported
Payne and Ewing (1997)
Argentina, Fiji, India, Ma l ays i a , N iger, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand
1970s-1990s Quarterly UNIT, COINT(JOH)FH: Supported in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore and Pakistan, Not in Other Countries
Phylaktis and Blake (1993)
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
1970s-1990s Quarterly UNIT, COINT(JOH), ECM FH: Supported in all countries
Thornton (1996) Mexico 1978-1994 Quarterly UNIT, COINT(JOH) FH: Supported
(Notes)a UNIT is Unit Root Test, COINT is Cointegration test, EG is Engle and Granger Test, JOH is Johansen
test, ECM is Error Correction Model. R is nominal interest rate, r is real interest and π is infaltion rate. AE is Adaptive Exprectations, and RE is Rational Expections.
b FH is the Fisher Hypothesis, which is a one-for-one long-run relationship between R and π. FE is the Fisher effect, whose size is classified into full, partial and non. 'full' means the support for the Fisher hypothesis.
98 (466)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
(1993) found a long-run relationship between nominal interest rates and inflation in
the three countries, supporting the Fisher hypothesis.
Berument and Jelassi (2002) applied cointegration regression to six Latin
American countries and found that the Fisher hypothesis was supported in four
out of the six, i.e. Chile, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela and but not Brazil and
Costa Rica. Kasman, Kasman and Turgutlu (2006) use the fractional cointegration
test, which allowed for the time series property subject to I(d), where 0<d<1 and
tends to support the Fisher hypothesis. They obtained supportive evidence for all
countries except for Costa Rica. Other supportive evidence can be found in Garcia
(1993) for Brazil, in Mendoza (1992) for Chile and in Thornton (1996) for Mexico.
Mixed evidence can be found in Carneiro, Divino and Rocha (2003), who conducted
Johansen’s cointegration test and found that the Fisher hypothesis is supported
for Argentina and Brazil but not for Mexico and in Choudhly (2001), who used
stock returns to find evidence supporting Argentina and Chile but not Mexico and
Venezuela. Boschen and Newman (1987) applied regression analysis of expected
inflation on real interest rates derived from indexed bonds to Argentina data and
found a negative relationship between real interest rates and inflation, insisting a
rejection of the Fisher hypothesis.
Payne and Ewing (1997) conducted unit root and cointegration tests for nine
developing countries, including six Asian countries, i.e. India, Malaysia, Pakistan,
Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand. They found cointegration relationships in
Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka and supported the Fisher relation in
these countries except for Singapore. Berument and Jelassi (2002) conducted a
Fisher hypothesis test in four Asian countries, i.e. India, Kuwait, the Philippines
and Turkey and found supportive evidence in Turkey. Kasman, Kasman and
Turgutlu (2006) conducted the test in eight Asian countries, i.e. China, India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey and found
(467) 99
第 62巻 第 4号
nonsupportive evidence only in Malaysia and the Philippines. Cooray (2002)
applied cointegration analysis and regression on expected inflation derived from
adaptive and rational expectations of nominal interest rates to Sri Lanka and found
weak evidence to support the Fisher hypothesis, as opposed to the evidence of
Payne and Ewing (1997). Kutan and Askoy (2003) conducted a Fisher hypothesis
test using stock returns as the nominal interest rate in Turkey and found limited
support using financial sector returns. Kandel, Ofer and Sarig (1996) examined
the relationship between ex ante real interest rates derived from bond prices
on expected inflation and found a negative relationship between them, insisting
that weak evidence existed on the Fisher effect. In Asian countries, a Fisherian
relationship is, as in most developed economies, inconclusive.
10. Conclusions
This paper provided a brief review of the literature pertaining to the empirical
tests of the Fisher hypothesis. For convenience, the survey of the literature in the
US, Australia, Japan and the rest of the world was divided into three parts, each
pertaining to a different general testing methodology, including:
• The ‘traditional’ approach, which Fisher (1930) originally suggested and which
formed the basis for much of the initial work.
• Tests based on the methods suggested by two seminal papers, those of Fama
(1975) and Mishkin (1990a).
• Tests based on ‘modern’ time series methods associated with unit root and
cointegration tests.
Drawing conclusions from such diverse literature is difficult. However, some
general conclusions can be drawn.
Fisher’s original results have not held up to the scrutiny of further empirical
100 (468)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
work. Few studies find evidence in favour of the ‘strong form’ of the Fisher
hypothesis with an adjustment in interest rates and inflation being one-for-one.
In following Fisher, a number of authors found that after inflation rates started
to increase and became more persistent in the late 1960s, the distributed lag
structure that Fisher found to be rather lengthy began to shorten, suggesting
that agents were building in inflationary expectations more rapidly as the costs of
inflation rose. In the second wave of the literature, applying the Fama and Mishkin
approaches, the focus of the testing became whether the Fisher effect was full,
partial, or zero. Although the evidence is mixed in that it differs from period to
period and from country to country, it is conceivable that the evidence is, by and
large, in favour of a partial Fisher effect. Finally, the literature applying time series
analysis also shows mixed evidence. Tests using Johansen’s cointegration approach
tend to find some support for the hypothesis in the US, in particular that evidence
is stronger in cases in which the research considers the impact of structural breaks
and in the application of nonlinear models to detect structural changes.
【References】
Ahn, S. K. and G. C. Reinsel (1990) “Estimation for Partial Nonstationary Multivariate
Autoregressive Models,” Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 85, No. 411,
pp. 813-823.
Andrade, A. and A. Clare (1994) “Is the UK Treasury Bill Rate a Good Proxy for Expected
Inflation in the United Kingdom?” Economics Letters, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 335-341.
Atkins, F. J. (1989) “Co-integration, Error Correction and the Fisher Effect,” Applied
Economics, Vol. 21, No. 12, pp. 1611-1620.
Atkins, F. J. and M. Chan (2004) “Trend Break and the Fisher Hypothesis in Canada and the
United States,” Applied Economics, Vol. 36, No. 17, pp. 1907-1913.
(469) 101
第 62巻 第 4号
Atkins, F. J. and P. J. Coe (2002) “An ARDL Bounds Test of the Long-run Fisher Effect in the
Unites States and Canada,” Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 255-266.
Atkins, F. J. and A. Serletis (2003) “Bounds Tests of the Gibson Paradox and the Fisher effect:
Evidence from Low-Frequency International Data,” The Manchester School, Vol. 71, No. 6,
pp. 673-679.
Bai, J. and P. Perron (2003) “Computation and Analysis of Multiple Structural Change
Models,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Bajo-Rubio, O., C. Díaz-Roldán and V. Esteve (2005) “Is the Fisher Effect Non-Linear? Some
Evidence for Spain, 1963-2000,” Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. 849-
854.
Bank of Japan (1994) “Kinri no Kikan Supureddo no Infure-Shihyo ni-tsuite (in Japanese),”
The Bank of Japan Monthly Bulletin, July, pp. 61-81.
Barsky, R. B. (1987) “The Fisher Hypothesis and the Forecastability and Persistence of
Inflation,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3-24.
Barth, J. R. and M. D. Bradley (1988) “On Interest Rates, Inflationary Expectations and Tax
Rates,” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 215-220.
Bekdache, B. (1999) “The Time-Varying Behaviour of Real Interest Rates: A Re-Evaluation
of the Recent Evidence,” Journal of Applied Economerics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 171-190.
Berument, H. and M. M. Jelassi (2002) “The Fisher Hypothesis: A Multi-Country Analysis,”
Applied Economics, Vol. 34, No. 13, pp. 1645-1655.
Bonham, C. S. (1991) “Correct Cointegration Tests of the Long-Run Relationship between
Nominal Interest and Inflation,” Applied Economics, Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 1487-1492.
Boschen, J. F. and J. L. Newman (1987), “The Effects of Expected Inflation on Real Returns
in the Argentine Indexed Bond Market,” Economics Letters, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 137-142.
Campbell, J. Y. and R. J. Shiller (1987) “Cointegration and Tests of Present Value Models,”
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95, No. 5, pp. 1062-1088.
Caporale, G. M. and N. Pittis (1998) “Term Structure and Interest Differentials as Predictors
of Future Inflation Changes and Inflation Differentials,” Applied Financial Economics,
Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 615-625.
102 (470)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Caporale, T. and K. B. Grier (2000) “Political Regime Change and the Real Interest Rate,”
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Part1), pp. 320-334.
Cargill, T. F. (1976) “Anticipated Price Changes and Nominal Interest Rates in the 1950's ,”
The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 364-367.
Cargill, T. F. (1977) “Direct Evidence of the Darby Hypothesis for the United States,”
Economic Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 132-134.
Cargill, T. F. and R. A. Meyer (1980) “The Term Structure of Inflationary Expectations and
Market Efficiency,” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 57-70.
Carlson, J. (1977) “Short-Term Interest Rate as Predictors of Inflation: Comment,” The
American Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 487-496.
Carmichael, J. and P. Stebbing (1983) “Fisher's Paradox and the Theory of Interest,” The
American Economic Review, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 619-630.
Carneirio, F. G., J. A. C. A. Divino and C. H. Rocha (2002) “Revisting the Fisher Hypothesis
for the Case of Argentina, Brazil and Mexico,” Applied Econometrics, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
95-98.
Carr, J., J. E. Pesando and L. B. Smith (1976) “Tax Effects, Price Expectations and the
Nominal Rate of Interest,” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 259-269.
Carr, J. and L. B. Smith (1972) “Money Supply, Interest Rates, and the Yield Curve,” Journal
of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 582-594.
Chirstopoulos, D. K. and M. A. León-Ledesma (2007) “A Long-Run Non-Linear Approach to
the Fisher Effect,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, pp. 543-559.
Choi, W. G. (2002) “The Inverted Fisher Hypothesis: Inflation Forecastability and Asset
Substitution,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 212-241.
Choudhry, T. (1996) “The Fisher Effect and the Gold Standard: Evidence from the USA,”
Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 553-555.
Choudhry, T. (1997) “Cointegration Analysis of the Inverted Fisher Effect: Evidence from
Belgium, France and German,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 257-260.
Choudhry, T. (2001) “Inflation and Rates of Return on Stocks: Evidence from High Inflation
Countries,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Vol. 11,
(471) 103
第 62巻 第 4号
No. 1, pp. 75-96.
Christopoulos, D. K. and M. A. Leon-Ledesma (2007) “A Long-Run Non-Linear Approach to
the Fisher Effect,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, pp. 543-559.
Cooray, A. (2002) “Interest Rates and Inflationary Expectations: Evidence on the Fisher
Effect in Sri Lanka." South Asia Economic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 201-216.
Cooray, A. (2003) “The Fisher Effect: A Survey,” The Singapore Economic Review, Vol. 48,
No. 2, pp. 135-150.
Coppock, L. and M. Poitras (2000) “Evaluating the Fisher Effect in the Long-Term Cross-
Country Averages,” International Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
181-192.
Crowder, W. J. (1997) “The Long-Run Fisher Relation in Canada,” The Canadian Journal of
Economics, Vol. 30, No. 4b, pp. 1124-1142.
Crowder, W. J. and D. L. Hoffman (1996) “The Long-Run Relationship between Nominal
Interest Rates and Inflation: The Fisher Equation Revised,” Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 102-118.
Crowder, W. J. and M. E. Wohar (1999) “Are Tax Effects Important in the Long-Run Fisher
Relationship? Evidence from the Municipal Bond Market,” The Journal of Finance, Vol.
54, No. 1, pp. 307-317.
Daniels, J. P., F. Nouzad and R. K. Toutkoushian (1996) “Testing the Fisher Effect as a Long-
run Equilibrium Relation,” Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 115-120.
Darby, M. R. (1975) “The Finance and Tax Effect of Monetary Policy on Interest Rates,”
Economic Inquiry, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 266-276.
Dutt, S. D. and D. Ghosh (1995) “The Fisher Hypothesis: Examining the Canadian
Experience,” Applied Economics, Vol. 27, No. 11, pp. 1025-1030.
Engle, R. F. and C. W. J. Granger (1987) “Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation,
Estimation, and Testing,” Econometrica, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 251-276.
Engsted, T. (1995) “Does the Long-term Rate Predict Future Inflation? A Multi-Country
Analysis,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 42-54.
Evans, M. D. and K. K. Lewis (1995) “Do Expected Shifts in Inflation Affect Estimates of the
104 (472)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Long-Run Fisher Relation?” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 225-253.
Fama, E. F. (1970) “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work,” The
Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 383-417.
Fama, E. F. (1975) “Short-Term Interest Rates as Predictors of Inflation,” The American
Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 268-282.
Fama, E. F. (1977) “Interest and Inflation: The Message in the Entrail,” The American
Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 487-496.
Fama, E. F. and M. R. Gibbons (1982) “Inflation, Real Returns and Capital Investment,”
Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 297-323.
Feldstein, M. S. (1976) “Inflation, Income Taxes, and the Rate of Interest: A Theoretical
Analysis,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 66, No. 5, pp. 809-820.
Feldstein, M. S. and O. Eckstein (1970) “The Fundamental Determinants of the Interest
Rate,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 363-376.
Feldstein, M. S., L. Summers, W. Fellner and R. J. Gordon (1978), “Inflation, Tax Rules, and
the Long-Term Interest Rate,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1978, No. 1,
pp. 61-109.
Fisher, I. (1930) The Theory of Interest, New York, Macmillan.
Friedman, M. (1968) “The Role of Monetary Policy,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 58,
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Furukawa, K. (1985). Gendai Nihon no Kinyu Bunseki (in Japanese), Toyo Keizai Shinpo-sha.
Garcia, M. G. P. (1993) “The Fisher Effect in a Signal Extraction Framework: The Recent
Brazilian Experience,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 71-93.
Garcia, R. and P. Perron (1996) “An Analysis of the Real Interest Rate under Regime Shifts,”
The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 111-125.
Gerlach, S. (1997) “The Information Content of the Term Structure: Evidence for Germany,”
Empirical Economics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 161-179.
Ghazali, N. A. and S. Ramlee (2003) “A Long Memory Test of the Long-Run Fisher Effect in
the G7 Countries,” Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 763-769.
Gibson, W. E. (1970a) “Price-Expectations Effects on Interest Rates,” The Journal of Finance,
(473) 105
第 62巻 第 4号
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Gibson, W. E. (1970b) “The Lag in the Effect of Monetary Policy on Income and Interest
Rates,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 431-455.
Gibson, W. E. (1970c) “Interest Rates and Monetary Policy,” The Journal of Political Economy,
Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 431-455.
Gibson, W. E. (1972) “Interest Rates and Inflationary Expectations: New Evidence,” The
American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 854-865.
Gregory, A. W. and B. E. Hansen (1996) “Residual-based Tests for Cointegration in Models
with Regime Shifts,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 99-126.
Hawtrey, K. M. (1997) “The Fisher Effect and Australian Interest Rates,” Applied Financial
Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 337-346.
Hess, P. J. and J. L. Bricksler (1975) “Capital Asset Prices Versus Time Series Models as
Predictors of Inflation,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 341-360.
Huzinga, J. and F. Mishkin (1986) “Monetary Policy Regime Shifts and the Unusual Behavior
of Real Interest Rates,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol. 24,
pp. 237-274.
Inder, B. and P. Silvapulle (1993) “Does the Fisher Effect apply in Australia?” Applied
Economics, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 839-843.
Ito, T. (2005). Long Term Interest Rates and Central Bank ― Analysis on the Term Structure
of Interest Rates in Japan ― (in Japanese), Nihon Hyoron-sha.
Johansen, S. (1988) “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors,” Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, Vol. 12, No. 2-3, pp. 231-254.
Joines, D. (1977) “Short-Term Interest Rates as Predictors of Inflation: Comment,” The
American Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 487-496.
Jorion, P. and F. Mishkin (1991) “A Multicountry Comparison of Term-structure Forecasts at
Long Horizons,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 59-80.
Kama, K. (1981) “The Determination of Interest Rate in Japan,” Keizai-Kenkyu (Hitotsubashi
University, Japan), Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Kamae, H. (1999). Nihon no Shoken-Kinyu Shijo no Kouritsusei (in Japanese), Yuhikaku.
106 (474)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Kandel, S., A. R. Ofer and O. Sarig (1996) “Real Interest Rates and Inflation: An Ex-Ante
Empirical Analysis,” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 205-225.
Kasman, S., A. Kasman and E. Turgutlu (2006) “Fisher Hypothesis Revised: A Fractional
Cointegration Analysis,” Emerging Market Finance and Trade, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 59-76.
Keynes, J. M. (1930) A Treatise on Money II, London, Macmillan.
Klug, A. and C. Nadav (1999) “On the Predictive Power of the Term Structure during the
1930s,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 6, No. 9, pp. 577-580.
Koedijk, K. G. and C. J. M. Kool (1995) “Future Inflation and the Information in International
Term Structures,” Empirical Economics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 217-242.
Koustas, A. and A. Serletis (1999) “On the Fisher Effect,” Journal of Monetary Economics,
Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 105-130.
Kuroda, A. (1982) Nihon no Kinri Kozo (in Japanese), Toyo Keizai Shinpo-sha.
Kutan, A. M. and T. Aksoy (2003) “Public Information Arrival and the Fisher Effect in
Emerging Markets: Evidence from Stock and Bond Markets in Turkey,” Journal of
Financial Services Research, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 225-239.
Lahiri, K. (1976) “Inflationary Expectations : Their Formation and Interest Rates Effects,”
The American Economic Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 124-131.
Lai, K. S. (1997) “Is the Real Interest Rate Unstable? Some New Evidence,” Applied
Economics, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 359-364.
Lai, K. S. (2004) “On Structural Shifts and Stationarity of the Ex Ante Real Interest Rate,”
International Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 217-228.
Lanne, M. (2001) “Near Unit Root and the Relationship between Inflation and Interest Rates:
A Reexamination of the Fisher Effect." Empirical Economics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 357-366.
Lanne, M. (2006) “Nonlinear Dynamics of Interest Rate and Inflation,” Journal of Applied
Econometrics, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 1157-1168.
Lee, J.-L., C. Clark and S. K. Ahn (1998) “Long- and Short-run Fisher Effects: New Tests and
New Results,” Applied Economics, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 113-124.
MacDonald, R. and P. D. Murphy (1989) “Testing for the Long Run Relationship between
Nominal Interest Rates and Inflation Using Cointegration Techniques,” Applied
(475) 107
第 62巻 第 4号
Economics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 439-447.
Maki, D. (2005) “Asymmetric Adjustment of the Equilibrium Relationship between the
Nominal Interest Rate and Inflation Rate,” Economics Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 1-8.
Malliaropulos, D. (2000) “A Note on Nonstationarity, Structural Breaks, and the Fisher
Effect,” Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 695-707.
Mehra, T. P. (1998) “The Bond Rate and Actual Future Inflation,” Economic Quarterly, Federal
Reserve Bank of Richmond, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 27-47.
Meiselman, D. (1963) “Bond Yields and the Price Level: The Gibson Paradox Regained,” in
Carson, D., Banking and Monetary Studies, Homewood.
Mendoza, E. G. (1992) “Fisherian Transmission and Efficient Arbitrage under Partial
Financial Indexation: The Case of Chile,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 121-147.
Million, N. (2003) “The Fisher Effect revised through an Efficient Non Linear Unit Root
Testing Procedure,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 10, No. 15, pp. 951-954.
Million, N. (2004) “Cetral Bank's Interventions and the Fisher Hypothesis: A Threshold
Cointegration Investigation,” Economic Modelling, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1051-1064.
Mishkin, F. (1981) “The Real Rate of Interest: An Empirical Investigation,” Carnegie-
Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 151-200.
Mishkin, F. (1984) “The Real Interest Rate: A Multi-country Empirical Study,” Canadian
Journal of Economics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 283-311.
Mishkin, F. (1988) “Understanding Real Interest Rates,” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 70, No. 5, pp. 1064-1072.
Mishkin, F. (1990a) “What does the Term Structure tell us about Future Inflation,” Journal of
Monetary Economics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 77-95.
Mishkin, F. (1990b) “The Information in the Longer Maturity Term Structure about Future
Inflation,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 815-828.
Mishkin, F. (1991) “A multi-Country Study of the Information in the Term Structure about
Future Inflation,” Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 2-22.
Mishkin, F. (1992) “Is the Fisher Effect for Real?” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 30,
No. 2, pp. 195-215.
108 (476)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
Mishkin, F. and J. Simon (1995) “An Empirical Examination of the Fisher Effect in Australia,”
The Economic Record, Vol. 71, No. 214, pp. 217-229.
Miyagawa, S. (1983) Mone-Sapurai to Kinyu Seisaku (in Japanese), in Furukawa, K, Nihon no
Kinyu Shijou to Seisaku, Showado.
Moazzami (1991) “The Fisher Equation Controversy Re-examined,” Applied Financial
Economics, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 129-133.
Mundell, R. A. (1963) “Inflation and Real Interest,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 71,
No. 3, pp. 280-283.
Muth, J. F. (1961) “Rational Expectations and the Theory of Price Movements,” Econometrica,
Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 315-335.
Nelson, C. R. and G. W. Schwert (1977) “Short-Term Interest Rates as Predictors of Inflation:
On Testing the Hypothesis that the Real Rate of Interest is Constant,” The American
Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 478-486.
Nievas, J. (1998) “The 'Fisher Effect' versus 'German Effect' in European Countries: An
Empirical Study,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 453-458.
Olekalns, N. (1996) “Further Evidence on the Fisher Effect,” Applied Economics, Vol. 28, No.
7, pp. 851-856.
Olekalns, N. (2001) “An Empirical Investigation of Structural Breaks in the Ex Ante Fisher
Effect,” Research Paper, Department of Economics, No. 786, The University of Melbourne.
Oritani, Y. (1979) “Infure-Kitai to Kinri ― Fisher Koka no Kensho to sono Inpurikeshon (in
Japanese),” Kinyu Kenkyu Shiryo (Bank of Japan), Vol. 4, pp. 81-102.
Payne, J. E. and B. Ewing (1997) “Evidence from Lesser Developed Countries on the Fisher
Hypothesis; A Cointegration Analysis,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 4, No. 11, pp.
683-687.
Peek, J. (1982) “Interest Rates, Income Taxes, and Anticipated Inflation,” The American
Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 5, pp. 980-991.
Peláez, R. F. (1995) “The Fisher Effect: Reprise,” Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 17, No. 2,
pp. 333-346.
Peng, W. (1995) “The Fisher Hypothesis and Inflation Persistence ― Evidence from Five
(477) 109
第 62巻 第 4号
Major Industrial Countries,” IMF Working Papers, 95(118).
Phylaktis, K. and D. Blake (1993) “The Fisher Hypothesis: Evidence from Three Inflation
Economies,” Review of World Economics, Vol. 129, No. 3, pp. 591-599.
Poole, W. (1970) “Optimal Choice of Monetary Policy Instruments in a Simple Stochastic
Macro Model,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 197-216.
Pyle, D. H. (1972) “Observed Expectations and Interest Rates,” The Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 275-280.
Rapach, D. E. and W. E. Weber (2004) “Are Real Interest Rates really Nonstationary? New
Evidence from Tests with Good Size and Power,” Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 26, No.
3, pp. 409-430.
Rapach, D. E. and M. E. Wohar (2005) “Regime Changes in International Real Interest Rates:
Are They a Monetary Phenomenon?” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 37, No.
5, pp. 887-906.
Rose, A. K. (1988) “Is the Real Interest Rate Stable?” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 43, No. 5,
pp. 1095-1112.
Sargent, T. J. (1969) “Commodity Price Expectations and the Interest Rate,” The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 127-140.
Sargent, T. J. and N. Wallace (1975) “Rational Expectations, the Optimal Monetary
Instrument, and the Optimal Monetary Supply Rule,” The Journal of Political Economy,
Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 241-254.
Satake, M. (1997) “Predictability of Nominal Interest Rates on Inflation (in Japanese),” The
Doshisha University Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 546-558 (220-232).
Satake, M. (2003) “An Empirical Study on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis in Australia (in
Japanese),” Ryukoku Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 21-41.
Satake, M. (2005a) “A Note on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis in Japan with a Structural
Break (in Japanese),” Ryukoku Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 231-240.
Satake, M. (2005b) “An Empirical Study on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis in Japan,” Journal
of International Economic Studies (Hosei Univesity), Vol. 19, pp. 63-75.
Satake, M. (2006) “A Note on Testing the Fisher Hypothesis in Japan: An Application of the
110 (478)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
TAR Model (in Japanese),” The Doshisha University Economic Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp.
409-428 (173-192).
Shiller, R. J., J. Y. Campbell, K. Schoenholtz and L. Weiss (1983) “Forward Rates and
Future Policy: Interpreting the Term Structure of Interest Rates," Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, Vol. 1983, No. 1, pp. 173-223.
Shimizu, Y. (1978) “Rishiritsu Taikei to Infureshon (in Japanese),” Hitotsubashi University
Research Series, Commerce and Management, Vol. 20, pp. 113-181.
Silvapulle, P. and R. Hewarathna (2002) “Robust Estimation and Inflation Forecasting,”
Applied Economics, Vol. 34, No. 18, pp. 2277-2282.
Strauss, J. and D. Terrell (1995) “Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Hypothesis with Variable
Trends in the World Real Interest Rate,” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp.
1047-1056.
Tanzi, V. (1980) “Inflationary Expectations, Economic Activity, Tax and Interest Rates,” The
American Economic Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 12-21.
Tatsumi, K. (1982) Nihon no Kinyu-Shihon Shijo, Toyo Keizai Shinpo-sha.
Thornton, J. (1996) “The Adjustment of Nominal Interest Rates in Mexico: A Study of the
Fisher Effect,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 255-257.
Tobin, J. (1965) “Money and Economic Growth,” Econometrica, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 671-684.
Wallace, M. S. and J. T. Warner (1993) “The Fisher Effect and the Term Structure of Interest
Rates: Tests of Cointegration,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp.
320-324.
Westerlund, J. (2008) “Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Hypothesis,” Journal of
Applied Econometrics, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 193-233.
Wicksell, K. (1965) Interest and Prices, Kelly, New York.
Woodward, G. T. (1992) “Evidence of the Fisher Effect from U.K. Indexed Bonds,” The
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 315-320.
Yamada, Y. (1991) “Kinri-Supureddo ni-yoru Infure Yosoku no Kanousei ni-tsuite (in
Japanese),” Financial Review, Vol. 20, pp. 129-145.
Yohe, W. P. and D. S. Karnosky (1969) “Interest Rates and Price Level Changes,” Review,
(479) 111
第 62巻 第 4号
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Vol. 51, pp. 19-36.
Yuhn, K.-H. (1996) “Is Fisher Effect Robust?: Further Evidence,” Applied Economics Letters,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 41-44.
Yun, Y.-S. (1984) “The Effects of Inflation and Income Taxes on Interest Rates: Some New
Evidence,” The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 425-
448.
(さたけ みつひこ・同志社大学経済学部)
112 (480)
Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies(Mitsuhiko Satake)
The Doshisha University Economic Review Vol.62 No.4
Abstract
Mitsuhiko SATAKE, Testing the Fisher Hypothesis: A Survey of Empirical Studies
This paper provides a brief review of the literature pertaining to the
empirical tests of the Fisher hypothesis. The survey of the literature in the US,
Japan, Australia, and the rest of the world has been divided into three parts,
each pertaining to a different general testing methodology. These include (1) the
“traditional” approach, which was originally suggested by Fisher (1930) and was
the basis of much of the initial works; (2) tests based on the methods suggested
by the seminal papers of Fama (1975) and Mishkin (1990a); and (3) tests based on
“modern” time series methods associated with unit root and co-integration tests.
(481) 113