Testing the Endogeneity of Money in Iran's Economy

اقتصاد پولی مالی

Article 5, Volume 23, Issue 11, October 2016, Pages 100-122   

Document Type: پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/pm.v23i11.26313

Authors

javad arab yarmohamadi^* ; Alireza Erfani

Semnan University

Abstract

Endogenous money theory is one of the Post Keynesian cornerstones that contrary to mainstream monetary theory, emphasizes on the importance of bank loans causing money supply changes. In fact, the direction of causality in endogenous money supply theory is from loans to money. In contrast, in the exogenous money theory, it is money that forms loans. Endogeneity or exogeneity of money, will change our view to appropriate monetary policy tools. Post Keynesians have developed the view that pressures emerging endogenously within financial markets are the basic determinants of both fluctuations in money supply growth and of credit availability. The orthodox monetary approach presents a direct contradiction to the endogenous money hypothesis.
The money supply endogeneity views are generally divided into two: the accommodationist view and the structuralist view. The accommodationist view argues that aggregate demand needs expressed through demand for credits cause a passive response of the financial institutions and authorities. In other words, banks set their loan rates as a mark-up over the overnight interest rates determined by the central bank (CB) and attempt to meet all demand for bank loans. Therefore, demand for bank loans is determined by working capital finance needs of firms. This implies that money supply (M1, M2) is determined by the demand for bank loans (bank credit, BC).
Compared to the accommodationist view, the structuralist approach argues that the CB is also a significant factor since it can restrict accommodation of reserve needs and restrict credit expansion. As a result, the CB can alter the amount of bank credits. In statistical terms; this implies that monetary base (MB) can cause bank credit (BC). Thus, there is a two-way relationship between BC and MB.
The alternative money endogeneity views indicate the following hypotheses that can be investigated empirically. The accommodationist view argues that there is an unidirectional relationship from bank credit (BC) to the monetary base (MB) and the monetary aggregates (M1,M2). Moreover, the relationship between money income (GDP) and monetary aggregates, (M1,M2) is bidirectional. The structuralist view proposes a mixed empirical model with accommodationist view and the monetarist approach. Specifically, a feedback relationship is proposed between monetary base (MB) and bank credit (BC). The structuralist view agrees with the accommodationist view on the relationship between income and monetary aggregates which implied a bidirectional relationship between income (GDP) and monetary aggregates (M1, M2).
Previous empirical studies on the endogeneity of money implement different causality techniques (Granger causality tests, cointegration and error correction models, etc.). All of these methods test the causality between bank credit and different monetary aggregates from a time series perspective. In other words, the relationship between lagged values of bank credit and money is analyzed. These time-series methods have several significant limitations. First of all, the results highly depend on lag selection. Second, in some cases (like cointegration tests), they only measure whether two variables move together over time. Thus, they do not directly test causality but they are approximate tests of the relationships. Third, the causality tests do not present the sign of the correlation between two variables. In other words, whether the relationship is negative or positive cannot be identified by the causality tests. Finally and most importantly, they do not investigate contemporaneous relationship between variables and are limited to causality between a variable and lagged values of other variables.
The direct test of endogeneity of money uses the econometric definition of endogeneity and implements tests developed to test endogeneity empirically. In the econometric theory literature, endogeneity is explained as the case when the independent variable is correlated with the error term in a regression model. A regressor is endogenous if it is not predetermined (i.e., not orthogonal to the error term), that is, it does not satisfy the orthogonality condition. Following this argument, we test whether money is endogenous using the C statistic (difference-in-Sargan statistic), Durbin statistic or Wu-Hausman statistic, depends on instrumental variable estimation method.
We used two different time frequency (annual and seasonal) and two different dependent variables (LBC: Bank Credit in Logarithm form & LSBC: Bank Credit Stock in Logarithm form) to test the endogeneity of money (LMB, LM1, LM2; Money Base, M1, M2 in Logarithm form). The results are summarized in following table:

frequency Independent variable Dependent variable: LSBC Dependent variable: LBC
C statistic Durbin statistic Wu-Hausman statistic C statistic Durbin statistic Wu-Hausman statistic
annual LMB 0.10 0.24 0.02 0.228 0.0638 0.056
LM1 0.16 0.03 0.26 0.025 1.72 1.63
LM2 0.548 0.634 0.573 1.46 2.86* 2.85
seasonal LMB - - - 0.14 11/0 0.11
LM1 - - - 0.73 3.28* 3.28*
LM2 - - - 6.3** 5.2** 5.2**
* Exogeneity (null hypnosis) can be rejected in 10% significant state
** Exogeneity (null hypnosis) can be rejected in 5% significant state

When dependent variable is LSBC and we use annual data the minimum P-value is 0.43 (for Durbin statistic when independent variable is LM2) and we cannot reject null hypnosis of exogeneity. With seasonal data, also, the null hypnosis can’t be rejected (coefficient are not reported). By changing the dependent variable to LBC we observe that with annual data the exogeneity of liquidity (M2) can be rejected in 10% significant state, only by Durbin statistic. With seasonal data and based on all statistics, M2 can be interpreted as endogenus variable but exogeneity of LMB and LM1 cannot be rejected yet.
These results can change this view that “money supply can't be used as a monetary policy tool and interest rate is the appropriate of monetary policy tool in Iran's Economy". Thus, money supply could be an effective monetary policy tool and central bank can use it with more efficiency than interest rate.

Keywords

post Keynesian money theory; endogenity; instrumental variable; GMM method; 2SLS method

References

[1] Arestis, P. (1997). PKE theoretical aspects of money and finance Money, Pricing, Distribution and Economic Integration (pp. 55-73): Springer.

[2] Badarudin, Z., Ariff, M., & Khalid, A. (2013). Post-Keynesian money endogeneity evidence in G-7 economies. Journal of International Money and Finance, 33, 146-162.

[3] Badarudin, Z. E., Khalid, A. M., & Ariff, M. (2009). Money supply behaviour in emerging economies: a comparative analysis. Journal of the Asia Pacific economy, 14(4), 331-350.

[4] Branson, W. H. (2004), Shakery, A., macroeconomic theory and policy: Tehran: Nashreney (in Persian).

[5] Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M. E., & Stillman, S. (2003). Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing. Stata journal, 3(1), 1-31.

[6] Chick, V. (1973). The theory of monetary policy: London: Gray-Mills Publishing Limited.

[7] Chick, V. (1983). Macroeconomics after Keynes: a reconsideration of the General Theory.

[8] Dow, S. (1996). The Methodology of Macroeconomic Thought: a conceptual analysis of schools of thought in economics. 2a Edição: Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

[9] Farzinvash, A. & Rahmani, T. (2000). Endogeneity of Money Supply and the Effect of Cost Push on it. Journal of Economic Research, 56, 83-111 (in Persian).

[10] Fontana, G. (2000). Post Keynesians and Circuitists on money and uncertainty: an attempt at generality. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 23(1), 27-48.

[11] Fontana, G. (2003). Post Keynesian approaches to endogenous money: a time framework explanation. Review of Political Economy, 15(3), 291-314.

[12] Howells, P. (1995). Endogenous money, International Papers. Political Economy, 2.(2)

[13] Howells, P., & Hussein, K. (1998). The endogeneity of money: evidence from the G7. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 45(3), 329-340.

[14] Kaldor, N. (1970). The new monetarism. Lloyds Bank Review, 97(1), 18.

[15] Kaldor, N. (1985). The scourge of monetarism: Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

[16] Kalecki, M., & Kalecki, M. (1954). Theory of Economic Dynamics an Easy on Cyclical and Long-run Cahnges in Capitalist Economy: Unwin Brothers Limited.

[17] Lavoie, M. (1999). Note and comment. The credit-led supply of deposits and the demand for money: Kaldor's reflux mechanism as previously endorsed by Joan Robinson. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(1), 103-113.

[18] Lopreite, M. (2012). The Endogenous Money Hypothesis: An Empirical Study of the Euro Area (1999-2010). Available at SSRN 2084197.

[19] Minsky Hyman, P. (1982). Can «it» happen again? Essays on Instability and Finance. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, Inc.

[20] Moore, B. (1998). Accommodation to accommodationism: a note. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 21(1), 175-178.

[21] Nell Kevin, S. (1999). The Endogenous/Exogenous Nature of South Africa’s Money Supply under Direct and Indirect Monetary Control Measure: Working Paper.

[22] Palley, T. (1996). Post Keynesian economics: debt, distribution and the macro economy: Palgrave Macmillan.

[23] Palley, T. (2008). Endogenous money: implications for the money supply process, interest rates, and macroeconomics.

[24] Panagopoulos, Y., & Spiliotis, A. (2008). Alternative money theories: a G7 testing. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30(4), 601-622.

[25] Pollin, R. (1991). Two theories of money supply endogeneity: some empirical evidence. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 13(3), 366-396.

[26] Robinson, J. (1970). Quantity theories old and new: comment. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2(4), 504-512.

[27] Rochon, L.-P. (1999). The creation and circulation of endogenous money: a circuit dynamique approach. Journal of economic issues, 33(1), 1-21.

[28] Rousseas, S. (1998). Post Keynesian monetary economics: Springer.

[29] Sawyer, M. (1996). Money, finance and interest rates. Keynes, Money and the Open Economy: essays in honour of Paul Davidson, 1, 50-68.

[30] Schumpeter, J. A. (1912). 1934, The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. Trans. Redvers Opie. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[31] Shanmugam, B., Nair, M., & Li, O. W. (2003). The endogenous money hypothesis: empirical evidence from Malaysia (1985-2000). Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 25(4), 599-611.

[32] Smithin, J. (1994). Controverses in monetary econnomics ideas, issues and policy: Edward Elgar, Cambridge.

[33] Tas, B. K. O., & Togay, S. (2012). A direct test of the endogeneity of money: Implications for Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Economic Modelling, 29(3), 577-585.

[34] Weintraub, S. (1978). Keynes, Keynesians, and Monetarists: [Philadelphia]: University of Pennsylvania Press.

[35] Wicksell, K. (1936). Interest and prices. A study of the causes regulating the value of money (1898). English Translation, London: Macmillan.

[36] Zara nezhad, M. & Saadat mehr, M. (2007). Money Supply in Iran Economy. Iranian Journal of Trade Studies, 45, 1-22 (in Persian).