English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article summarizes our views on the role of an "aggregation bias" in explaining the PPP Puzzle, in response to the several papers recently written in reaction to our initial contribution. We discuss in particular the criticisms of Imbs, Mumtaz, Ravn and Rey (2002) presented in Chen and Engel (2005). We show that their contentions are based on: (i) analytical counter-examples which are not empirically relevant; (ii) simulation results minimizing the extent of "aggregation bias"; (iii) unfounded claims on the impact of measurement errors on our results; and (iv) problematic implementation of small-sample bias corrections. We conclude, as in our original paper, that "aggregation bias" goes a long way towards explaining the PPP puzzle.

"Aggregation Bias" DOES Explain the PPP Puzzle