PARA ARZI VE REEL GELİR ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN ASİMETRİK BİR ANALİZİ: MIST ÜLKELERİ İÇİN PARASALCI VE REEL İŞ DÖNGÜSÜ HİPOTEZLERİNİN TESTİ

Abstract

Bu makale MIST ülkelerindeki asimetrik para-gelir ilişkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla Hatemi-J Panel Gizli Eşbütünleşme, asimetrik panel nedensellik, FMOLS ve DOLS testlerine başvurulmuştur. Asimetrik nedensellik testi sonuçları para arzı ve reel gelir arasında çift yönlü bir nedensellik olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Reel iş çevrimi hipotezi para arzındaki büyümenin reel gelirden kaynaklandığını ve bunun tersi durumun olmadığını iddia etmektedir. Asimetrik nedensellik sonucu elde edilen bulgu MIST ülkeleri için hem parasal hem de reel iş döngüsü hipotezlerini desteklemektedir. Sonuç, pozitif ve negatif kümülatif reel para arzı şoklarının ekonomide pozitif ve negatif kümülatif reel geliri etkilediğini; benzer şekilde pozitif kümülatif reel gelir şoklarının da pozitif reel geliri etkilediğini ifade etmektedirler. MIST ülkelerinde gerçekleşen ani şoklar neticesinde yaşanılan ekonomik sıkıntıların giderilebilmesi ve piyasaların istikrara kavuşabilmesi için para otoritelerinin piyasadaki pozitif ve negatif şoklardan bağımsız olarak para arzını ve reel geliri düzenlemeleri gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• Para Arzı
• Reel Gelir
• Asimetrik Nedensellik
• Panel Gizli Eşbütünleşme
• FMOLS
• DOLS

AN ASYMMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONEY SUPPLY AND REAL INCOME: A TEST OF MONETARY AND REAL BUSINESS CYCLE HYPOTHESES FOR MIST COUNTRIES

Abstract

This article aims to examine the asymmetric money-income relationship in MIST countries. For this purpose, Hatemi-J Panel Hidden Cointegration, asymmetric panel causality, FMOLS and DOLS tests were applied. Asymmetric causality test results reveal that there is a bidirectional causality between money supply and real income. The real business cycle hypothesis claims that the growth in the money supply is due to real income and not vice versa. The finding obtained as a result of asymmetric causality supports both monetary and real business cycle hypotheses for MIST countries. The result is that positive and negative cumulative real money supply shocks affect positive and negative cumulative real income in the economy; Similarly, they state that positive cumulative real income shocks also affect positive real income. Monetary authorities should regulate the money supply and real income independently of the positive and negative shocks in the market in order to eliminate the economic problems experienced as a result of sudden shocks in MIST countries and to stabilize the markets.

Keywords

• Money Supply
• Real Income
• Asymmetric Causality
• Panel Hidden Cointegration
• FMOLS
• DOLS

References

1. Abbas, K., & Rizavi, S. S. (1991). Causality Test between Money and Income: A Case Study of Selected Developing Asian Countries (1960-1988)[with Comments]. The Pakistan Development Review, 30(4), 919-929.
2. Ahmed, N., Asad, I., & Hussain, Z. (2013). Money, prices, income and causality: A case study of Pakistan. The Journal of Commerce, 4(4), 19-24.
3. Aslam, A. L. M. (2016). Impact of money supply on Sri Lankan economy: an econometric analysis. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 67, 11-17.
4. Barth, J. R., & Bennett, J. T. (1974). The role of money in the Canadian economy: An empirical test. The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revuecanadienne d'Economique, 7(2), 306-311.
5. Blaug, M., Eltis, W., O’Brien, D., Patinkin, D., Skidelsky, R., & Wood, G. (1995). The quantity theory of money. Books.
6. Dereyes, F. R., Starleaf, D. R., & Wang, G. H. (1980). Tests of the direction of causation between money and income in six countries. Southern Economic Journal, 477-487.
7. Dumitrescu E I, & Hurlin C (2012): Testing for Granger noncausality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4): 1450-1460.
8. Evans, O. (2019). Money, inflation and output in Nigeria and South Africa: Could Friedman and Schwartz be right?. Journal of African Business, 20(3), 392-406.

9. Freeman, S. (1992). Money and output: Correlation or causality. Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, (3), 1-7.
10. Friedman, M. (1956). The quantity theory of money: a restatement. Studies in the quantity theory of money, 5, 3-31.
11. Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1963). A monetary history of the United States, 1867-1960. Princeton University Press.
12. Friedman, M. & Paden, D. W. (1983). A Monetarist View. The Journal of Economic Education, 14(4), 44-55.
13. Friedman, B. M., & Kuttner, K. N. (1992). Money, income, prices, and interest rates. The American Economic Review, 472-492.
14. Granger C W & J, Yoon G (2002): Hidden Cointegration. University of California: Economics Working Paper, No. 2002-02.
15. Hatemi-J A (2020): Hidden Panel Cointegration. Journal of King Saud University-Science, 32(1): 507-510.
16. Hatemi-J, A., & Irandoust, M. (2006). A bootstrap-corrected causality test: another look at the money–income relationship. Empirical Economics, 31(1), 207-216.
17. Hossain, M. A. (2011). Money-income causality in Bangladesh: An error correction approach. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 39-58.
18. Hume, D. (1752). Of Money, Political Discourses. Edinburgh: as reprinted in Hume (1955).
19. Hussain, M. E., & Haque, M. (2017). Empirical analysis of the relationship between money supply and per capita GDP growth rate in Bangladesh. Journal of Advances in Economics and Finance, 2(1), 54-66.
20. Joshi, K., & Joshi, S. (1985). Money, income, and causality: A case study for India. Arthavikas, 21(1), 1-2.
21. Koutroulis A, Panagopoulos Y, &Tsouma E. (2016): Asymmetry in the response of unemployment to output changes in Greece: Evidence from hidden cointegration. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 13(C): 81-88.
22. Krugman, P. & Wells R. (2011). Makro İktisat. 2 Ed. Trans: F. Oğuz, M. Arslan, K. A. Akkemik ve K. Göksal, Ankara: Palme Publishing.
23. Kydland, F. E. & Prescott, E. C. (1982). Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1345-1370.
24. Kydland, F. E. & Prescott, E. C. (1991). Hours and Employment Variation In Business Cycle Theory. Economic Theory, 1(1): 63-81.
25. Lee, T. H., & Yang, W. (2012). Money–income Granger-causality in quantiles. In 30th Anniversary Edition. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
26. Locke, J. (1691). Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, and Raising the Value of Money. London.
27. Maganya, M. H., & Ndanshau, M. O. (2020). Money and Output in Tanzania: A Test for Causality. African Journal of Economic Review, 8(2), 39-58.
28. Mankiw, N. G. (1989). Reel Business Cycles: A New Keynesian Perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 79-90.
29. Mankiw, N. G. (1994). Macroeconomics. ABD: Worth Pulishers Inc.
30. Mkupete, M. J., & Ndanshau, M. O. (2017). Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: An Empirical Investigation in Tanzania, 1966–2013. Tanzanian Economic Review, 7(1&2).
31. Patil, R. P., & Ramanathan, A. (1989). A Re-examination of Monetarist Propositions in India. Prajnan, 18(4), 389-427.
32. Prescott, E.C. (1986). Theory Ahead of Business Cycle Measurement. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 9-23.
33. Sims, C. A. (1972). Money, income, and causality. The American Economic Review, 62(4), 540-552.
34. Sims C. A. (1980). Comparison of interwar and postwar business cycles: monetarism reconsidered. American Economic Review 70, 250–257.
35. Yadav, I. S. (2008). Co-integration, Causality, Money and Income in India. Journal of Quantitative Economics.
36. Zarnowitz, V. (1996). Business Cycles. USA: University of Chicago Press.