1- Professor of Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Monetary and Foreign Exchange Policy Studies, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of Iran, Tehran, Iran
3- Researcher, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of Iran, Tehran, Iran. ,alitavassoli1994@gmail.com
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Monetary and Foreign Exchange Policy Studies, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of Iran, Tehran, Iran
3- Researcher, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of Iran, Tehran, Iran. ,
Abstract: (455 Views)
This study aims to investigate the asymmetric conditional correlation between government budget imbalances and money supply growth in the Iranian economy over the period 1989 to 2024. The budget imbalance is examined at two levels: the general budget (aggregate) and a disaggregated level (operational and capital imbalances). To analyze short-run and long-run relationships, the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) approach is employed. The bounds test confirms the existence of cointegration, and the error correction coefficient of the first model (-0.49) indicates an appropriate speed of adjustment. The findings indicate that the co-movement of the general government budget imbalance with money supply growth is positive and significant, and its response to positive and negative shocks is asymmetric, such that the co-movement coefficient of positive budget imbalance shocks (1.02 in the long run) is estimated to be significantly larger than that of negative shocks (-0.70) (Wald test with a probability level of 0.000). The informal exchange rate and the rial value of oil revenues also exhibit a positive and asymmetric co-movement with liquidity. According to the disaggregated model, the co-movement of the operational imbalance with liquidity (1.07) is stronger and more persistent than that of the capital imbalance (0.69) (cross-variable Wald test with a probability level of 0.046). Furthermore, the Toda-Yamamoto causality test confirms the existence of unidirectional predictability (Granger causality) from the budget imbalance (particularly the operational imbalance) to money supply growth. Liquidity dynamics in Iran result from the simultaneous interaction of fiscal, external, and real factors, and the observed pattern is consistent with the fiscal dominance framework. However, it is emphasized that the findings of this study are interpreted as conditional co-movements, and inference of structural causality is not possible from them. Assuming the validity of the findings, the conjecture gains strength that any economic stabilization program would inevitably require reforming the structure of current government expenditures. Testing this hypothesis requires future structural causal research.
References
1. Adewale, A. A. (2025). Effects of budget deficit and money supply on inflation in Nigeria (1991-2023): ARDL evidence. Business Excellence and Management, 15(3), 21-39. [DOI:10.24818/beman/2025.15.3-02]
2. • Alti, A., Kume, F., & Özkan, N. (2014). Oil revenues and macroeconomic fluctuations in oil-exporting economies. Energy Economics, 44, 1-12.
3. • Bhusal, T. P. (2013). An econometric analysis of deficit budget, money supply and inflation in Nepal.Tribhuvan University Journal, 28(1-2), 315-324. [DOI:10.3126/tuj.v28i1-2.26261]
4. • Blanchard, O. (2021). Macroeconomics (8th ed.). Pearson.
5. • Branson, W. H., & Henderson, D. W. (1985). Monetary theory and policy. In R. W. Jones & P. B. Kenen (Eds.), Handbook of International Economics (Vol. 2, pp. 749-805). Elsevier. [DOI:10.1016/S1573-4404(85)02006-8]
6. • Cagan, P. (1956). The monetary dynamics of hyperinflation. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Studies in the quantity theory of money (pp. 25-117). University of Chicago Press.
7. • Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., & Weber, M. (2021). *Fiscal *Policy and Households' Inflation Expectations: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial (NBER Working Paper No. 28485). National Bureau of Economic Research. [DOI:10.3386/w28485]
8. • Dornbusch, R. (1976). Expectations and exchange rate dynamics. Journal of Political Economy, 84(6), 1161-1176. [DOI:10.1086/260506]
9. • Duodu, E., Addai, E. K., & Adusah-Poku, F. (2022). Causality between budget deficit, money supply and inflation in Ghana: Evidence from VECM and Granger causality tests (1999Q1-2019Q4).
10. • Erdil Şahin, B. (2019). Analysis of the relationship between inflation, budget deficit and money supply in Turkey by ARDL approach: 1980-2017. Journal of Life Economics, 6(3), 297-306. [DOI:10.15637/jlecon.6.018]
11. • Friedman, M. (1956). The quantity theory of money: A restatement. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money (pp. 3-21). University of Chicago Press.
12. • Friedman, M. (1970). The counter-revolution in monetary theory.
13. • Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. Princeton University Press.
14. • Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1986). A monetary history of the United States, 1867-1960. Princeton University Press.
15. • Gale, W. G., & Auerbach, A. J. (۲۰۱۴). Forgotten But Not Gone: The Long-Term Fiscal Imbalance. Brookings Institution.
16. • Galí, J. (2014). Monetary policy, inflation, and the business cycle: An introduction to the New Keynesian framework (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
17. • Hamilton, J. D. (2011). Historical oil shocks. In Handbook of Major Events in Economic History. Elsevier. [DOI:10.3386/w16790]
18. • International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2019). Fiscal Institutions and Public Investment. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
19. • Jayaraman, T. K., & Chen, H. (2014). Testing Long-Run Neutrality of Money in Fiji (No. 2014/05). School of Economics Working Paper.
20. • Olasupo, M., & Isenere, D. (2026). Fiscal Dominance and Monetary Policy Inertia: Evidence from Nigeria. [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.6555102]
21. • Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1995). An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis (Vol. 9514, pp. 371-413). Cambridge, UK: Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139052221.011]
22. • Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of applied econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. [DOI:10.1002/jae.616]
23. • Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. (2010). This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. [DOI:10.1515/9781400831722]
24. • Sajid, G. M., & Riaz, B. (2002). Budget deficit, money supply and inflation: Testing for causality. Pakistan Journal of Applied Economics, 18(1-2), 65-84.
25. • Sargent, T. J., & Wallace, N. (1981). Some unpleasant monetarist arithmetic. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 5(3), 1-17. [DOI:10.21034/qr.531]
26. • Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric methods and applications (pp. 281-314). New York, NY: Springer New York. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9]
27. • Subedi, R., et al. (2024). Inflation and liquidity interaction in developing economies. Journal of Monetary Economics Studies, 18(2), 45-67.
28. • Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250. [DOI:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8]
29. • Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270. [DOI:10.1080/07350015.1992.10509904]
| Rights and permissions | |
.jpg) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
