How Does the Policy Rate Respond to Output and Prices in Thailand?

Jiranyakul, Komain (2017): How Does the Policy Rate Respond to Output and Prices in Thailand?

Abstract

This paper attempts to examine how the policy rate as a monetary policy stance reacts to output and price level in Thailand during 2005Q1 and 2016Q2. An empirical relationship that characterizes the way the Bank of Thailand adjusts its policy rate to output growth and inflation is identified. Johansen ointegration technique and VAR methodology are used in the analysis. The results from the cointegration analysis show that there exists a long-run relationship of the policy rate with real GDP and prices. This long-run equation differs from the empirical Taylor-type rule. However, the result from short-run dynamics captures the short-run interest rate equation. The partial adjustment coefficient in the estimated interest rate equation is negative and highly significant, which indicates that any deviation of the policy rate from its equilibrium value is corrected by monetary policy actions. Furthermore, there is long-run causality running from inflation and economic growth to a change in policy rate. In the short run, economic growth negatively causes a change in the policy rate while inflation positively causes a change in the policy rate. Also, impulse response analysis from an unrestricted VAR model indicates that both output growth and inflation shocks cause fluctuation in the policy rate.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Policy rate, output, prices, error correction mechanism, impulse responses
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models ; Multiple Variables > C32 - Time-Series Models ; Dynamic Quantile Regressions ; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models ; Diffusion Processes ; State Space Models; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit > E52 - Monetary Policy

References

Baxa, J., Horvath, R. and Vasicek, B., 2013. “Time-Varying Monetary Policy Rule and Financial Stress: Does Financial Instability Matter for Monetary Policy?,” Journal of Financial Stability, 9(1), 117-138.

Clarida, R., Gali, J. and Getler, M., 1998. “Monetary policy Rules in Practice: Some International Evidence,” European Economic Review, 42(6), 1033-1067.

Eleftheriou, M., 2009. “Monetary Policy in Germany: A Cointegration Analysis on the Relevance of Interest Rate Rules,” Economic Modelling, 26(5), 946-960.

Fernandez, A., Kaenig, E., and Nikolski-Rzhevskyy, A., 2010. “Can Alternative Taylor-Rule Specifications Describe Federal Reserve Policy Decisions?,” Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(6), 733-757.

Johansen, S., 1991.“Estimation and Hypothesis Testing for Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models,” Econometrica, 59(6), 1151-1580.

Johansen, S. and Juselius, K., 1990. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration with Applications to the Demand for Money,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169-210.

Kim, D. H., Osborn, D.and Sensier, M., 2005. “Nonlinerity in the Fed’s Monetary Policy Rule,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(5), 621-639.

MacKinnon, J. G., Haug, A. A. and Michelis, L., 1999. “Numerical Distribution Functions of Likelihood Ratio Tests for Cointegration,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 14(5), 563-577.

Mehra, Y.P., 2001. “The Bond Rate and Estimated Monetary Rules,” Journal of Economics and Business 53(4), 345-358.

Minford, P., Perugini, F. and Srinivasan, N., 2002. “Are Interest Regressions Evidence for a Taylor rule? Economics Letters, 76(1), 145-150.

Seip, K. L. and McNown, R., 2013. “Monetary Policy and Stability during Six Periods in The US History: 1959-2008: A Novel, Nonlinear Monetary Policy Rule,” Journal of Policy Modeling, 35(2), 307-325.

Taylor, J. B., 1993. “Discretion versus Policy Rules in Practice,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 39(2), 195-214.