Nonlinear Reaction functions: Evidence from India

Open access

Abstract

This paper uses time-series data from India and tests for asymmetries in policy preferences of the Reserve Bank of India (the Central Bank of India, hereafter RBI). The results show evidence in favour of preference asymmetries in monetary policy reaction function in India and hence nonlinearities in the Taylor-rule. Evidence of both recession avoidance preference (RAP) as well as inflation avoidance preference (IAP) is established. And it is found that RAP is dominant over IAP, thus confirming nonlinearities in reaction function which in the present case turns out to be concave in inflation and output gap. Further, the results indicate preference asymmetries in both the objectives. The coefficient weights to positive and negative inflation and output gap differ over long time horizons thus confirming asymmetric policy preferences. Specifically the RBI seems to be more averse to a negative output gap (contraction) as compared to an equal positive gap. In addition, the RBI appears to be more averse to a positive inflation gap as compared to an equal negative gap.

1. Blinder, A.S. (1998), “Central Banking in Theory and Practice”, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

2. Clarida, R., Gali, J. and Gertler, M. (1998), “Monetary Policy Rules in Practice: Some International Evidence”, European Economic Review, Vol. 42, No. 06, pp.1033-1067.

3. Clarida, R., Gali, J. and Gertler, M. (1999), “The Science of Monetary Policy: A New Keynesian Perspective”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 1661-1707.

4. Cukierman, A. and Muscatelli, A. (2003), “Do Central Banks Have Precautionary Demands for Expansions and for Price Stability? A New Keynesian Approach”, Available on the web at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ceb8/6df0e6f1932871bcde7c9c58a025e716b91f.pdf

5. Cukierman, A. and Gerlach, S. (2003), “The Inflation Bias Result Revisited: Theory and Some International Evidence”, The Manchester School, Vol. 71, No. 05, pp. 541-565.

6. Cukierman, A. and Muscatelli, A. (2008), “Nonlinear Taylor Rules and Asymmetric Preferences in Central Banking: Evidence from the United Kingdom and the United States”, The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 08, No.01, Article: 07.

7. Dolado, J., Pedrero, R.M.D. and Ruge-Murcia, F. (2004), “Nonlinear Monetary Policy Rules: Some New Evidence for the US”, Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, Vol. 08, No. 03, Article 02.

8. Dolado, J.J., Maria-Dolores, R. and Naveira, M. (2005), “Are Monetary Policy Reaction Functions Asymmetric? The Role of Nonlinearity in the Phillips Curve”, European Economic Review, Vol. 49, No. 02, pp. 485-503.

9. Friedman, B. M. (2000), “Monetary Policy”, NBER Working Paper, No. W8057.

10. Hutchinson M.M., Sengupta, R. and Singh, N. (2010), “Estimating a Monetary Policy Rule for India”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45. No. 38, pp. 67-69.

11. Krušković, B. (2017), “Exchange Rate and Interest Rate in the Monetary Policy Reaction Function”, Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, Vol. 06, No. 01, pp. 55-86.

12. Kydland, F.E. and Prescott E.C. (1977), “Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 85, No. 03, pp. 473-491.

13. Lewis, M.K. and Mizen P.D. (2000), “Monetary Economics”, Oxford University Press. Oxford.

14. Lokendra, K. and Bhanumurthy, N.R. (2016), “Regime Shifts in India’s Monetary Policy Response Function,” National Institute of Public Finance and Policy New Delhi, Working Paper Series, No. 177.

15. Martin, C. and Milas, C. (2004), “Modelling Monetary Policy: Inflation Targeting in Practice”, Economica, Vol. 71 pp. 209-221.

16. Mohanty M S and Klau Marc. (2004), “Monetary policy rules in emerging market economies; Issues and evidence”, BIS Working Papers, No. 149

17. Naini, A. and Naderian, M. (2016), “Over-reaction to Policy Signals, and Central Bank Optimal Communication Policy”, Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, Vol. 05, No. 03, pp. 165-187

18. Nobay, A.R. and Peel, D.A. (2003), “Optimal Discretionary Monetary Policy in a Model of Asymmetric Central Bank Preferences”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 113, No.489, pp. 657-65.

19. Persson, T., Tabellini, G. (1999), “Political economics and macroeconomic policy”, In, Taylor, J.B., Woodford, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

20. Petersen, K. (2007), “Does the Federal Reserve Follow a Non-Linear Taylor Rule?”, University of Connecticut Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 2007-37.

21. Ranjan, R, R. Jain and S. C. Dhal (2007), “India’s Potential Economic Measurement Issues and Policy Implications”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 17, (28 April).

22. Ruge-Murcia, F.J. (2003), “Does the Barro-Gordon Model Explain the Behavior of US Inflation? A Reexamination of the Empirical Evidence”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 50, No. pp. 1375-1390.

23. Siklos, P. and Wohar, M. (2005), “Estimating Taylor-Type Rules: An Unbalanced Regression?” In T. Fomby and D. Terrell (Eds.) Advances in Econometrics: Econometric Analysis of Economic and Financial Time Series. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

24. Singh, B. (2010), “Monetary Policy Behaviour in India: Evidence from Taylor-type Policy Frameworks”, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, Staff Studies No. SS (DEAP) 2/2010,

25. Shin, Y., Yu, B.C. & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In Sickels, R., & Horrace, W. (Eds), Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 281-314.

26. Taylor, J. (1993), “Discretion versus policy rules in practice”, Carnegie-Rochester Series on Public Policy, Vol. 39, pp.195-214.

27. Virmani, V. (2004), “Operationalising Taylor-type Rules for the Indian Economy: Issues and Some Results (1992 Q3 2001 Q4)”, IIMA Working Papers, No. 2004/07-04, July 2004/1832.

28. Woodford, M. (2003), “Optimal Interest-Rate Smoothing”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70, No. 04, pp. 861-886.

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.284
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.910

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1134 1134 57
PDF Downloads 132 132 37