IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ukm/jlekon/v47y2013i2p93-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Regime Switching Policy Rules on Economic Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Khalid, Norlin

    (School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Management Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600 Bangi Selangor Malaysia)

  • Marwan, Nur Fakhzan

    (Faculty of Business Management Universiti Teknologi MARA UiTM Kedah, 08400 Merbok Kedah Malaysia)

Abstract

This paper empirically examines the relative effect of active and passive regime policy rules on economic growth. The time series data for a set of South-East Asian countries namely, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore are used for the period 1971-2009. The Markov-switching (MSC) regression method is employed to characterize the regime switching for both monetary and fiscal policy reaction functions for each country. Then, the relative impact of these regime policies on long run output grow this estimated by using Auto Regressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) method. In order to control for different regime of policy rules, the dummy variables are included to capture the regime switching changes. The MSC regression shows that Thailand’s monetary policy is mostly active while fiscal policy is mostly passive throughout the sample covered. When both policies are considered, we note that Thailand changes its policy regimes very frequently. In contrast, Singapore’s regime switching is quite more stable. Singapore was in active monetary and passive fiscal for 20 years from 1971 to 1991. The country was in the passive monetary and passive fiscal regimes for 8 years before switching to passive monetary and active fiscal in year 2000 until 2009. Nevertheless, Malaysia’s monetary policy regimes are characterized as passive at all times while fiscal regime is active throughout the sample study. Furthermore, the ARDL cointegration shows that both monetary and fiscal policies are important in sustaining long run economic growth for Thailand. Meanwhile, Singapore’s economy is only positively determined by monetary policy while fiscal policy is insignificant. As for regime switching, our results indicate that only the monetary policy regime affects the economic growth in Thailand. This implies that an active monetary authority will only lead to a lower output growth. However, none of the regime variables is significant for Singapore which indicates that neither active nor passive regime really matters for economic growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Khalid, Norlin & Marwan, Nur Fakhzan, 2013. "The Effect of Regime Switching Policy Rules on Economic Growth," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(2), pages 93-109.
  • Handle: RePEc:ukm:jlekon:v:47:y:2013:i:2:p:93-109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ukm.my/jem/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/jeko_472-8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davig, Troy & Leeper, Eric M., 2011. "Monetary-fiscal policy interactions and fiscal stimulus," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 211-227, February.
    2. Henning Bohn, 1998. "The Behavior of U. S. Public Debt and Deficits," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(3), pages 949-963.
    3. Muscatelli, V. Anton & Tirelli, Patrizio & Trecroci, Carmine, 2004. "Fiscal and monetary policy interactions: Empirical evidence and optimal policy using a structural New-Keynesian model," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 257-280, June.
    4. M. Hashem Pesaran & Ron P. Smith, 1998. "Structural Analysis of Cointegrating VARs," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(5), pages 471-505, December.
    5. Clarida, Richard & Gali, Jordi & Gertler, Mark, 1998. "Monetary policy rules in practice Some international evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1033-1067, June.
    6. Sims, Christopher A, 1980. "Macroeconomics and Reality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-48, January.
    7. Ahmed, Ehsan & Johannes, James M, 1984. "St. Louis Equation Restrictions and Criticisms Revisited: A Note," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 16(4), pages 514-520, November.
    8. Doi, Takero & Hoshi, Takeo & Okimoto, Tatsuyoshi, 2011. "Japanese government debt and sustainability of fiscal policy," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 414-433.
    9. Carlo A. Favero & Tommaso Monacelli, 2003. "Monetary-Fiscal Mix and Inflation Performance: Evidence from the U.S," Working Papers 234, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Stein, Sheldon H, 1980. "Autonomous Expenditures, Interest Rate Stabilization, and the St. Louis Equation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(3), pages 357-363, August.
    11. Banerjee, Anindya & Dolado, Juan J. & Galbraith, John W. & Hendry, David, 1993. "Co-integration, Error Correction, and the Econometric Analysis of Non-Stationary Data," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288107, Decembrie.
    12. Troy Davig & Eric M. Leeper, 2007. "Fluctuating Macro Policies and the Fiscal Theory," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2006, Volume 21, pages 247-316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Richard H. Clarida & Jordi Gali & Mark Gertler, 1998. "Monetary policy rules in practice," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Mar.
    14. Ansari, M. I., 1996. "Monetary vs. fiscal policy: Some evidence from vector autoregression for India," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 677-698.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cevik, Emrah Ismail & Dibooglu, Sel & Kutan, Ali M., 2014. "Monetary and fiscal policy interactions: Evidence from emerging European economies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 1079-1091.
    2. António AFONSO & Priscilla TOFFANO, 2013. "Fiscal regimes in the EU," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces13.06, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    3. Truong Nguyen, 2013. "Estimating India's Fiscal Reaction Function," ASARC Working Papers 2013-05, The Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.
    4. Doi, Takero & Hoshi, Takeo & Okimoto, Tatsuyoshi, 2011. "Japanese government debt and sustainability of fiscal policy," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 414-433.
    5. Chuku Chuku & Paul Middleditch, 2020. "Characterizing Monetary and Fiscal Policy Rules and Interactions when Commodity Prices Matter," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 88(3), pages 373-404, June.
    6. Alejandro Justiniano & Giorgio E. Primiceri & Andrea Tambalotti, 2013. "The Effects of the Saving and Banking Glut on the U.S. Economy," NBER Chapters, in: NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2013, pages 52-67, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Canzoneri, Matthew & Cumby, Robert & Diba, Behzad & López-Salido, David, 2011. "The role of liquid government bonds in the great transformation of American monetary policy," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 282-294, March.
    8. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Giammarioli, Nicola & Piergallini, Alessandro, 2012. "Budgetary policies in a DSGE model with finite horizons," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 111-130.
    9. Begona Dominguez & Pedro Gomis-Porqueras, 2019. "The effects of secondary markets for government bonds on inflation dynamics," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 32, pages 249-273, April.
    10. Aldama, Pierre & Creel, Jérôme, 2019. "Fiscal policy in the US: Sustainable after all?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 471-479.
    11. Gonzalez-Astudillo, Manuel, 2011. "Policy Rule Coefficients Driven by Latent Factors: Monetary and Fiscal Policy Interactions in an Endowment Economy," MPRA Paper 29976, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Md. Habibur Rahman, 2009. "Relative Effectiveness of Monetary and Fiscal Policies on Output Growth in Bangladesh: A VAR Approach," Working Papers id:2100, eSocialSciences.
    13. Ko, Jun-Hyung & Morita, Hiroshi, 2015. "Fiscal sustainability and regime shifts in Japan," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 364-375.
    14. Adeela Rustam & Ying Wang, "undated". "The Effectiveness Of Monetary Policy Transformation In Pakistan: Exploring Monetary Neutrality Proposition," Review of Socio - Economic Perspectives 201940, Reviewsep.
    15. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/5122 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Jérôme Creel & Henri Sterdyniak, 2001. "La théorie budgétaire du niveau des prix, un bilan critique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 111(6), pages 909-939.
    17. Imke Brüggemann, 2003. "Measuring Monetary Policy in Germany: A Structural Vector Error Correction Approach," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(3), pages 307-339, August.
    18. Takero Doi, 2018. "Is Abe's Fiscal Policy Ricardian? What Does the Fiscal Theory of Prices Mean for Japan?," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 13(1), pages 46-63, January.
    19. Leu, Shawn Chen-Yu, 2011. "A New Keynesian SVAR model of the Australian economy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1-2), pages 157-168, January.
    20. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Matthieu Renault, Francesco Sergi, 2019. "European Economics and the Early Years of the “International Seminar on Macroeconomicsâ€," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_50, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    21. Hiroyuki Kasahara & Tatsuyoshi Okimoto & Katsumi Shimotsu, 2014. "Modified Quasi-Likelihood Ratio Test for Regime Switching," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 25-41, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ukm:jlekon:v:47:y:2013:i:2:p:93-109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Muhammad Asri Abd Ghani (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feukmmy.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.