Is the Government Deficit in India Still Relevant for Stabilisation?
This paper employing bounds test to cointegration analysis (Pesaran et al, 2001) revisited the linkages between real output, price and money and studied the impact of government deficit on money in India for the period 1951-52 to 2006-07. It finds that money and real output cause price both in the short as well as in the long run while money is neutral to output. Further, evidence shows that government deficit leads to incremental reserve money creation even though the Reserve Bank financing of Government deficit almost ceased to exist during most part of the current decade. It argues that Government deficit by influencing the level of sterilisation impacts the accretion of net foreign assets to RBI balance sheet and, therefore, continues to be a key factor causing incremental reserve money creation and overall expansion in money supply. Given the finding that money leads to inflation, government deficit, therefore, remains relevant for stabilisation.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers No. 3, Winter.29(2009): pp. 1-21|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Moosa, Imad A., 1997. "Testing the long-run neutrality of money in a developing economy: the case of India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 139-155, June.
- Jeroen J. M. Kremers & Neil R. Ericsson & Juan J. Dolado, 1992.
"The power of cointegration tests,"
International Finance Discussion Papers
431, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002.
"Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis,"
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,
American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
- Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 1992. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(3), pages 251-70, July.
- Eric Zivot & Donald W.K. Andrews, 1990. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 944, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Gregory, A.W. & Hansen, B.E., 1992.
"Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Models with Regime Shifts,"
RCER Working Papers
335, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Gregory, Allan W. & Hansen, Bruce E., 1996. "Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 99-126, January.
- Allan w. Gregory & Bruce E. Hansen, 1992. "residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Models with Regime Shifts," Working Papers 862, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- repec:pal:imfstp:v:25:y:1978:i:3:p:383-416 is not listed on IDEAS
- M. Hashem Pesaran & Yongcheol Shin & Richard J. Smith, 2001. "Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 289-326.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:50905. 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: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.