Negotiating the Trilemma: The Indian Experience
Increased integration with the global capital markets in recent years has forced India to negotiate the trilemma, balancing the objectives of monetary independence, exchange rate stability, and orderly capital flows. India’s calibrated approach towards liberalization of capital account, wherein certain flows and agents were accorded priority in the liberalization process, has helped India to deal with the trilemma.In this paper, we examine India’s experience in negotiating the trilemma during the last three decades. In doing so, we deviate from the existing literature by quantifying the various policy objectives under the trilemma. This allows us to analyze the extent to which pursuit of an objective has entailed giving up two other objectives.Using empirical methods, we find that India has been constrained by the trilemma during the last three decades. However, instead of adopting corner solutions, India has juggled the various policy objectives under the trilemma as per the demands of the macroeconomic situation. The overall policy architecture encompassed active management of capital flows, especially volatile flows and debt flows, a moderately flexible exchange rate regime with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) intervening at times to prevent excessive volatility, sterilization of these interventions through multiple instruments, and building up of a stockpile of reserves. This intermediate approach has suited India well as it has been able to maintain a healthy growth rate, targeted monetary and credit growth rates, a moderate inflation rate through most of the period, and a sustainable current account deficit.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 12 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com |
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/gej|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:12:y:2012:i:1:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.