# Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica, Vol 13, No 6 (2017)

**Re-examining
Exchange Rate Regimes and Inflation Nexus: An ARDL Analysis for
Nigerian Case**

**David
Mautin Oke**^{1}**,
****Koye
Gerry Bokana**^{2}**,
Adebowale Soluade**^{3}

**Abstract:
**This
paper seeks to re-examine the effect of exchange rate regimes on
inflation in Nigeria. This is pertinent because exchange
rate has remained devastated in Nigeria while the problem of high
inflation lingers.
Contrary to most studies on Nigeria, we tested the stability of our
inflation model. We used the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL)
approach for our analysis. The
result shows that the past one year value of exchange rate has a
negative and significant impact on the current inflation rate.
Inflation rate increased more during the fixed exchange regime
compared to the floating exchange rate regime. During the floating
exchange rate regime, as the exchange rate increases, the inflation
rate decreases and vice versa. The implication is that the floating
exchange rate regime policy is preferable for combating increases in
inflation rate compared to the fixed exchange rate. In addition, the
lags of money supply have a direct relationship with inflation rate.
The past two years value of interest rate also has a direct
relationship with inflation rate. It is necessary that future studies
on Nigeria consider wider spectrums of exchange rate regimes than
ours.

**Keywords**:
exchange rate regimes; inflation; autoregressive distributed lag

**JEL
Classifications**:
C31; E63; F31

**1.
Introduction**

Exploring how
the different exchange rate regimes adopted by different countries
relate with their inflation rates has remained an interesting puzzle
in the macroeconomic literature.^{4}
This is particularly the case in most developing countries,
especially in Africa, where exchange rate has remained devastated
while the problem of high inflation lingers. It is no longer news in
Nigeria that the country has experimented different policies within
the ambient of fixed and exchange rate systems over the years. Of
course, the objective of doing so have been to make prices stable and
achieve other macroeconomic goals (Inyiama & Ekwe, 2014). We know
from the Bible that unstable persons are limited in achievements, no
wonder Nigeria has not been able to bring back its exchange rate

to what it was
in the 1960s and I970s.^{5}

In Nigeria at
present, people do not value the Naira compare to the powerful
currencies such as pounds sterling, euro and dollars. The Naira
virtually loses respect in the minds and hands of Nigerians whenever
its value is lower than that of another currency. Depreciation of the
Naira is worsen by a situation where most citizens are losing hope in
the country. Therefore, a right exchange rate policy that would
stabilize the exchange as well other macroeconomic factors including
inflation is necessary to restore the hope of the citizens. Failure
to do so may portend a greater damage to the Nigerian economy even
more than what Singer Prebisch termed perpetual deterioration of
developing countries due to high proportion of commodity goods in the
trade baskets. Up to 1979, exchange rate was stable in Nigeria.^{6}
Therefore, at different times, researchers have criticized the
Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) because it did more harm to the
economy of Nigeria than good. The progressive depreciation of the
Naira began during the SAP era.

Although, inflation has a long history of instability in Nigeria due to wrong policy prescriptions and its implementations as well as constant fall in the value of the Naira, maintaining a moderate inflation rate has been an arduous task to the Central Bank of Nigeria since the SAP period (Afolabi & Efunwoye, 1995). It has been noted that Nigeria majorly practiced the fixed exchange system prior to the SAP but since then the flexible exchange rate system is practiced in most of the later years.

Further studies on the connection between exchange rate system practiced and inflation control in Nigeria is quite necessary given that both variables have performed woefully in the country over the years. This paper, therefore, answers the following questions: (i) is there any long run relationship between the fixed-cum-flexible exchange rate regimes and inflation rates in Nigeria? (ii) is the inflation function for Nigeria stable over time? (iii) what are the determinants of inflation rate in Nigeria?.

We organize the paper into five sections. Following the introduction in this section is the literature review in part two. The methodology and discussion of findings are in sections three and four, respectively. The fifth section gives the conclusion and recommendations.

**2.
Literature Review**

The initiation of the debate on whether it is the fixed or flexible exchange rate that is more inclined to reduction in inflation rate can be traced to the work of Fleming (1962) and Mundell (1963). These scholars argued that lowering of inflation is achieved more with fixed exchange rate than the flexible counterpart. Similarly, Chhibber (1991) concludes that devaluation of currency, which is a fixed exchange rate policy, is potent in influencing the government budgets as well as monetary policy including the inflation rate. Ghanem (2012) whose study was on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) noted that the type of fixed exchange rate that lowers inflation is the credible one but Ghosh, Qureshi & Tsangarides (2014) submitted that the fixed exchange rate that is credible is the de jure type. However, Guisinger & Singer (2010) submitted that a de facto fixed exchange rate system would result to lower inflation if governments back up their actions with official pronouncements. Sticking to such pronouncements will make governments to be credible. A fixed (also called pegged) or flexible (also known as floating or fluctuating) exchange rate is de jure if the central bank communicates what it is doing concerning the exchange rate to the public. The reverse is the de facto such that the central bank can even do contrary to what it claims regarding its approach in handling the exchange rate issue. The study by Alesina & Wagner (2006) suggests that countries with poor institutional quality have problem with maintaining fixed exchange rate system. On the contrary, according to the study, countries with relative higher institutional quality manage their exchange rate more than what they announced.

The study by
Ghanem (2012) also found that the flexible exchange rate reduces
inflation more than the fixed counterpart does. Nevertheless, many
countries dread to float their exchange rate such that they
frequently renege (Calvo & Reinhart, 2002). Besides, the manner a
country floats its exchange rate matters for its capability to borrow
globally in its own currency, which has implications on its inflation
rate.^{7}
Elbadawi (1990) found that flexible exchange rate policy involving
depreciation of the currency of Uganda especially as observed in the
parallel market contributed most significantly to explaining
inflation variations in the country. Mainwhile, Owosekun (1975)
submitted that flexible exchange rate system is less prone to
imported inflation compared to the fixed exchange rate system, hence
flexible exchange rate will produce a lower inflation rate in Nigeria
compared to a fixed exchange rate system. This is supported by the
study by Moser (1995) which showed increased inflation rate in
Nigeria due to exchange rate devaluation policy in the fixed exchange
rate regime. In addendum, Oyejide (1989) showed that exchange rate
devaluation increases the cost of importation thereby fueling the
price of imported inputs including final commodities, hence causing
increase in inflation rate through the cost-push channel. However,
inflation will modestly persist if there is an accommodation of
exchange rate.^{8}

The study by
Ghosh et al. (2014) has revealed that low inflation is highly
achievable when central banks adopt both de facto and de jure fixed
exchange rate than if they use only de factor fixed method. On the
other hand, Bohl, Michaelis & Siklos (2016) pointed out that in
raising countries’ outputs, the fixed exchange rate works best
for the emerging market economies while in the G20 countries; the
flexible exchange system does better. This finding is useful in the
foregoing discourse since economic literature and empirics have
largely established a trade-off between output and inflation.^{9}

There are
expansive literature on what causes changes in the inflation rates
across different countries of the world including Nigeria. Country
specific studies have largely used the cointegration multivariate
procedures.^{10}
Most of the studies have found that exchange rate is one of those
variables explaining changes in the inflation rate. For example, the
study by Honohan & Lane (2003) on the Eurozone shows that
inflation rate is explained by changes in the nominal effective
exchange rate over the period 1999-2001. Similarly, in another study
by same Honohan & Lane (2004), exchange rate plays a pertinent
role in determining inflation rate in the EMU in both the period of
depreciation of the Euro in 1999-2001 and era of appreciation of the
Euro in 2002-2003. In addition, from the result of Aigbokhan (1991),
the Mexican inflation in 1980s and 1990s was primarily determined by
the extent to which the country’s real exchange rate
fluctuates. Further, Chhibber (1991) reveals that exchange rate, real
income, increase in money supply, unit labour cost, foreign price
and interest rate are critical in determining inflation rate in
Zimbabwe. In a similar study on the Ghanaian economy, Chhibber &
Shafik (1990) show that the country’s inflation rate is chiefly
caused by increase in the supply of money whereas factors like
official exchange rate and real wages do not significantly impact on
the inflation rates, although the parallel exchange rate poses
significant positive impact on the inflation rates. In the same way,
the study by Opolot & Mpagi (2017) reveals that among other
variables including monetary aggregates, foreign prices and changes
in real GDP, exchange rate poses a positive impact on inflation rate
in Uganda. Also, the work by Hossain & Mitra (2017) reveals a
short-run uni-directional flow from exchange rate, interest rate,
economic growth and trade openness to inflation. Laying credence to
the autoregressive lag tendencies, Lagoa (2017) shows that among
other variables, changes in inflation is largely accounted for by the
movements in exchange rate and differences in inflation. We note that
the debates on which of the exchange rate regimes lowers inflation as
well as factors determining inflation both in the short run and
long-run remain unsettled, hence calling for further studies.

**3.
Methodology**

The first step
in this section is to test the nature of the variables using the
popular augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) stationary test. Although new
stationarity tests developed by Ng & Perron (2001) and improved
by the work of Perron & Qu (2007) which are Dickey Fuller
Generalized Least Squares (DFGLS) and Modified Philips Perron (MPP)
have been said to be powerful and have better size compared with ADF
and Philips-Perron (PP) test.^{11}
However, Zapata et al. (2011) has shown that the ADF like the PP test
has shown similar result with the DFGLS. Since our sample is not less
than thirty, hence not small, the ADF equation is still relevant.
Therefore, we specify the ADF equation as follows in equation (1).

Equation (1) represents a model of first difference of series y ( ) with constant term, linear trend, lag of y, lag difference of y and stochastic term. In the absence of deterministic part in the model, and disappear.

Given that the variables are a mixture of first difference and level series, the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) is the appropriate methodology (see Pesaran, Shin & Smith, 2001). The ARDL is potent for long-run analysis.

Given a general ARDL model in equation (2)

Where is the dependent variable and are the regressors or explanatory variables. Our dependent variable is the inflation rate (INFR) while the regressors are broad money supply (MS), exchange rate (EXCR), government expenditure (GEXP), interest rate which is represented by monetary policy rate (INTR) and dummy for the exchange rate regimes (ERR- 1 for fixed regime and 0 for floating regime). The choice of variables into our model draws from the work of Imimole & Enoma (2011), Bashir, Nawaz, Yasin, Khursheed, Kan, & Qureshi (2011), Ghanem (2012), Lim & Sek (2015), Hossain & Mitra (2017) and Opolot & Mpagi (2017). Both the dependent and the independent variables were logged, hence the coefficients are elasticities. We collected the data on all the variables from the Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin, 2015 edition and they were logged so that they could behave well in the analysis. The stability of the inflation rate was tested using the Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) technique.

Emanating from equation (2), we write the equation (3)

Where stands for autoregressive, stands for lag(s), ’s are the regression coefficients and remains the stochastic term. An =1 implies absence of lag(s) of in an ARDL model, hence regarded as a distributed lag model. Also, in equation (3), and are believed to be stationary while is a white noise. This means that has a mean of zero, constant variance and zero autocorrelation. The choice of lags will depend on the number of variables in the equation to avoid the problem of over-parameterization and micronumerousity. However, the allowance of lags into an ARDL model improves the explanatory power of the model. As usual, econometricians often derive a dynamic error correction model (ECM) from the ARDL using transformations that are simply linear (see Bannerjee & Mestre, 1998). The ECM shows the extent to which deviations from the long-run are corrected in the short-run and must be correctly signed with a negative value. We state a general ECM in equation (4)

This equation connotes that the change in current value of is an addition of two parts. First is the one that is proportional to the current value of and the second is the deviation of from the equilibrium value which tallies with .

**4.
Empirical Results and Discussion**

**Figure
1. Exchange Rate Movement in Nigeria (1970-2015)**

Beginning with the preliminary discussion, the graphical representation of the exchange rate in Nigeria in figure 1 shows that exchange rate was fixed and constant in the periods before 1986 (Structural Adjustment Programme year) while in the subsequent periods, there was a continuous increase in the exchange rate.

On the other hand, the graphical representation of the inflation rate in figure 2 shows an oscillating movement in the inflation rate. This suggests that the inflation rate should not have a unit root problem. That is, it should be stationary at level when tested.

**Figure
2. Inflation Rate Movement in Nigeria (1970-2015)**

The result of the stationarity of the variables using the ADF procedure in Table 1 indicates that the variables are largely first difference series except inflation rate that is stationary at level for model with intercept as well as trend and intercept.

**Table
1. Unit Root Test Using Augmented Dickey Fuller Procedure**

*Source:
Computed from E-views 7*

*, ** and *** denotes significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.

This result justifies the use of an ARDL model which requires a combination of I(0) and I(1) variables. Therefore, the next step involves estimating an ARDL model to determine the cointegrating relationship among the variables. Subsequently, the results are presented in Table 2.

**Table
2. Parsimonious OLS estimates of the ARDL model**

*Source:
Computed from E-views 7*

Table 2 shows
the parsimonious model of the ARDL which is obtained after
considering the appropriateness of lag based on the Akaike
information criterion, Schwarz criterion and Hannan-Quinn criterion
as well as correcting for serial correlation. Based on the
parsimonious specification, the coefficient of determination (R^{2})
shows that the model is good or its explanatory power is in order.
The Durbin-Watson (DW) value of 2.3604 suggests the model does not
suffer from serial correlation and the F-test shows there are no
omissions of relevant variables in the model. In essence, there is no
mis-specification problem.

The bound test with the aid of Wald test and the Pesaran Table in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, show whether or not there is co-integration or long-run relationship among the variables in the model.

**Table
3. Wald Test**

*Source:
Computed from E-views 7*

**Table
4. Pesaran Table**

*Source:
Pesaran et al. (2001), Table CI (iii), Case 111: Unrestricted
intercept and no trend.*

The F-statistic (3.0459) in Table 3 falls below the lower bound (3.539) on the Pesaran table at 5% level of significance indicating no long-run association among the variables. This means that these variables will not likely co-move in the long-run. Therefore, there is no need for conducting the error correction mechanism for the model.

**Figure
3. CUSUM Test for Stability of the Inflation Model**

**Figure
4. Recursive Residual Test of Stability of the Inflation Model**

The graph of the recursive residual in figure 4 shows that the residuals either go outside the ±2 standard error bounds or becomes close to the bounds. This can be seen between 2006 and 2015 which corresponds to the period of massive deregulation and liberalization of the financial system in terms of interest rate and entry into the system so that SMEs can flourish and contribute meaningfully to the GDP growth of Nigeria. From the plot of the CUSUM test in figure 3, the red lines indicate both upper and lower benchmark at 5% significance level while the blue lines represent the CUSUM or recursive residuals. The graph indicates that the process is in control as the CUSUM or recursive residuals are neither greater than nor less than the benchmark. Since the measurement (CUSUM or recursive residuals) falls within the benchmark, we infer that the inflation model is stable. This result is similar to the study by Hossain & Mitra (2017) on the United States.

The relationship between the second and third lags of inflation and the current inflation is negative and significant at the 5 percent level. This suggests that the past two and three years values of inflation rate are important determinants of the current inflation rate in Nigeria. By implication, inflation rate exhibits a snowballing impact in Nigeria. This result is similar to that of Lagoa (2017) that shows that differences in inflation overtime has a great impact on the current inflation rate.

Similarly, the current and past two and three years values of money supply has a direct relationship with inflation rate. The positive sign displayed by money supply meets the theoretic and a priori expectation since increase in money supply when money demand is unchanged causes increase in the general price level thereby reduces the real value of money. This finding is similar the long-run result by Bashir et al. (2011) but contradict the study by Lim & Sek (2015) who reported a short-run negative nexus between money supply and inflation. Although such outcome between money supply and inflation is unpopular in the literature.

The past two
years value of interest rate has a direct relationship with inflation
rate. This does not conform to economic theory since increase in
interest rate often reduces money supply, hence reduces inflation.
However, if Nigeria’s interest rate increases relative to the
interest rate of other countries rates, all things equal, this will
make investors to gain from the higher Naira rates by switching from
their currency to Naira-denominated securities. The net result is an
increase in inflation of the Naira if government does not intervene.
Our result is somehow similar to that of Inyiama & Ekwe (2014)
and Hossain & Mitra (2017) that show a uni-directional causality
from interest rate to inflation in Nigeria and United States,
respectively. Also, the past one year value of exchange rate has a
negative and significant impact on the current inflation rate. This
implies that a depreciation of the Naira leads to a reduction in the
rate of inflation. This is a-theoretic because depreciation of the
currency is expected to boost net export if the country is a net
export State thereby increases aggregate demand and fuels inflation
if it is not controlled. The findings of Opolot & Mpagi (2017) as
well as Inyiama & Ekwe (2014) are contrary to ours. The latter
found a slight significant positive impact of exchange rate on
inflation in Nigeria, although they also found no causality between
inflation and exchange rate in the country. However, such a finding
is cumbersome. Mainwhile, similar to the work of Lagoa (2017) on the
Euro zone, Imimole & Enoma (2011) found exchange rate among other
variables including money supply and GDP as the pertinent factors
determining inflation in Nigeria. Such finding is not specific
compared with our result. It is also pertinent to note that ERR
switches from 1 to 0 and the coefficient of ERR is -1.8743. This
means that the percentage impact of *ERR*
on inflation
rate
is 100 [*exp*(-*c*)
- 1], that is, 100[exp(-4.7)-1]. This indicates a 99 percent negative
impact on the inflation rate as ERR moves from 1 (fixed regime) to 0
(floating regime). In other words, within the floating exchange rate
regime, as the exchange rate increases, the inflation rate decreases
and vice versa. This suggests that the floating exchange rate regime
policy is preferable for controlling rising inflation rate compared
to the fixed exchange rate. This reinforces the position of most
authors in the literature including the IMF.^{12}

**5.
Conclusion and Recommendations**

This paper has examined exchange rate regimes and inflation in Nigeria. We used the Autoregressive Distributed Lag Bounds test cointegration technique. The system of exchange rate in Nigeria has oscillated between the flexible and fixed counterpart. The paper therefore used a dummy variable to show the difference between the two regimes and its effects on inflation in the country. This study has reinforced that monetary policy remains effective in the short-run since a co-integration nexus in the model was not found. It has re-established that flexible exchange system rate remains a better option for increasing the value of the Naira provided institutional challenges are holistically dealt with. We do not object to using variants or a mix of the flexible exchange system provided a correct dose of the policy is prescribed. However, we support the de jure type of the flexible exchange rate and are against the de facto. Mainwhile, the Central Bank of Nigeria must be credible and the independence of the Bank must be achieved. It is imperatives that future studies on Nigeria consider wider spectrum of the exchange rate regimes. In specific terms, we make the following recommendations. First, the government of Nigeria must continue to ensure that it achieves exchange and interest rates stability in order to stem inflationary tendencies. Second, to curb inflation, there is the need for high transparency in monetary policy implementations. Third, the policy linkage between monetary policy instruments in the country should remain very strong in the short–run. Fourth, achievement of price stability can be enhanced if the exchange rate regimes are explicit and correctly identified by the public. In all, there should be effective structural reforms in place in order to reap the benefits of right policies implemented in Nigeria.

**6.
References**

Afolabi,
J.A. & Efunwoye, B. (1995). Causes of high inflation in Nigeria.
*NDIC
Quarterly*,
5(4), pp. 14-20.

Aigbokhan,
B.E. (1991). The naira exchange rate depreciation and domestic
inflation. *The
Indian Journal of Economics*,
71, pp. 507-517.

Alesina,
A. & Wagner, A.F. (2006). Choosing (and reneging on) exchange
rate regimes. *Journal
of the European Economic Association*,
4(4), pp. 770–799.

Aliyu,
S.U.R. & Englama, A. (2009). Is Nigeria ready for inflation
targeting? *Journal
of Money, Investment and Banking*,
11(1), pp. 1450-288.

Bannerjee,
A.D. & Mestre R. (1998). Error correction mechanism tests for
cointegration in single equation framework. *Journal
of Time Series Analysis*,
19, pp. 207–283.

Bashir,
F.; Nawaz, S.; Yasin, K.; Khursheed, U.; Khan, J. & Qureshi, M.J.
(2011). Determinants of inflation in Pakistan: An econometric
analysis using Johansen cointegration approach. *Australian
Journal of Business and Management Research*,
1(5), pp. 71-82.

Bohl,
M.T.; Michaelis, P. & Siklos, P.L. (2016). Austerity and
recovery: Exchange rate regime choice, economic growth and financial
crises. *Economic
Modelling*,
53, pp. 195-207.

Brada,
J.C. & Méndez, J.A. (1988). Exchange rate risk, exchange
rate regime and the volume of international trade. *Kyklos*,
41(2), pp. 263-280.

Calvo,
G.A. & Reinhart, C.M. (2002). Fear of floating. *Quarterly
Journal of Economics*,
117(2), pp. 379–408.

Chhibber,
A. (1991). Africa's rising inflation: Causes, consequences and
curses. *World
Bank Working Papers*,
WPS 577.

Chhibber,
A. & Shafik, N. (1990). Exchange reform, parallel markets and
inflation in Africa: The case of Ghana. *World
Bank Working Papers*,
WPS 427, May.

Elbadawi,
I.A. (1990). Inflationary process, stabilization and role of public
expenditure in Uganda. *Mimeo*,
July, World Bank, Washington D.C.

Ewa,
A. (2011). The impact of exchange rate fluctuation on the Nigeria
economic growth (1980 – 2010). *Unpublished
B.Sc Thesis*
of Caritas University, Emene, Enugu State, Nigeria.

Fleming,
M. (1962). Domestic financial policies under fixed and under floating
exchange rates. *International
Monetary Fund Staff Papers*,
9, pp. 369-379.

Gbosi,
A.N. (2005). *Money,
monetary policy and the economy*.
Port Harcourt: Sodek.

Ghanem,
D. (2012). Fixed exchange rate regimes and inflation performance:
Evidence from MENA countries. *Review
of Middle East Economics and Finance*,
8(1), pp. 1-30.

Ghosh,
A.R.; Qureshi, M.S. & Tsangarides, C.G. (2014). On the value of
words: Inflation and fixed exchange rate regimes. *IMF
Economic Review*,
62(2), pp. 288-322.

Guisinger,
A. & Singer, D.A. (2010). Exchange rate proclamations and
inflation-fighting credibility. *International
Organization*,
64(2), pp. 313-337.

Hausmann,
R.; Panizza, U. & Stein, E.H. (2001). Why do countries float the
way they float?. *Journal
of Development Economics*,
66(2), pp. 387–414.

Hayat,
Z.; Balli, F. & Rehman, M. (2017). The relevance and relative
robustness of sources of inflation bias in Pakistan. *Economic
Modelling*,
63, pp. 283-303.

Honohan,
P. & Lane, P.R. (2003). Divergent inflation rates in EMU.
*Economic
Policy*,
37, pp. 359-94.

Honohan,
P. & Lane, P.R. (2004). *Exchange
rates and inflation in EMU: An update*.
Prepared as a Web Essay for Economic Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.economic policy.org/commentaries.asp.

Hossain,
M.S. & Mitra, R. (2017). The determinants of price inflation in
the United States: A multivariate dynamic cointegration and causal
analysis. *The
Journal of Developing Areas*,
51(1), pp. 153-175.

Imimole,
B. & Enoma, A. (2011). Exchange rate depreciation and inflation
in Nigeria (1986-2008). *Business
Economics Journal*,
28, pp. 1-12.

Inyiama,
O.I. & Ekwe, M.C. (2014). Exchange rate and inflation rate: Do
they interact?. Evidence from Nigeria. *International
Journal of Economics and Finance*,
6(3), pp. 80-87.

Kool,
C.J.M. & Lammertsma, A. (2005). Inflation persistence under
semi-fixed exchange rate regimes: The European evidence, 1974–1998.
*Open
Economies Review*,
16(1), pp. 51–76.

Lagoa,
S. (2017). Determinants of inflation differentials in the euro area:
Is the new Keynesian Phillips curve enough?. *Journal
of Applied Economics*,
20(1), pp. 75-103.

Lim,
Y.C. & Sek, S.K. (2015). An Examination on the determinants of
inflation. *Journal
of Economics, Business and Management*,
3(7), pp. 678-682.

Lohi,
J. (2014). Exchange rate regimes and inflation in Sub-Saharan Africa.
*Journal
of Economics and International Finance*,
6(8), pp. 173-189.

Lupi,
C. (2009). Unit root CADF testing in R. *Journal
of Statistical Software*,
32(2), pp. 1-19.

Moser,
G.G. (1995). The main determinants of inflation in Nigeria. *Schwarz
Bayesian Criterion Staff Papers*,
IMF, 42(2), June.

Mundell,
R. (1963). Capital mobility and stabilization policy under fixed and
flexible exchange rates. *Canadian
Journal of Economics and Political Science*,
29, pp. 475-4785.

Ng,
S. & Perron, P. (2001). Lag length selection and the construction
of unit root tests with good size and power, *Econometrica*,
69(6), pp. 1519- 1554.

Obansa,
S.A.J. & Okoroafor, O.K.D.; Aluko, O.O. & Eze, M. (2013).
Perceived relationship between exchange rate, interest rate and
economic growth in Nigeria: 1970-2010. *American
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, *1(3),
pp. 116-124.

Odedokun,
M.O. (1996). *Dynamics
of inflation in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of foreign inflation,
official and parallel market exchange rates and monetary growth*.
Dundee, Scotland. University of Dundee.

Oluba,
M. (2008). Proposed inflation targeting: Mis-targeting in Nigeria?.
*Swiss
Management Centre Working Paper, *No.
5*.*

Opolot,
J. & Mpagi, A. (2017). Inflation dynamics in Uganda: The role of
disequilibria in the money and trade goods markets. *Journal
of Statistical and Econometric Methods*,
6(1), pp. 45-74.

Perron,
P. & Qu, Z. (2007). A simple modification to improve the finite
sample properties of Ng and Perron’s unit root tests. *Economic
Letters*,
94, pp. 12-19.

Pesaran,
H.M.; Shin, Y. & Smith, R.J. (2001). Bound testing approaches to
the analysis of long-run relationships. *Working
Paper*,
University of Cambridge.

Owosekun,
A. & Odama, J.S. (1975). The causes of inflation in Nigeria: Some
empirical evidence. In Onitriri, H.M.A. & Awosika, K. (Eds.),
*Proceedings
of a National Conference*,
NISER, Ibadan.

Oyejide,
T.A. (1989). Thoughts on stability of Nigeria’s exchange rate.
*The
Nigerian Banker*,
September – December.

Thygesen,
N. (1978). Inflation and exchange rates: Evidence and policy
guidelines for the European community. *Journal
of International Economics*,
8(2), pp. 301-317.

Zapata,
H.O.; Maradiaga, D.I.; Pujula, A.L. & Dicks, M.R. (2011*).
*Recent
developments in unit root tests and historical crop yields. Selected
Paper Prepared for Presentation at the *Agricultural
and Applied Economics Association’s 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint
Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh*,
Pennysylvania, July 24-26.

1 Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, Address: Westville Campus, University Road, Westville, Durban, 4000, South Africa, Corresponding author: okdam76@yahoo.com.

2 Lecturer, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, College of Law and Management Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, Address: Westville Campus, University Road, Westville, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa, E-mail:Bokanakg@ukzn.ac.za

3 Former Masters’ Student, Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos, Nigeria, Address: Akoka- Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria, E-mail: walesoluade@yahoo.com

4 See (Thygesen, 1978; Guisinger & Singer, 2010; Obansa, Okoroafor, Aluko & Eze, 2013).

**AUDŒ,
Vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 253-266**

5 See (Gbosi, 2005).

6 See (Ewa, 2011).

7 See (Hausmann, Panizza & Stein, 2001).

8 See (Kool & Lammertsma, 2005).

9 See (Lohi, 2014; Hayat, Balli & Rehman, 2017).

10 See (Aliyu & Englama, 2009; Oluba, 2008).

11 See (Zapata, Maradiaga & Pujula, 2011).

12 For instance, see (Owosekun, 1975; Elbadawi, 1990; Ghanem, 2012).

### Refbacks

- There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.