Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yanqun Zhang ∗
Institute of Statistics and Econometrics
Free University, Berlin
Abstract
1
1 Introduction
2
inflation and the interest rate. Then, the short run dynamics within the
long-run cointegration system will be examined to probe the monetary policy
effects on inflation and real economic growth, along with the interactions and
feedbacks within the VAR system.
For a better understanding of the effects of monetary policy, it is ne-
cessary to further analyze the useful information derived from the moving
average (MA) representation of the VAR model. By means of identifying
the common stochastic trends and analyzing the long-run impact matrices,
the driving and pulling forces of the economic system are to be inspected. In
addition, it is of interest to analyze how the monetary shocks affect the eco-
nomic system. The impulse response analysis obtained from the structural
VEC model is conducted with identified shocks.
The structure of the rest of this chapter is as follows. Section 2 is about
the research motivation. In section 3 the exiting literature is reviewed. In
section 4 we discuss the relevant economic theories. Section 5 is about data
description and preliminary analysis. In section 6 we estimate the models in
the full sample period and test the potential structural shifts. In section 7
at first models in the two split sub sample periods are estimated. Then we
check model specification and determines the cointegration ranks. In section
8 the single stationary relations are tested. Section 9 is about identifying the
long-run structure. Section 10 is about identifying the short-run structure.
In section 11 we analyze the impulse response functions based on a Chole-
ski decomposition. In section 12 we conduct long-run impact analysis. In
section 13 impulse response functions for transitory and permanent shocks
are analyzed. In section 14 a summary and conclusions are presented.
2 Motivation
In this section we first briefly summarize the main changes in China’s mone-
tary policy goals, intermediate targets and operational instruments. Then
we highlight the policy debate on Chinese monetary policy, against which
we set out the institutional background of the current research.
3
controlling inflation and stabilizing the economy. As a consequence, the
monetary objectives, intermediate targets and operational instruments of
the monetary policy have undergone changes.
From 1984 when the PBC was formally set up unite 1994, China’s mo-
netary policy was commissioned to achieve multiple objectives, namely sti-
mulation of economic growth, adjustment of the economic structure and
stabilization of the value of China’s currency. During this period, currencies
in circulation and total credit size have been used as the main intermediate
targets for the monetary policy. Credit quotas and cash plans were the main
policy instruments for the government to manage total demand.
With economic transition, Chinese monetary policy that relied on direct
and administrative orders became increasingly ineffective in achieving mo-
netary goals, especially in controlling inflation. The high inflation in 1993
proved that the total credit size was not a suitable intermediate target. Alt-
hough the total credit size did not exceed the planned target as set in the
credit plan, inflation ran out of control. On the other hand, the money
supply grew very fast at the time, which caused investment overheating and
a two-digit inflation rate in 1993 and 1994. In 1996, the PBC formally used
the money supply instead of the credit quotas as the intermediate target
for monetary policy. In 1998, total credit size as a policy instrument for
controlling aggregate money supply was finally abandoned.
Along with changes in the intermediate target, the PBC has also tur-
ned to indirect and more market-oriented instruments, such as open market
operations, interest rate policy, required reserves, and window guidance, etc.
The Law of People’s Bank of China issued in 1995 specifies that the
goal of the monetary policy is to ensure the stability of the value of the
Chinese currency hereby to promote economic growth. This implies that
price stability is the primary goal of monetary policy.
4
is the intermediate target, despite the fact that the velocity and supply
conditions of M1 and M2 are quite different. The PBC has published the
money supply plan for the target growth of M0, M1, M2, and total loans at
the beginning of each year since 1994. Dai (2002), who was then director
of the monetary policy department of the Chinese central bank, pointed
out that PBC’s intermediate target actually included a group of variables
including M0, M1, M2 and total loans. Among them, M1 is mainly related
to temporary price hikes and the short-run growth rate of GDP, while M2
is more related to that of the long-run inflation and economic growth (Dai,
2002).
Debate 2: Can the PBC control money supply?
Table 1 shows the targeted and realized growth rates of money supply
and inflation rate. From 1994 when the PBC started publication of the
target growth rates for money supply to 2004, the realized growth of M1
missed the target rate in seven years and M2 in five years, by a margin of
more than 2.5% for both measurements. Only in three years, the discrepancy
between the realized and target growth rates of both M1 and M2 were less
than 2%
The foundation for the PBC’s calculating the planned targets was the
quantity theory:
M ∗V =P ∗Q
5
Table 1: Targeted and actual monetary policy objectives: 1994-2004
Year M1 (%) M2 (%) inflation (%)
Target Actual Target Actual Actual
1994 21 26.2 24 34.5 24.1
1995 21-23 16.8 23-25 29.5 17.1
1996 18 18.9 25 25.3 8.3
1997 18 16.5 23 17.3 2.8
1998 17 11.9 16-18 15.3 -2.6
1999 14 17.7 14-15 14.7 -1.4
2000 15-17 16 14-15 12.3 0.4
2001 13-14 12.7 15-16 14.4 0.7
2002 13 16.8 13 16.8 -0.8
2003 16 18.7 16 19.6 1.2
2004 17 13.6 17 14.6 3.9
Note:
1. The inflation rate is based on consumer price index.
2. Source: China Financial Yearbook, various issues.
and Liao (2002) pointed out that it seems that in actual monetary policy
operations, the PBC did not adjust money supply strictly according to the
planned targets.
This motivates the current study to systematically investigate the rela-
tions between real output, money supply, and inflation in China, which has
not been adequately discussed in the literature. Xie (2002), who was the
director of the PBC’s research division, acknowledges that there is hardly
any research that systemically investigates the relationship between Chinese
economic growth, money supply and inflation, and therefore it is questiona-
ble to use the formula that calculates the target money supply on the basis
of the predicted growth rates of GDP and target inflation rates. For the
same reason, it is debatable about the PBC’s use of money supply as the
intermediate target for monetary policy (Xie, 2002).
6
2.3 Propositions examined in the empirical analysis
The current empirical study will investigate the cointegration relations and
the shout-run dynamics of the money stock and other relevant economic
variables, in order to understand the following fundamental issues that are
relevant in understanding the foundation of China’s monetary policy.
As we have explained at the beginning of this section, after about 1995
monetary policy has undergone changes in terms of policy goals, interme-
diate targets, and instruments. In addition, the stance of monetary policy
has changed from controlling inflation to dealing with deflation and unem-
ployment. These changes suggest there could be a structural shift in the
model.
Therefore in the current research we will first examine:
1. Is there any structural break in the system? If the answer is yes,
we will split the whole sample into two sub-samples, i.e. before and after
the structural break, and construct models for the two periods separately.
Because of the different movements of M1 and M2, we also need to model
M1 and M2, respectively.
2. Whether in China there exists a long run relationship between money
stock and other macroeconomic variables in the system under examination?
This long run relationship can be interpreted as a money demand or supply
equation.
3. What are the responses of monetary aggregates, economic growth,
inflation and other macroeconomic variables to ”excess money”? Or in other
words, whether the excess money can stimulate real growth and increase
inflation in the long-run and short-run?
4. Is the money stock determined by money supply or demand?
5. How do real output and inflation respond to monetary shocks?
Because a structural break around 1995 has been identified in our model,
we have modelled M1 and M2 in two separate periods. By examining the
similarities and dissimilarities of the determination of inflation and the two
measures of money stocks in the two periods, we try to answer this question:
6. Which one should be taken as the intermediate target for China’s
monetary policy, M1 or M2?
7
3 Review of the Literature
8
that, in spite of considerable economic changes during the reform years, a
relatively stable relationship of money demand can be found in China.
9
4 Economic theoretical framework
In the current study, we apply the conventional static IS-LM model as the
framework of the economic analysis. The static comparative solution of the
conventional IS-LM model can provide useful expositional device for the
analysis of the long-run structure of a dynamic model.
where b0 , b1 , b2 , b3 and b4 are coefficients, Rout and Rown are the rates
of returns on assets other than money and on money itself. So b2 should
10
be negative and b3 positive. In empirical models, the spread Rout − Rown
is usually used to measure the opportunity costs of holding money, which
implies that b2 and b3 have equal magnitudes but opposite signs. The infla-
tion rate ∆p measures the return to holding goods instead of money, so b4
should be negative.
The choice of the measurement of money and the associated economic theory
may determine the selection of the scale variable. In the portfolio theory of
asset demand, wealth is a natural scale variable, while noting that income
may be relevant as well. Thus, wealth is often included in models of the
demand for broad money. Because the narrow money is held mainly for
transaction demand, GDP is an appropriate scale variable for narrow money
equations.
In this study, the money demand (or supply) equation for two measures of
money, namely M 1 and M 2 are to be modelled separately. In the context
of China, M 1 and M 2 are defined as follows:
M 1 = currency in circulation + demand deposits of firms
M 2 = M 1 + time deposits of firms + saving deposits of households
The firms’ and households’ demand deposits M 1 bear interest rate for
demand deposit. The interest rates have been strongly regulated by the PBC
with only occasional changes. Among various interest rates, the one−year
deposit rate is generally regarded as the benchmark rate which plays a do-
minant role in China’s interest rate system. The PBC adjusts the one−year
deposit rate, here denoted as R, according to changes in inflationary conditi-
ons. This will be followed by adjustments of other interest rates. When the
inflation rate goes up, the PBC increases R and enlarges the gap between
R and the interest rate for demand deposits, to reduce the demand for M 1.
When the inflation rate goes down, the PBC adjusts the interest rates in
the opposite direction.
In this study, R is included in the M 1 demand equation to represent the
opportunity costs of holding M 1 rather than quasi money. The sign of R
11
in the M 1 demand equation is expected to be negative. In the M 2 demand
function, the R is the own rate of return for firms and households’ time
deposits, which is a component of M 2, and hence its sign could be positive,
if we assume that the public are willing to hold money rather than other
financial or physical assets when the interest rate increases.
In the standard money demand function, the bond rate is usually inclu-
ded to represent the interest rate on assets other than money. In the case of
China, because of the underdevelopment of financial markets, bank deposits
are the predominant form of financial assets.1 Therefore, only R is included
in the M 2 model. Because of the unavailability of data for wealth, we use
real GDP in the M 2 model as a scale variable.
In summary, the money demand functions for M 1 and M 2 in China are
expressed in what follows, where m1 and m2 are logarithm of M 1 and M 2,
respectively, y is the logarithm of real GDP, p and ∆p are logarithm of CPI
and its first difference, R denotes the one-year deposit rate. The following
empirical investigation is based on monetary models with four variables
{m1/m2, y, ∆p, R}.
Since in the steady state md = ms , the observed money holdings can be eit-
her a realization of money demand or supply, unless adjustment takes place
immediately (Juselius, 1996). The observed money stock can be determi-
ned by demand or supply, or both. If the central bank is able to effectively
control the money stock, then the observed money stock is likely to be sup-
ply determined, and the demand for money has to adjust to the supplied
quantities (Juselius, 2005). In an economy with capital and credit controls,
this is likely to be the case. However, if the central bank cannot control
1
With the rapid development of the housing market since around 2000 when the pro-
perty market reform was launched, owning real properties has become an alternative
means for households to hold wealth.
12
the money stock, or the central bank’s money supply conforms to agents’
desired money holdings, then the observed money stock could be determined
by the demand for money. This is usually the case in open and deregulated
economies.
or
md2 − p = b4 + b5 y + b6 (R − ∆p) (6)
with b1 , b2 , b3 , b5 , b6 > 0
13
where k is a constant, π ∗ is the target inflation rate, and uCBm is a
stochastic residual. If the inflation rate is above/below the central bank’s
target rate, central bank will take contractive/expansionary monetary po-
licy. The money stock will be decreased or increased correspondingly. If
the monetary expansion effect on inflation is predominated, which means
monetary expansion always leads to inflation, then inflation will be posi-
tively cointegrated with trend-adjusted velocity. This relation results in the
following equilibrium:
14
needs more money, then the following long-run equilibrium exits:
or
m2t = c2 + c3 yt + um2 , (12)
with c1 > 0 and c3 > 0.
In the former case, the change of money stock is not error correcting
to the deviation from the steady-state, whereas in the later case the money
demand is negatively error correcting to the deviation from the equilibrium.
Where R0 is the constant real interest rate. Et (∆pt+1 ) represents the ex-
pected inflation rate at time t. uRt is a stochastic residual. If the realized
inflation rate is used to approximate the expected inflation rate, then the
Fisher parity can be modified to take the following form:
Rt = b0 + b1 ∆pt + ut , (14)
The liquidity effect If the excess money supply has a liquidity effect and
causes a decrease in the short-run interest rate, then the following long-run
relation might be found in the data:
with b1 , b2 > 0.
The aforementioned steady-state relations provide theoretical underpin-
nings for the investigation and interpretation of long-run relationships in the
system. Furthermore, by analyzing the short-run dynamics of the variables
in the system, the dynamic path from one steady-state to another and the
interrelations between the variables can also be examined.
15
5 Data definition and preliminary analysis
Figure 1 and 2 display data for m1t , m2t , yt , ∆pt , R1t in levels and in dif-
ferences for the period 1978:1-2004:4, respectively. The results of HEGY
seasonal unit root tests in Table 2 show that there are unit roots at 1, -1,
and ±i in LGDP Ct . The reason for the presence of the seasonal unit roots
might be related to the way the data are compiled. China does not publish
GDP data for individual quarters. The available quarterly GDP data are
2
The reason to make this transformation is to get rid of the seasonal unit roots.
16
Table 2: Seasonal unit root tests for the period 1978:1-2004:4
Notes:
17
m1 m2
6
6
5
4
4
3
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
y Dp
0.10
9
0.05
8 0.00
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
0.03
R1
0.02
0.01
18
Dm1 Dm2
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
−0.1 −0.1
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Dy DDp
0.05
0.050
0.00
0.025 −0.05
0.000 −0.10
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
DR1
0.005
0.000
k
X
0 0
∆xt = Π(xt−1 , trend, st−1 ) + Γi ∆xt−i + ΦDt + ²t (16)
i=1
With
t = 1, · · · , T, ²t ∼ N (0, Ω)
where xt is a (p × 1) vector of endogenous variables, and the parameter
matrices Π, Γ1 , · · · , Γk , Φ, Ω are unrestricted. Under the hypothesis that
xt is an I(1) process, Π has reduced rank r < p and can be formulated
0
as Π = αβ , where α and β are (p × r) matrices, respectively. Meanwhile,
0
α⊥ Γβ⊥ has full rank, where α⊥ and β⊥ are the orthogonal matrixes of
19
Pk−1
α and β, respectively and Γ = I − i=1 Γi (see section 3.3 for the VAR
representation).
In addition, in the equation (16), a trend variable is allowed to enter the
cointegration space, because money supply and GDP are trending variables.
st denotes a vector of exogenous variables, or un-modelled variables, such
as the shift dummies, and fixed and non-stochastic variables that need to
be included in the cointegration space. Dt contains a constant term and
centered seasonal dummies, intervention impulse dummies, as well as the
current and lagged differences of the variables in st . The constant term and
centered seasonal dummies are unrestricted, which means they are included
both inside and outside the cointegration space.
We estimate the m1 and m2 models for the full sample based on the unre-
stricted cointegrated VAR model (16). For m1 and m2 models, xt contains
(m1t , yt , ∆pt ) and (m2t , yt , ∆pt ), respectively. st includes R1 and Dp97t
for both models. In the m1 model, intervention dummies consist of impulse
dummies d80q1, d84q1, d85q4, d86q4, d88q1, d88q3 and d93q1, while in the
m2 model, they consist of d80q1, d83q1, d84q1, d84q4, d85q1, d85q4, d88q3
and d93q1. The impulse dummies are chosen according to the outliers in the
residuals of the system, which have been caused by the policy interventions.
Based on the Schwarz and Hannan-Quinn information criteria with the
maximal lag length setting to be 4, the lag length for both models are set to
be 4. The residual misspecification tests turn out that there are no serious
misspecification problems in the residuals of both models.3 Based on these
results, the parameter nonconstancy tests are performed.
20
Test for Constancy of the Log-Likelihood
5
X(t)
R1(t)
5% C.V. (1.36 = Index)
0
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
there is evidence from the data that a structural shift has occurred in the
sample period by testing for parameter constancy. The model for the whole
period is used for the tests of the parameter constancy and whether there is
a structural shift occurring in the sample period. For this matter, various
recursive tests are first applied to the full-sample models to give us a visual
inspection of the constancy, followed by formal statistical tests to identify a
structural break.
21
Test for Constancy of the Log-Likelihood
4.5
X(t)
R1(t)
5% C.V. (1.36 = Index)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
22
Trace Test Statistics
2.5
X(t)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
The test statistics are scaled by the 5% critical values of the basic model
1.75
R1(t)
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
H(0)|H(3) H(1)|H(3) H(2)|H(3)
23
Trace Test Statistics
2.25
X(t)
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
The test statistics are scaled by the 5% critical values of the basic model
2.25
R1(t)
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
H(0)|H(3) H(1)|H(3) H(2)|H(3)
24
Test of Beta(t) = ’Known Beta’
3.5
X(t)
R1(t)
5% C.V. (16.9 = Index)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
25
Test of Beta(t) = ’Known Beta’
4.0
X(t)
R1(t)
5% C.V. (16.9 = Index)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
26
Test of Beta(t) = ’Known Beta’
4.5
X(t)
R1(t)
5% C.V. (16.9 = Index)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
27
Test of Beta(t) = ’Known Beta’
2.5
X(t)
R1(t)
5% C.V. (16.9 = Index)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
28
6.4 Recursive tests for parameter constancy
Figure 5 and 6 contain the recursively calculated trace test statistics for the
m1 and m2 models, respectively. They show that, two stable cointegration
relations exist for both models from 1995. But before that, it seems the two
cointegration relations are not stable in both models. In general, the figures
of recursively calculated trace test statistics suggest that there might be a
structural break at around 1995:1.
Figure 7 and Figure 9 show the recursively calculated test statistics of the
m1 and m2 model, respectively. In the graphs the test statistic is scaled by
5% critical value. The reference time is chosen to be the full sample period.
Figure 7 shows that there exists a structural shift at around 1995. Because
of our interest in the more recent economic regime, we next conduct the
recursively calculated β test statistic using 1995:1-2004:4 as the reference
sample period. Figure 8 and Figure 10 display that all the parts of the
graphs are above the rejection lines, which indicates that the estimated β
based on the period 1995:1-2004:4 are different from that obtained from the
full sample period.
29
Table 3: Chow tests for VAR models 1979:1-2004:4 for m1 and m2
Model Break point Test Test statistic p−value
m1 1994Q4 λSS 227.5154 0.0000
λBP 144.1051 0.0000
m2 1994Q4 λSS 427.9735 0.0000
λBP 180.4821 0.0000
Note: λBP and λSS denote test statistics for break point Chow tests and sample
split Chow tests, respectively. Sample range for estimation is 1980:1-2004:4
vides the program to test the sample-split, break-point and forecast Chow
tests.
Table 3 reports the break point and sample split Chow tests for the m1
and m2 models, assuming the breaking data is 1994Q4. All the tests reject
the stability in m1 or m2 model, which suggests that a structural change
occurred before and after 1994:Q4. Therefore, in the following sections we
split the sample period into two sub-periods; one is from 1979:1 to 1994:4,
and the other is from 1995:1 to 2004:4. All further empirical analysis is
applied to these two separated periods.
The finding of a structural change allows us to split the sample into two
sub-periods, i.e. before and after 1995Q1. Therefore we have four models.
Hereafter, they will be denoted as m1 model 1, m2 model 1, m1 model 2,
m2 model 2, respectively.
The statistical formulation for the four models are based on the unrestricted
cointegrated VAR model (16). To save space, the precise specification of the
four models are summarized in Table 4.
The interest rate variable R1 rarely changes and does not look like a
stochastic variable. We initially included it in the models as an exogenous
30
Table 4: Model specification of m1 1,2 and m2 1,2
Variables model 1 model 2
m1 m2 m1 m2
m1t m2t m1t m2t
xt yt yt yt yt
∆pt ∆pt ∆pt ∆pt
µ ¶ µ ¶
R1t R1t
st - -
Dp97t Dp97t
d80q1
d80q1
d84q1
d84q1
d84q4
d84q4 ¡ ¢ ¡ ¢
d85q2
Dt d85q1 d03q2 d03q2
d85q4
d85q4
d86q1
d88q3
d93q1
d93q1
d94q1
The choice of the lag length is mainly based on the information criteria tests.
Table 6 contains the output of information criteria tests, where SC and H-Q
indicate Schwarz and Hannan-Quinn information criteria, respectively. The
test results show that for m1 model 1, 2, and m2 model 1, both SC and H-Q
suggest the same order, which is 2, 1, and 4, respectively. The residual and
31
Table 5: Testing the exclusion of R1
Models
1979:1-1994:4 1995:1-2004:4
coin. rank m1 m2 m1 m2
r=1 2.264 0.019 4.631 2.645
[0.132] [0.892] [0.031] [0.104]
r=2 4.785 2.056 11.889 7.115
[0.091] [0.358] [0.003] [0.029]
Note: SC and H-Q denote Schwartz and Hannan-Quinn information criterion, re-
spectively. The maximum lag length is set to be 4
32
Table 7: Multivariate misspecification tests
Multivariate tests: 1979-1994 1995-2004
m1 m2 m1 m2
Autocorrelation:
LM1 (9): 15.2[0.08] 11.4[0.24] 6.9[0.63] 7.7[0.56]
LM4 (9): 21.9[0.01] 9.7[0.37] 12.0[0.21] 12.4[0.18]
Normality:
χ2 (6): 6.6[0.35] 4.8[0.55] 5.6[0.46] 3.02[0.80]
ARCH:
LM1 (36): 51.3[0.05] 21.3[0.97] 32.4[0.64] 30.0[0.74]
LM2 (72): 74.7[0.38] 48.5[0.98] 66.5[0.66] 78.1[0.29]
Table 7 and Table 8 report residual tests for the system and for individual
equations. They are based on corresponding unrestricted VAR models. The
Multivariate tests are conducted using CATS in RATS 2.0, while univariate
tests are performed with PcGIVE 10.0. Figures in square brackets beside
the test statistics are the corresponding p-values.
There is some evidence of fourth order autocorrelation in the residuals of
the ∆pt equation in the m1 model 1 and for the whole system, which suggests
that there is probably some seasonal autocorrelation left in the ∆p equation
despite the inclusion of quarterly seasonal dummies. A graphic inspection of
∆p shows that the seasonal pattern seems to have changed since about 1987,
perhaps because of the change in the data compilation. Quarterly inflation
data before 1987 was calculated by the National Bureau of statistics of
China. However, the CPI quarterly statistics has been published only since
33
Table 8: Univariate misspecification Tests
Autocorrelation ARCH Normality R2
AR 1-1 AR 1-4 ARCH 1-2 χ2 (2)
m1 model 1
m1 0.02[0.86] 1.02[0.40] 0.48[0.61] 0.86[0.64] 0.78
y 0.30[0.58] 1.43[0.24] 0.96[0.38] 1.38[0.50] 0.85
∆p 1.98[0.16] 3.36[0.02] 0.32[0.72] 4.48[0.10] 0.81
m2 model 1
m2 0.57[0.45] 0.18[0.94] 0.41[0.66] 0.71[0.69] 0.87
y 0.51[0.47] 1.56[0.20] 0.84[0.43] 1.47[0.47] 0.90
∆p 1.58[0.21] 0.89[0.47] 0.005[0.99] 1.80[0.45] 0.89
m1 model 2
m1 0.01[0.90] 1.15[0.35] 0.11[0.89] 0.72[0.69] 0.81
y 0.21[0.64] 0.65[0.62] 0.35[0.70] 0.36[0.83] 0.60
∆p 0.04[0.83] 1.39[0.26] 0.62[0.54] 2.97[0.22] 0.96
m2 model 2
m2 6.56[0.02] 1.51[0.24] 0.04[0.95] 0.70[0.70] 0.80
y 0.02[0.88] 1.19[0.34] 0.34[0.71] 0.08[0.95] 0.82
∆p 0.94[0.34] 0.36[0.83] 0.28[0.75] 1.57[0.45] 0.97
34
1987. Because coefficients of the recursive estimated long-run cointegration
relations and short-run adjustments turn out to be stable and constant under
the model specification, we keep this specification and further analysis will be
based on it. The F-test shows there is a problem of first order autocorrelation
in the residual of the m2 equation in m2 model 2. But the LM (1) test for
the system suggests there is no autocorrelation in the system. Except for
this minor problem, the misspecification tests show that all p-values are
substantially greater than usual significance levels, suggesting no problem
of autocorrelation, ARCH or nonnormality for the system and for individual
equations. The R2 values show that a large part of variations of the system
can be explained by the chosen information set. In general, the current
models seems to be well behaved.
Table 9 shows the results of the trace test for the determination of cointegra-
tion ranks, where Trace denotes the asymptotic trace statistic corresponding
to a model without shift dummies, and Trace* denotes the trace statistic
with Bartlett small sample corrections. Because R1t and the shift dummy
Dp97t are included in the m1 and m2 models 2 as exogenous variables, the
critical values for standard trace test are not valid and need to be simulated.
CATS in RATS 2.0 automatically gives the simulated critical values when
stochastic exogenous variables are included in the cointegration space (Ju-
selius, 2005, section 8.2). In the current m1 and m2 models 2, R1 does not
35
behave like a real stochastic variable, and Dp97t is a shift dummy, therefore
we use the critical values calculated in CATS in RATS 2.0 for the trace tests,
but also check the cointegration ranks with further information. The results
of trace tests suggest that the cointegration ranks for all the four models
should be 2.
36
Table 9: Trace Test for the Rank Determination
M1 model 1
p-r r Eig.Value Trace Trace* Frac95 P-Value P-Value*
3 0 0.66 102.60 90.29 42.77 0.00 0.00
2 1 0.38 35.64 32.03 25.73 0.00 0.00
1 2 0.08 5.46 4.87 12.44 0.54 0.62
M2 model 2
p-r r Eig.Value Trace Trace* Frac95 P-Value P-Value*
3 0 0.52 84.86 74.19 42.77 0.00 0.00
2 1 0.46 39.71 34.87 25.73 0.00 0.00
1 2 0.03 1.98 1.84 12.44 0.95 0.96
M1 model 2
p-r r Eig.Value Trace Trace** Frac95 P-Value P-Value*
3 0 0.77 97.88 94.05 57.31 0.00 0.00
2 1 0.54 39.58 38.67 35.95 0.02 0.02
1 2 0.21 9.20 9.13 18.15 0.55 0.59
M2 model 2
p-r r Eig.Value Trace Trace** Frac95 P-Value P-Value*
3 0 0.68 88.28 73.94 57.31 0.00 0.00
2 1 0.54 44.89 36.29 35.95 0.00 0.04
1 2 0.32 15.10 11.18 18.15 0.12 0.36
Note: trace and trace* denote standard trace statistics and the trace statistics with
Bartlett corrections for small sample, respectively. Frac95 denotes the 95% quantile
from the asymptotic table generated in CATS in RATS 2.0. The value of Frac95
for the model 1 corresponds to that in the asymptotic table generated with a trend
in the cointegration relations, while that for the model 2 is generated with a trend
and a random exogenous variable in the cointegration relations
37
Trace Test Statistics
2.25
X(t)
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
The test statistics are scaled by the 5% critical values of the basic model
2.00
R1(t)
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
H(0)|H(3) H(1)|H(3) H(2)|H(3)
38
Trace Test Statistics
2.00
X(t) = R1(t)
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
The test statistics are scaled by the 5% critical values of the basic model
H(0)|H(3) H(1)|H(3) H(2)|H(3)
39
Trace Test Statistics
2.25
X(t)
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
The test statistics are scaled by the 5% critical values of the basic model
2.00
R1(t)
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
H(0)|H(3) H(1)|H(3) H(2)|H(3)
40
Trace Test Statistics
1.6
X(t)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
2001 2002 2003 2004
The test statistics are scaled by the 5% critical values of the basic model
1.6
R1(t)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
2001 2002 2003 2004
H(0)|H(3) H(1)|H(3) H(2)|H(3)
41
This can be regarded as evidence that some variables contain a near I(2)
unit root (Juselius, 1999).
In this subsection, various information has been applied to testing the coin-
tegration ranks of the four models. Evidence for the existence of two coin-
tegration relations in the m1, m2 model 1 and m1 model 2 are quite clear.
Whereas evidence for two cointegration relations in the m2 model 2 seems
weak, which implies that the cointegration rank in this model could be one
or two. In the following analysis, we first restrict all four models with r = 2.
After imposing restrictions on long-run cointegrations, we further examine
the plausibility of the rank choice by means of inspecting the stability of
the long-run cointegration and short-run adjustment coefficients, as well as
checking the economic meaning of the restricted long-run relations.
Before we further impose restrictions on the VAR models, we test for the
weak exogeneity for the long-run parameters β.
Table 11 gives the results of weak exogeneity tests for both r = 2 and r =
1. It shows that no variable is weakly exogenous in the m1 models for both
r. In the m2 model 1 and 2, the results depend on the choice of cointegration
rank. If r = 1 then m2t or yt is weakly exogenous in both models. If r = 2,
then no variable is weakly exogenous in m2 model 1. We further test the
joint weakly exogenous for m2 model 1 and 2 by setting r = 1. The results
are χ2 (2) = 29.658[0.000] for m2 model 1 and χ2 (2) = 1.562[0.458] for m2
model 2, where p-values are in square brackets. The results indicate that,
in m2 model 2, by setting r = 1, both m2t and yt would have acted as two
independent driving forces for ∆pt , while ∆pt is a fully adjusting variable.
m2t in m2 model 2 is found to be weakly exogenous independent of the
choice of r. When we examine the estimated residual correlation matrix
Ω̂ (see table 17), we find the residual correlation between equation m2t
and ∆pt is as large as -0.78, which indicates that current effects between
the variables are perhaps neglected in the reduced VAR model. Because
the identification of the short-run structure may change the adjustment
0
coefficients α of the cointegration relations β xt , we further estimate all
four models in the full system. In order to check for the robustness of the
42
Table 11: Testing for weakly exogenous variables
Model 1
m1 m2
coin. rank m1t yt ∆pt m2t yt ∆pt
r=1 24.376 4.683 5.746 1.611 3.108 5.008
[0.000] [0.030] [0.017] [0.204] [0.078] [0.025]
r=2 24.422 22.051 19.451 33.541 32.994 21.331
[0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000]
Model 2
m1 m2
coin. rank m1t yt ∆pt m2t yt ∆pt
r=1 7.568 11.419 9.428 0.043 1.559 10.040
[0.006] [0.001] [0.002] [0.835] [0.212] [0.002]
r=2 12.453 24.454 29.867 0.179 12.921 13.694
[0.002] [0.000] [0.000] [0.914] [0.002] [0.001]
43
The hypotheses to be investigated are of the form β = {Hφ1 , ψ1 }, i.e.
we test for whether a single restricted relation lies in the cointegration space,
while leaving the other relations unrestricted. The test procedure deals with
nonlinear estimation problems and is provided by CATS in RATS 2.0 (for
detailed test procedures, see Juselius, 2005, section 10.4).
Tables 12, 13, 14 and 15 show the outcome of tests for the stationarity of
the potential single relations in m1, m2 model 1 and model 2, respectively.
The null hypotheses, or the potential long-run steady-states as illustrated
in Section 4, are categorized into four groups, i.e. relations relating to real
money, real income, the velocity and the inflation rate.
In the real money group, except for m2 model 2 (H30 ), all the other
three hypotheses regarding the stationarity of trend-adjusted real money
stocks (H1 ,H9 ,H17 ) can be rejected. Tests for H2 ,H10 ,H18 and H31 show
that the real money stock is cointegrated with real income in model 1, but
not in model 2. In m1 and m2 model 1 and m1 model 2, trend-adjusted
real money is positively cointegrated with inflation rate ( see H3 , H11 , H19 ).
But this is not the case for m2 model 2 (see H32 ).4
In the group of real income, we test stationarity of trend-adjusted real
income , Phillips curve and IS type relationships. H4 , H12 , H20 and H33
show that trend-adjusted real income is nonstationary in all four models. In
m1 and m2 models 1, trend-adjusted real income is positively cointegrated
with inflation ( H5 and H13 ), which indicates a Phillips curve type relation,
while in the m1 and m2 models 2, trend-adjusted real income is cointegrated
with inflation, but with negative sign ( H21 and H34 ). In the m1 and
m2 models 2, the stationarity of the relation between trend-adjusted real
income and the real interest rate are tested by H22 and H35 . This relation
is nonstationary in m1 model 2 ( H22 ) and stationary in m2 model 2 (H35 ),
but with ’wrong’ signs for IS type relations.
In the group of velocity relations, tests for H6 and H14 show that trend-
adjusted velocity in m1 and m2 models 1 is stationary, but with relatively
small p-values. When the inflation rate is added to the relations denoted by
H6 and H14 , which indicates the relation between the trend-adjusted velocity
and inflation, the coefficients of the inflation are significant. In addition,
the p-values rise from 0.21 and 0.09, respectively, to 1, by construction (H7
4
This result should not come as a surprise, because a combination of a stationary
component (trend-adjusted real money, H30 ) and a nonstationary component (inflation
rate, see H40 ) is nonstationary.
44
and H15 ), which indicates that trend-adjusted velocity shares a common
stochastic trend with inflation in some degree, and can be cancelled out by
a linear combination. In m1 model 2, the trend-adjusted velocity is not
stationary (H23 ), but is strongly positively cointegrated with the inflation
rate (H24 ) and negatively cointegrated with the real interest rate (H26 ).
In m2 model 2, H36 is the combination of H30 and H33 . The p-values of
the tests for H30 and H33 are 0.16 and 0.00, respectively, hence it is not
surprising that the test for H36 has a lower p-value (0.06). H37 can be
regarded as a combination of H30 and H34 , or H36 and H40 .
The inflation rate in H37 is not significant, which makes H37 close to
H36 . H36 indicates the trend-adjusted velocity, which is only borderline
acceptable. The test for H38 shows that there is a negative cointegration
relation between trend-adjusted velocity and interest rate in m2 model 2.
The tests for the group of inflation and the real interest rate show that
inflation (H8 , H16 , H27 , H40 ) is not stationary in all four models. The real
interest rate (H28 , H41 ) or the relations between inflation and the interest
rate with freely estimated coefficients (H29 , H42 ) are also nonstationary in
m1 and m2 models 2, which indicates that Fisher parity does not exist in
the Chinese data, probably because the interest rate as a policy variable is
heavily regulated by the PBC during the sample period.
45
Table 12: Testing the stationary of single relations m1 model 1
m1t yt ∆pt trendt χ2 (υ) p − value
Real money relations
H1 1 0 0 −0.029 χ2 (1)=10.394 0.001
[−26.022]
H2 1 −1.292 0 0 χ2 (1) = 0.224 [0.636]
[−41.333]
H3 1 0 −10.156 −0.027 − −
[−12.697] [−19.513]
Real income relations
H4 0 1 0 −0.022 χ2 (1) = 24.581 [0.000]
[−24.173]
H5 0 1 −6.914 −0.021 − −
[−19.657] [−33.195]
Velocity relations
H6 1 -1 0 −0.007 χ2 (1) = 1.535 [0.215]
[−8.813]
H7 1 -1 −3.242 −0.006 - -
[−4.220] [−6.082]
Inflation
H8 0 0 1 0 χ2 (2)=12.834 [0.002]
46
Table 13: Testing the stationary of single relations m2 model 1
m2t yt ∆pt trendt χ2 (υ) p − value
Real money relations
H9 1 0 0 −0.039 χ2 (1)= 19.115 [0.000]
[−40.521]
H10 1 −1.715 0 0 χ2 (1) = 0.826 [0.364]
[−71.713]
H11 1 0 −12.320 −0.036 − −
[−12.433] [−35.754]
Real income relations
H12 0 1 0 −0.027 χ2 (1)= 29.625 [0.000]
[−17.603]
H13 0 1 −3.829 −0.015 − −
[−4.093] [−22.825]
Velocity relations
H14 1 -1 0 −0.017 χ2 (1) = 2.840 [0.092]
[−31.953]
H15 1 -1 −3.829 −0.015 - -
[−4.277] [−23.174]
Inflation rate
H16 0 0 1 0 χ2 (2)=13.236 [0.001]
47
Table 14: Testing the stationary of single relations for m1 model 2
48
Table 15: Testing the stationary of single relations for m2 model 2
49
Table 16: Identifying long-run structure: 1979:1-1994:4
m1 model m2 model
The cointegrating vectors:
β̂1 β̂2 β̂1 β̂2
m1t 1.0 0.0 m2t 1.0 0.0
yt −1.292 1.0 yt −1.715 1.0
[−41.333] [−71.713]
∆pt 0.0 −6.615 ∆pt 0.0 −8.202
[−11.237] [−8.833]
trendt 0.0 −0.021 trendt 0.0 −0.021
[−32.414] [−30.389]
The adjustment coefficients:
α̂1 α̂2 α̂1 α̂2
∆m1t −0.084 0.200 ∆m2t −0.037 0.282
[−1.828] [5.205] [−0.933] [6.825]
∆yt 0.037 −0.005 ∆yt 0.047 −0.006
[5.299] [−0.883] [6.803] [−0.913]
∆2 pt 0.075 0.098 ∆2 pt 0.114 0.020
[2.960] [4.650] [4.914] [0.816]
The residual correlation matrix Ω̂:
∆m1t 0.028 ∆m2t 0.02
∆yt 0.38 0.004 ∆yt -0.16 0.003
∆2 pt -0.42 0.004 0.015 ∆2 pt -0.34 0.23 0.012
Test of overidentifying restrictions
χ2 (1) = 0.224 [0.636] χ2 (1) = 0.826 [0.364]
Notes:
1. p − values are in square brackets.
2. in Ω̂ the standard errors are on the diagonal, cross-correlations are on the
off-diagonal elements.
50
Table 17: Identifying long-run structure, 1995:1-2004:4
m1 model m2 model
The cointegrating vectors:
β̂1 β̂2 β̂1 β̂2
m1t 1.0 0.0 m2t 1.0 0.0
yt −1.608 1.0 yt -1.0 1.0
[−24.062]
∆pt −11.752 2.696 ∆pt 0 1.632
[−11.595] [11.711] [11.747]
R1t 11.752 0.0 R1t 5.717 0.0
[11.595] [3.535]
Dp97t −0.133 0.0 Dp97t −0.061 0
[−5.850] [−3.495]
trendt 0.0 −0.019 trendt −0.014 −0.019
[−63.876] [−16.224] [−164.134]
The adjustment coefficients:
α̂1 α̂2 α̂1 α̂2
∆m1t −0.205 −0.872 ∆m2t −0.010 0.247
[−3.387] [−4.273] [−0.096] [0.903]
∆yt 0.033 0.139 ∆yt 0.049 0.045
[5.987] [7.375] [5.034] [1.769]
∆2 pt 0.113 0.086 ∆2 pt 0.119 −0.804
[4.645] [1.041] [2.173] [−5.671]
The residual correlation matrix Ω̂:
∆m1t 0.017 ∆m2t 0.012
∆yt 0.42 0.001 ∆yt 0.533 0.001
∆2 pt -0.28 -0.058 0.006 ∆2 pt -0.782 -0.403 0.006
Test of overidentifying restrictions:
χ2 (3) = 3.686 [0.297] χ2 (3) = 2.957[0.398]
Notes:
1. p − values are in square brackets.
2. in Ω̂ the standard errors are on the diagonal, cross-correlations are on the
off-diagonal elements.
51
relation can be regarded as a money supply equation, because m1 is not
significantly error correcting to this cointegration vector. The second one
represented by H5 indicates a short-run Phillips curve relation.
The corresponding adjustment coefficients show that m1 is not error
correcting to the excess money as measured by the deviation from the money
supply relation. Whereas, excess money seems to have significantly increased
the real aggregate demand and the inflation rate.
The deviation from the short-run Phillips curve as given by the second
cointegration vector has positive effects on inflation as expected. Moreover,
m1 is significantly and negatively error correcting to the deviation from the
second cointegration vector, which can be interpreted as the monetary policy
reaction effect.
The overidentifying restrictions on the long-run structure are acceptable
with a p-value of 0.63.
52
as a partial real income relation. In order to get an economic interpretable
real income relation, more variables need to be included in the information
set.
The adjustment coefficients show that m1 is positively error correcting to
the deviation of the second cointegration vector, which indicates a monetary
policy reaction effect. In other words, when there exists excess inflation in
terms of deviation from modified velocity, the central bank takes measures
to reduce the money supply. In addition, the deviation from the second
cointegration vector has positive effects on the real income.
The overidentifying restrictions on the long-run structure is acceptable
with a p-value of 0.30.
53
8.3 Graphs of the cointegration vectors
Figures ??-?? in the Appendix display the graphs of the identified cointe-
grations for the four models. All eight cointegration relationships seem to
be mean-reverting and stationary.
k−1
X
0
A0 ∆xt = α∗ β xt−1 + Γ∗i ∆xt−i + Φ∗ Dt + Bvt (17)
i=1
t = 1, · · · , T, vt ∼ N (0, Ω∗ )
54
current effects. In this section we try to impose general restrictions on A0
or B, which might make the short-run structure overidentified.
The error correction terms that are calculated from the identified long-
run cointegration vectors before identifying the short-run structure are inclu-
ded as stationary components in the VEC models. This strategy is justified
by the super consistent property of estimated β (Juselius, 2005, Section
13.1).
In the models of present research, there are no prior hypotheses or theory
about the current effects. Hence we impose overidentifying short-run re-
strictions through simplification searching rather than a stringent economic
identification. The guiding principle is the plausibility of the results, in
particular plausible estimates of the coefficients of the equilibrium error cor-
rection terms α, as well as the reduction of the residual cross-correlations.
The search for the short-run structure is performed with PcGive 10.0
following the approach suggested by Lütkepohl and Wolters (1999b). First,
we eliminate the most insignificant short-run parameters according to the
lowest t-values but keep the error correction terms in the systems. Then
we try to consider the current effects of the system by including current
variables in the equations of other variables. Then we continually eliminate
the insignificant variables. If finally the error correction terms are proved
to be insignificant, they are also eliminated. The estimation of the full
system is conducted using FIML contained in PcGive 10.0. Next, we conduct
the overidentifying restriction tests to make sure that the reductions are
acceptable. By means of examining the economic plausibility of the current
effects, as well as checking whether the estimated residual cross-correlations
are reduced by including current variables, we can decide on the structural
models that are sensible to our research interest.
55
9.2.1 Structural m1 model 1
56
where
57
∆2 pt = 0.092 ec1t−1 0.43 ∆yt−1 − 0.87 ∆2 pt−1 − 0.67 ∆2 pt−2
(0.018) (0.0017) (0.075) (0.07)
+ 0.069 d93q1t + ut
(0.015)
where
58
∆2 p equation in the m1 model 2
∆2 pt = 0.085 ec1t−1 + ut
(0.012)
where
59
∆2 pt equation in the m2 model 2
where
The structural models show that inflation has current negative effects
on real money stock in all the models, except in the m1 model 2, where the
structure of the unrestricted VEC model is too simple to identify the current
effect of inflation on money stock. When the current effect of inflation is
taken into account in the ∆m2 equation of m2 model 2, m2 becomes error
correcting to the second cointegration vector. In general, the significance
and sign of the error correction terms in the four models are reasonable and
have not been significantly changed by imposing the short-run structures.
Impulse response analyses are conducted in this section to trace the respon-
ses of variables when the system is hit by a shock. Through the impulse
response analysis we can also examine the plausibility using the current
models as framework for policy analysis.
The impulse response analyses are based on the parsimonious VAR mo-
dels, which are achieved by eliminating insignificant components on the
right-hand sides of the equations of the system. The exogenous variables
and deterministic terms are treated as fixed in the impulse response analysis,
because they are considered to be constant and not affected by the impulses
hitting the system. The residuals are orthogonalized by the Choleski decom-
position. Because the structural analysis in the previous section shows that
60
inflation seems to have an instantaneous effect on money stock, we chose the
order of the variables for the Choleski decomposition as {yt , ∆pt , m1t /m2t }.
This implies that the shock on yt has instantaneous effects on itself, infla-
tion, and money stock, the shock on inflation has instantaneous effects on
itself and money stock, while the shock on the money stock has only an
instantaneous effect on itself. Because such an assumption is relatively ar-
bitrary, we also check the sensibility of the impulse responses by means of
using other orders of variables.
The impulse response analysis is performed with Jmulti 3.1. Bootstrap-
ping method are applied to calculate the confidence intervals for the calcu-
lated responses. If zero is not included within the confidence intervals, the
responses are supposed to be significant. The number of the bootstrap re-
plications is set to be 2000. Confidence intervals for the individual impulse
response coefficients are estimated at the 95% significant level.
Graphs 15-18 are the impulse response functions of m1 and m2 model 1
and 2. The impulses are the orthogonalized standard deviations of estimated
residuals of the models. The variables in the columns indicate the equations
to which impulses are attached, while the variables in the rows indicates
the response functions to the impulses. The graphs show that almost all
the responses are in line with theoretical expectations. For example, when
an impulse hits the real money stock, it will increase real income and infla-
tion in all the four models except the insignificant response of real income
in m1 model 2. This result can be taken as evidence that money supply
is effective in stimulating the real income and controlling inflation for both
m1 and m2 during the two sub-sample periods. An impulse hitting infla-
tion tends to decrease real money stock in all four models. This suggests
that the Chinese central bank has adopted a cautious monetary policy to
prevent inflation running out of control for both periods. The impulse on
the real income increases itself, inflation and real money stock at least for
a short period, except for the response of real money stock in m2 model 2
where m2 decreases in the beginning but increases after about four quarters.
These findings are robust to other variable orders chosen for conducting the
Choleski decomposition.
In general, the impulse response functions of the four models are in
line with economic theories. Therefore, the current models can be taken
as a sensible framework for further policy analysis. The impulse response
analyses can also provide the following conclusions. First, inflation can be
regarded as monetary phenomenon in China for the whole sample period,
61
Figure 15: Impulse responses of m1 model 1979:1-1994:4
although in the later period the Chinese economy has experienced deflation
from about 1998-2002. Second, the Chinese monetary authorities are very
cautious in controlling inflation. This is reflected in the fact that, except
for m1 model 2, in all the other models money stock decreases significantly
in response to an inflation impulse. In m1 model 2, m1 declines in the
beginning but not statistically significant, possibly due to the fact that in
the second sample period, m1 is more determined by money demand.
62
Figure 16: Impulse responses of m2 model 1979:1-1994:4
63
Figure 17: Impulse responses of m1 model 1995:1-2004:4
64
Figure 18: Impulse responses of m2 model 1995:1-2004:4
65
formulation.
As pointed out in Section 3.6, VAR models can be represented in the
following moving average form:
t
X ∞
X
xt = C (²i + ΦDt ) + C∗ (²t−i + φDt−i ) + A0 ,
i=1 i=0
t
X
= C (²i + ΦDt ) + C∗ (L)εt + C∗ (L)ΦDt + A0 (18)
i=1
Where:
0
C = β⊥ (α⊥ Γβ⊥ )−1 α⊥
0
(19)
66
period.5
Table 18 shows the long-run impact matrices of m1 and m2 models for
the whole sample period, with the assumption that there exists one or two
cointegration relations. An interesting finding is that the cumulated shocks
in m1 are insignificant for any of the variables in the system, which means
that m1 is a fully adjusting variable. Contrary to m1, the unanticipated
shocks in m2 have significant and positive long-run impact on m2, real
income and inflation.
If the estimated residuals associated with the money stock can be inter-
preted as monetary policy shocks, this finding might imply that expansio-
nary monetary policy in terms of increasing m2 supply has long-run positive
effects on m2, real income and inflation, whereas that in terms of increasing
m1 has no such long-run effect.
In particular, the finding is robust in the sense that it is independent on
the choice of the cointegration rank.
The impulse response analysis for transitory and permanent shocks are con-
ducted based on m1 and m2 models in the full sample with cointegration
rank to be 2. The estimated matrix B (normalized at the largest coeffi-
cient in each row) defines how the orthogonalized permanent and transitory
shocks are associated with the estimated VAR residuals through the equa-
tion ut = B²t , where ut and ²t are structural shocks and VAR estimated
residuals, respectively.
The estimated B and the transformation relations between structural
shocks and estimated VAR residuals for the two models is given in equations
(20) and (21)6
5
Because of the large cross-correlations existing in the residual covariance matrices,
the long-run impact analyses based on the two sub sample periods seem not to be very
plausible and reliable
6
Because by construction the SVAR restrictions are just-identifying, there is no test
for estimated B
67
Table 18: The long-run impact matrices for 1979:1-2004:4
m1 model, r = 2 m2 model, r = 2
P P P P P P
²̂m1i ²̂yi ²̂∆pi ²̂m2i ²̂yi ²̂∆pi
m1t 0.031 2.700 −1.295 m2t 0.194 1.477 −0.458
[0.319] [3.478] [−6.195] [3.771] [4.459] [−3.782]
yt 0.011 0.940 −0.451 yt 0.194 1.472 −0.457
[0.319] [3.478] [−6.195] [3.771] [4.459] [−3.782]
∆pt −0.001 −0.130 0.062 ∆pt 0.011 0.080 −0.025
[−0.319] [−3.478] [6.195] [3.771] [4.459] [−3.782]
m1 model, r = 1 m2 model, r = 1
P P P P P P
²̂m1i ²̂yi ²̂∆pi ²̂m2i ²̂yi ²̂∆pi
m1t −0.201 −3.595 −2.106 m2t 0.515 −0.172 0.021
[−0.781] [−1.624] [−3.798] [4.963] [−0.376] [0.251]
yt 0.107 3.552 −0.115 yt 0.359 0.619 −0.209
[1.003] [3.875] [−0.500] [4.660] [1.822] [−3.332]
∆pt 0.010 0.178 0.102 ∆pt 0.169 −0.736 0.212
[0.785] [1.647] [3.775] [4.052] [−4.006] [6.271]
us,1i −0.003 0.123 1.000 ²̂m1i
us,2i = 1.000 0.563 −0.624 ²̂∆pi (20)
ul,1i 0.011 −0.480 1.000 ²̂yi
us,1i −0.038 0.091 1.000 ²̂m2i
us,2i = 1.000 1.768 −1.345 ²̂∆pi (21)
ul,1i 0.132 −0.310 1.000 ²̂yi
Where us,t and ul,t denote transitory and permanent shocks, respectively.
68
12.2 Impulse response functions for transitory and perma-
nent shocks
In both m1 and m2 models, there are two transitory shocks and one per-
manent shock. In order to identify the two transitory shocks, one exclusion
restriction need to be imposed on the matrix C0 , which describes the im-
mediate effect of the structural shocks on the variables. The restriction on
matrix C0 in m1 and m2 model are given as follows, respectively:
−0.174 2.171 0.627
C0,m1 = 0.665 0.052 −0.978
0.321 −0.000 0.122
and
0.496 1.453 1.501
C0,m2 = 0.192 −0.191 0.126
0.829 −0.000 −0.753
69
Trans(1) Trans(2) Perm(1)
0.004 0.0150 0.0225
0.0125 0.0200
0.000
0.0175
0.0100
-0.004
0.0150
0.0075
-0.008 0.0125
LM1 0.0050
0.0100
-0.012
0.0025
0.0075
-0.016
0.0000
0.0050
-0.020
-0.0025 0.0025
0.010
0.0100 0.004
0.008
0.0075 0.002
0.006
DP 0.0050 0.000
0.004
0.0025 -0.002
0.002
0.0000 -0.004
0.000
0.0036
0.0008 0.010
0.0030
0.0006 0.008
0.0024
0.0012
0.0002 0.004
0.0006
0.0000 0.002
0.0000
Steps 1 to 29
Figure 19: Impulse response functions for the transitory and permanent
shocks in m1 model
70
Trans(1) Trans(2) Perm(1)
0.002 0.0175 0.030
0.000 0.0150
0.025
0.0125
-0.002
0.0100 0.020
-0.004
0.0075
LM2 -0.006
0.0050
0.015
-0.008
0.0025 0.010
-0.010
0.0000
0.005
-0.012 -0.0025
0.002
0.008
0.006
0.000
0.006
-0.002
0.004
DP 0.004 -0.004
0.002
-0.006
0.002
-0.008
0.000
0.000
-0.010
0.00150
0.004 0.010
0.00125
0.003 0.008
0.00100
0.00050
0.001 0.004
0.00025
0.000 0.002
0.00000
Steps 1 to 32
Figure 20: Impulse response functions for the transitory and permanent
shocks in m2 model
71
13 Summary and Conclusions
72
We also find that m1 and m2 negatively respond to excess inflation in
both periods, which reflects the fact that PBC’s has taken cautionary mone-
tary policy to prevent inflation, and furthermore, the cautionary monetary
policy has not changed during the whole sample period.
5. Do unanticipated shocks of m1 or m2 have long-run impacts on real
income and inflation?
Only the unanticipated shocks of m2 have long-run positive impacts on
m2, real income and inflation. The unanticipated shocks of m1 have no
long-run impacts for any variable.
6. Which one should be taken as the intermediate target, M1 or M2?
In the short-run, both excess m1 and m2 have a positive impact on
real income and inflation, whereas only expansionary shocks in m2 have a
long-run impact on real income and inflation. This means, in the long-run
to take m2 as intermediate target of monetary policy is more relevant. In
addition, in the second period, m1 is largely determined by money demand,
which implies that the PBC cannot directly control m1 but can only indi-
rectly adjust m1 through adjusting the deposit rate. To qualify to be an
intermediate target, it is usually required to be measurable, controllable and
relevant to the monetary target. According to these criteria, m2 seems to
be more suitable as the intermediate target for monetary policy than m1,
especially in the long-run.
73
investigation using more information is required in this regard.
2. The PBC has adjusted the interest rate in the recent period more
frequently than it did in the first period. Our empirical investigation shows
that the interest rate variable can be excluded from the models in the first
period, but not in the second period. In the later period, the interest rate
is a indispensable component of the monetary relations, and seems to have
influenced by the monetary expansion in the long-run. This gives the evi-
dence that the interest rate policy is now playing an increasingly important
role in China.
3. The PBC has claimed to take money supply as the intermediate tar-
get of the monetary policy since 1995. The planed target of money supply
is supposed to be calculated based on the quantity theory and exchange
equation. If the PBC has controlled money supply according to the planed
target, then we expect to find a long-run relation between real money supply
and real income, and money stock should adjust to the deviation from the
equilibrium. In our empirical models in the second sample period, we didn’t
find such long-run equilibria and the corresponding short-run adjustments.
Instead, we find the growth rate of money supply m1 and m2 react signifi-
cantly negative to the current increase of inflation and the excess inflation
in the previous period. This finding might be interpreted as evidence that in
practice, the PBC has not adjusted money supply according to the planned
target but rather according to the inflation target.
74
Reference:
Blanchard, O.J. and Quah, D. (1988). ”The dynamic effects of aggre-
gate and supply disturbances”, NBER working papers, National Bureau of
Economic Research, No. 2737
Chen, Baizhu (1997). ”Long-run money demand and inflation in China”,
Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 609-617.
Chinese monetary policy committee (2002). ”Studies on China’s mone-
tary policy transmission mechanism” in Xie, Ping and Jiao, Jinpu (eds.):
Disputations on China’s monetary policy (in Chinese), Finance Press of
China.
Chow, Gregory C and Shen, Yan (2004). ”Money, price level and output
in the Chinese macro economy”. working paper, Peking University.
Dai, Genyou (2002). ”Some theoretical and empirical issues on China’s
monetary policy”, in Xie, Ping and Jiao, Jinpu (eds.): Disputations on
China’s monetary policy (in Chinese), Finance Press of China.
Engle, R.F. and Granger, C.W.J. (1987). ”Co-integration and error
correction: representation, estimation, and testing”. Econometrica, Vol.
55, No. 2, pp. 251-276.
Doornik, J.A. and Hendry, D.F. (1995). PcFiml 8.0, Interactive econo-
metric modeling of dynamic systems. Chapman and Hall press.
Ericsson, NR. (1999). ”Empirical modeling of money demand”, in
Lütkephol H. and Wolters J. (eds.): Money Demand in Europe, Physica-
Verlag
Dennis, Jonathan G. (2006). CATS in RATS, cointegration analysis of
time series, version 2. Published by Estima, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Girardin, Eric (1996). ”Is there a long run demand for currency in
China?” Economics of Planning, Vol. 29, issue 3, pp. 169-184.
Hafer, R.W. and Kutan, A.M. (1994), ”Economic reforms and long-
run money demand in China: implications for monetary policy”. Southern
Economic Journal, Vol. 60.
Hendry, D.F. (1995). Dynamic Econometrics, Oxford University Press.
Hendry, D.F. and Juselius. K. (1999). ”Explaining cointegration Ana-
lysis: Part one”. Download from www.econ.ku.dk/okokj/.
75
Hendry, D.F. and Juselius. K. (2001). ”Explaining cointegration Ana-
lysis: Part two”. Download from www.econ.ku.dk/okokj/.
Huang, Guobo (1994). ”Money demand in China in the reform period:
an error correction model”. Applied Economic, 26, pp.713-719.
Johansen, S.(1996). Likelihood-based inference in cointegrated vector
autoregressive models, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press.
Juselius, K. (1996). ”An empirical analysis on the changing role of the
German Bundesbank after 1983”. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Stati-
stics, 58,4
Juselius, K. (1999). ”Changing monetary transmission mechanism wi-
thin the EU”. in Lütkephol H. and Wolters J. (eds.): Money Demand in
Europe, Physica-Verlag.
Juselius, K. (2005). The Cointegrated VAR model: methodology and
applications, manuscript, will be published by Oxford University Press
Lütkepohl H. (1993). Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis,
2nd edition, Springer-Verlag.
Lütkepohl H. and Wolters J. (eds.) (1999a). Money Demand in Europe,
Physica-Verlag.
Lütkepohl H. and Wolters J. (1999b). ”A money demand system for
German M3”, in Lütkephol H. and Wolters J. (eds.): Money Demand in
Europe, Physica-Verlag.
Lütkepohl H. and Krätzig M.(2004), Applied Time Series Econometrics,
Cambridge University Press.
Qin, Duo (1994). ”Money demand in China: The effect of economic
reform”. Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 253 - 271
Qin, Duo (2003). ”Determinants of household savings in China and their
role in quasi-money supply”. Economics of Transition 11(3): pp. 513-537.
Qin, Duo, Quising, P., He, Xinhua, and Liu, Shiguo (2005). ”Modeling
monetary transmission and policy in China”. Journal of Policy modeling,
Vol. 27, issue 2, pp. 157-175.
Xia, Bin and Liao, Qian (2002). ”Money supply is not suitable to be
the intermediate target of monetary policy”, in Xie, Ping and Jiao, Jinpu
(eds.): Disputations on China’s monetary policy (in Chinese), Finance Press
76
of China.
Xie, Ping (2002). ”The challenges facing China’s monetary policy in the
new century”, in Xie, Ping and Jiao, Jinpu (eds.): Disputations on China’s
monetary policy (in Chinese), Finance Press of China.
Xu, Yingfeng (1998), ”Money demand in China, a disaggregate ap-
proach”. Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 544-564.
Yi, Gang (1993). ”Towards estimating the demand for money in China”.
Economics of Planning, Vol. 26. issue 3, pp. 243-270.
Yu, Yongding (2001). ”A review of China’s macroeconomic development
and polices in the 1990s”. China and World Economy, No. 6, 2001, pp. 3-12.
Zhang, Yin and Wan, Guanghua (2004). ”Output and price fluctuati-
ons in China’s reform years, what role did money play?”. Research Paper,
No. 2004/56, World Institute for Development Economic Research, Unite
Nations University. www.wider.unu.edu
77