Determinants of money demand for India in presence of structural break: An empirical analysis

• Authors: Sakshi Aggarwal
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper empirically analyses India’s money demand function during the period 1996 to 2013 using quarterly data. Cointegration test suggests that money demand represented by M1 and Interest Rate have a unit root, whereas in the presence of structural break both of the variables are found to be stationary which implies that shocks are temporary in nature. It was found that there is no long term equilibrium relationship in the money demand function. Moreover, when the money demand function was estimated using dynamic OLS, it is concluded that GDP and short term interest rate has a positive impact on money demand (M1).

Keywords

EN

Demand for money, monetary policy, cointegration

• Publisher: Prague Development Center, Czech Republic
• Journal: Business and Economic Horizons
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 173-177

Dates

published

2016-12-10

Contributors

author

Sakshi Aggarwal

• Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, India

References

• Bahmani-Oskooee M. and Rehman H., 2005. "Stability of money demand function in Asian developing countries", Applied Economics, Vol.37(7), pp.773-792, https://doi.org/10.1080/0003684042000337424
• Bec F. and Bassil C., 2009. "Federal Funds Rate stationarity: New evidence", Economics Bulletin, Vol.29, pp.868-873.
• Bhattacharya R., 1995. "Cointegrating relationships in the demand for money in India", The Indian Economic Journal, Vol.43, pp.69-75.
• Das S. and Mandal K., 2000. "Modeling money demand in India: Testing weak, strong & super exogeneity", Indian Economic Review, Vol.35(1), pp.1-19.
• Dickey D. and Fuller W., 1979. "Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root", Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.74, pp.427-431, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
• Lee J. and Strazicich M.C., 2003. "Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks", The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.85(4), pp.1082-1089,
• https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815961
• Lumsdaine R. and Papell D., 1997. "Multiple trend breaks and the unit root hypothesis", Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.79, pp.212-218, https://doi.org/10.1162/003465397556791
• Moosa I., 1992. "The demand for money in India: A cointegration approach", The Indian Economic Journal, Vol.40(1), pp.110-115.
• Pesaran M.H., Shin Y., Smith R.J., 2001. "Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships", Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol.16(3), pp.289-326, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
• Phillips P.C.B. and Perron P., 1988. "Testing for the unit root in time series regression", Biometrika, Vol.75(2), pp.335-346, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
• Pradhan B.K., Subramanian A., 1997. "On the stability of the demand for money in India", The Indian Economic Journal, Vol.45(1), pp.106-117.
• Ramachandran M., 2004. "Do broad money, output, and prices stand for a stable relationship in India?", Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol.26, pp.983-1001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2004.08.008
• Zivot E. and Andrews D., 1992. "Further evidence of great crash, the oil price shock and unit root hypothesis", Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol.10, pp.251-270,
• https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1992.10509904

Identifiers

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2016.13