1. IntroductionRecent theoretical analysis of purchasing power deviations (see, e.g., Dumas 1992; Sercu, Uppal, and Van Hull 1995; and O'Connell and Wei 1997) demonstrates how transactions costs or the sunk costs of international arbitrage induce nonlinear adjustment of the real exchange rate to purchasing power parity (PPP). Globally mean-reverting this nonlinear process has the important property of exhibiting near unit root behavior for small deviations from PPP since small deviations from PPP are left uncorrected if they are not large enough to cover the transactions costs or the sunk costs of international arbitrage.A parametric nonlinear model, suggested by the theoretical literature, that captures the nonlinear adjustment process in aggregate data is the exponential smooth transition autoregression model (ESTAR) of Ozaki (1985). A smooth, rather than discrete, adjustment mechanism is motivated by the theoretical analysis of Dumas (1992). Also, as postulated by Terasvirta (1994) and demonstrated theoretically by Berka (2002), in aggregate data regime changes may be smooth, rather than discrete, given that heterogeneous agents do not act simultaneously even if they make dichotomous decisions.1 Recent empirical work (e.g., Michael, Nobay, and Peel 1997; Taylor, Peel, and Sarno 2001; Peel and Venetis 2002) has reported empirical results that suggest that the ESTAR model provides a parsimonious fit into a variety of data sets, particular for monthly data for the interwar and postwar floating period as well as for annual data spanning 200 years, as reported in Lothian and Taylor (1996). In addition, nonlinear impulse response functions derived from the ESTAR models show that although the speed of adjustment for small shocks around equilibrium will be highly persistent, larger shocks mean-revert much faster than the glacial rates previously reported for linear models (Rogoff 1996). In this respect, the ESTAR models provide some solution to the PPP puzzle outlined in Rogoff (1996).2The ESTAR model can also provide an explanation of why PPP deviations analyzed from a linear perspective appear to be described by either a nonstationary integrated I(1) process, or alternatively, described by fractional processes (see, e.g., Diebold, Husted, and Rush 1991). Taylor, Peel, and Sarno (2001), and Pippenger and Goering (1993) show that the Dickey-Fuller tests have low power against data simulated from an ESTAR model. Michael, Nobay, and Peel (1997) and Byers and Peel (2003) show that data that is generated from an ESTAR process can appear to exhibit the fractional property. That this would be the case was an early conjecture by Acosta and Granger (1995). Given that the ESTAR model has a theoretical rationale, whereas the fractional process is a relatively nonintuitive one, the fractional property might reasonably be interpreted as a misleading linear property of PPP deviations (Granger and Terasvirta 1999).Whereas the empirical work employing ESTAR models provides some explanation of the glacially slow adjustment speeds obtained in linear models, there is one aspect of the empirical work that is worthy of further attention. A second way of explaining the Rogoff puzzle, raised by Rogoff himself,3 is to relax the assumption that the equilibrium real exchange rate is a constant (see, e.g., Canzoneri, Cumby, and Diba 1996; and Chinn and Johnston 1996). Theoretical models, such as that of Balassa (1964) and Samuelson (1964), imply a nonconstant equilibrium in the real exchange rate if real productivity growth rates differ between countries.4 Nonlinear models that incorporate proxies for these effects are found to parsimoniously fit post-Bretton Woods data for the main real exchange rates (see Venetis, Paya, and Peel 2002; and Paya, Venetis, and Peel 2003). Naturally, models that ignore this effect may generate misleading speeds of PPP adjustment to shocks. In this regard, the empirical results of Hegwood and Papell (2002) for the Gold Standard period are particularly interesting. …