Examining the differential impact of monetary policy in India: a policy simulation approach
Keywords:Monetary policy, Structural macro-econometric model, GMM, Policy simulations, India
Purpose: Though an accumulating body of study has analysed monetary policy transmission in India, there are few studies examining the differential impact of monetary policy action. Against this backdrop, this study aims to analyse the differential impact of monetary policy on aggregate demand, aggregate supply and their components along with the general price level in India.
Design/methodology/approach: The study develops a structural macroeconometric model, which is primarily aggregate and eclectic in nature. The generalized method of movements is used for estimation of behavioural equations, while a Gauss–Seidel algorithm is used for model simulation purposes.
Findings: The paper presents the results of two policy simulations from the estimated model that highlight the differential impact of monetary policy. The first one, hike in the policy rate by 5% and second is a reduction in bank credit to the commercial sector by 10%. The results from the first policy simulation experiment reveal that interest hike has a significant negative impact on aggregate demand, aggregate supply and general price level. However, the maximum impact is borne by investment demand and imports followed by private consumption. While as among the components of aggregate supply maximum impact is born by infrastructure output followed by the manufacturing and services sector with the agriculture sector found to be insensitive in nature. The results from the second policy simulation experiment revealed that pure monetary shocks have a significant negative impact on aggregate demand, aggregate supply and general price level. However, the maximum impact is born by private consumption and imports followed by investment demand. While as among components of aggregate supply maximum impact is borne by infrastructure followed by the manufacturing and services sector with the agriculture sector found to be insensitive in nature. From both policy simulation experiments, the study highlighted the relative importance of the income absorption approach as opposed to the expenditure switching effect.
Practical implications: The results obtained in this study provides a strong framework for design the monetary policy framework. The results are in a view of the differential impact of monetary policy action among the components of both aggregate demand and aggregate supply. This reflection of differential impact has immense significance for the macroeconomic stabilization as the central bank will have to weigh the varying repercussion of its actions on different sectors. For instance, the decline in output after monetary tightening might be conceived as mild from an overall perspective, but it can be appreciable for some sectors. This differential influence will have an implication for policy design to care for distributional aspects, which otherwise could be neglected/disregarded. Similarly, the output decline may be as a result of either consumption postponement or a temporary slowdown in investment. However, the one emanating due to investment decline will have lasting growth implications compared to a decline in consumer demand. In addition, the relative strength of expenditure changing or expenditure switching policies of trade balance stabilization may have varying consequences in the aftermath of monetary policy shock. Accordingly information on the relative sensitiveness/insensitiveness of different sectors/ components of aggregate demand towards monetary policy actions furnish valuable insights to monetary authorities in framing appropriate policy.
Originality/value: The work carried out in the present paper is motivated by the fact that although a number of studies have examined the monetary transmission mechanism in India, a very few studies examining the differential impact of monetary policy action. However, to the best of the knowledge, there is no such studies, which have examined the differential impact of monetary policy in the structural macroeconometric framework. The paper will enrich the existing literature by providing a detailed account of the differential impact of monetary policy among the components of both aggregate demand and aggregate supply in response to an interest rate hike, as well as a decrease in the money supply.
Akbar, M. and Jamil, F. (2012), “Monetary and fiscal policies’ effect on agricultural growth: GMM estimation and simulation analysis”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1909-1920.
Alam, T. and Waheed, M. (2006), “Sectoral effects of monetary policy: evidence from Pakistan”, The Pakistan Development Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1103-1115.
Aleem, A. (2010), “Transmission mechanism of monetary policy in India”, Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 186-197.
Angeloni, I., Kashyap, A., Mojon, B. and Terlizzese, D. (2003), “The output composition puzzle: a difference in the monetary transmission mechanism in the euro area and the United States”, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1265-1306.
Barran, F. Coudert, V. and Mojon, B. (1996), “The transmission of monetary policy in the European countries”, (Vol. 3), CEPII.
Barth, M. and Ramey, V. (2000), “The cost channel of monetary transmission”, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, Vol. 16, pp. 199-240.
Bernanke, B. and Blinder, A. (1992), “The federal funds rate and the channels of monetary transmission”, The American Economic Review, pp. 901-921.
Bernanke, B. and Gertler, M. (1995), “Inside the black box: the credit channel of monetary policy transmission”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 27-48.
Berument, H. Ceylan, N. and Yucel, E. (2007), “The differential sectoral effects of policy shocks: Evidence from Turkey (no. 0703)”.
Bhanumurthy, N. and Kumawat, L. (2009), External Shocks and the Indian Economy: Analyzing through a Small, Structural Quarterly Macroeconometric Model, University Library of Munich.
Bhattacharya, R., Patnaik, I. and Shah, A. (2011), “Monetary policy transmission in an emerging market setting”, IMF Working Papers, pp. 1-25.
Bhattacharya, B. and Kar, S. (2008), “Macro economic reforms, growth and stability”, Arth Anvesan, p. 73.
Bhoi, B., Mitra, A., Singh, J. and Sivaramakrishnan, G. (2016), “Effectiveness of alternative channels of monetary policy transmission: some evidence for India”, Macroeconomics and Finance in Emerging Market Economies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 19-38.
Christiano, L. Eichenbaum, M. and Evans, C. (1994), “The effects of monetary policy shocks: some evidence from the flow of funds (no. w4699)”, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dedola, L. and Lippi, F. (2005), “The monetary transmission mechanism: evidence from the industries of five OECD countries”, European Economic Review, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1543-1569.
Dhal, S. (2011), “Industry effects of the monetary transmission mechanism in India: an empirical analysis of use-based industries”, Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, Vol. 32, pp. 39-79.
Disyatat, P. and Vongsinsirikul, P. (2003), “Monetary policy and the transmission mechanism in Thailand”, Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 389-418.
Domac, I. (1999), The Distributional Consequences of Monetary Policy: Evidence from Malaysia, The World Bank.
Easterly, W. (1989), “A consistency framework for macroeconomic analysis (Vol. 234)”, World Bank Publications.
Erceg, C. and Levin, A. (2002), “Optimal monetary policy with durable and non-durable goods (no. 0179)”, European Central Bank.
Friedman, M. and Schwartz, A. (1963), “A monetary history of the United States, 1867-1960”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Ganley, J. and Salmon, C. (1997), “The industrial impact of monetary policy shocks: some stylised facts (no. 68)”, Bank of England.
Gertler, M. and Gilchrist, S. (1993), “The role of credit market imperfections in the monetary transmission mechanism: arguments and evidence”, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 43-64.
Ghosh, S. (2009), “Industry effects of monetary policy: evidence from India”, Indian Economic Review, pp. 89-105.
Haimowitz, J. (1996), “Monetary policy shocks and price stickiness: an analysis of price and output responses to policy in manufacturing industries (no. 96-07)”, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Hall, R. (1978), “Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: theory and evidence”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 971-987.
Hayo, B. and Uhlenbrock, B. (1999), “Industry effects of monetary policy in Germany”, in Regional Aspects of Monetary Policy in Europe, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 127-158.
Jakab, Z. Várpalotai, V. and Vonnák, B. (2006), “How does monetary policy affect aggregate demand? A multimodel approach for Hungary (no. 2006/4)”, MNB Working Papers.
Jansen, D., Kishan, R. and Vacaflores, D. (2013), “Sectoral effects of monetary policy: the evidence from publicly traded firms”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 946-970.
Joyce, M., Tong, M. and Woods, R. (2011), “The United Kingdom’s quantitative easing policy: design, operation and impact”, Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 200-212.
Kapur, M. and Behera, H. (2012), Monetary Transmission Mechanism in India: A Quarterly Model, University Library of Munich, Germany.
Kashyap, A. and Stein, J. (1995), “The impact of monetary policy on bank balance sheets”, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol. 42, pp. 151-195.
Kashyap, A.K., Lamont, O.A. and Stein, J.C. (1994), “Credit conditions and the cyclical behaviour of inventories”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 565-592.
Kashyap, A. Stein, J. and Wilcox, D. (1992), “Monetary policy and credit conditions: evidence from the composition of external finance (no. w4015)”, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Khan, M. Ud Din, M. and Ud Din, M. (2011), “A dynamic macroeconometric model of Pakistan's economy”, Working Papers and Research Reports, 2011.
Khundrakpum, J. (2012), Estimating Impacts of Monetary Policy on Aggregate Demand in India, University Library of Munich.
Khundrakpum, J. (2013), Are There Asymmetric Effects of Monetary Policy in India? University Library of Munich.
Khundrakpum, J. (2017), “Examining the asymmetric impact of monetary policy in India”, Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 290-314.
Khundrakpum, J. and Jain, R. (2012), “RBI working paper series no. 11 monetary policy transmission in India: a peep inside the black box”.
Kretzmer, P. (1989), “The cross-industry effects of unanticipated money in an equilibrium business cycle model”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 275-296.
Llaudes, R. (2007), “Monetary policy shocks in a two-sector open economy: an empirical study (no. 799)”, ECB Working Paper.
Meltzer, A. (1995), “Monetary, credit and (other) transmission processes: a monetarist perspective”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 49-72.
Mishkin, F. (1976), “Illiquidity, consumer durable expenditure, and monetary policy”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 642-654.
Mishkin, F. (1996), “The channels of monetary transmission: lessons for monetary policy (no. w5464)”, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Mohanty, D. (2012), “Evidence of interest rate channel of monetary policy transmission in India”, in Second International Research Conference at the Reserve Bank of India, February, pp. 1-2.
Nachane, D., Ray, P. and Ghosh, S. (2002), “Does the monetary policy have differential state-level effects? An empirical evaluation”, Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 4723-4728.
Obstfeld, M. and Rogoff, K. (1995), “The mirage of fixed exchange rates”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 73-96.
Pandit, B.L., Mittal, A., Roy, M. and Ghosh, S. (2006), “Transmission of monetary policy and the bank lending channel: analysis and evidence for India”, Department Research Group, Study No. 26, DEAP, RBI.
Patra, M. and Kapur, M. (2012), “A monetary policy model for India”, Macroeconomics and Finance in Emerging Market Economies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 18-41.
Peersman, G. and Smets, F. (2002), “The industry effects of monetary policy in the euro area”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 115 No. 503, pp. 319-342.
Pierse, R. (2001), Winsolve Manual, Department of Economics, University of Surrey, UK.
Romar, C. and Romar, D. (1989), “Does monetary policy matter? A new test in the spirit of Friedman and Schwartz”, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 4, pp. 121-170.
Salam, M. and Kulsum, U. (2002), “Savings behaviour in India: an empirical study”, Indian Economic Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 77-80.
Sengupta, N. (2014), “Sectoral effects of monetary policy in India”, South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 127-154.
Shaheen, R. (2013), “An empirical evaluation of monetary and fiscal policy in Pakistan”, Doctoral dissertation, © Rozina Shaheen.
Singh, K. and Kalirajan, K. (2007), “Monetary transmission in post-reform India: an evaluation”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 158-187.
Stiglitz, J. and Weiss, A. (1981), “Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 393-410.
Taylor, J. (1995), “The monetary transmission mechanism: an empirical framework”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 11-26.
Ulhig, H. (2005), “What are the effects of monetary policy on output? Results from an agnostic identification procedure”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 381-419.
Yellen, J. (2011), “Unconventional monetary policy and Central bank communications: a speech at the University of Chicago booth school of business US monetary policy forum, New York, New York, February 25, 2011 (no. 604)”, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US).
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.