Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. INTRODUCTION
The effects of inflation on economy may take
the form of redistribution of income. It hurts savers as price rises, and real value or purchasing
power of savings deteriorates. Saving account,
insurance policies, annuities and other fixed value
paper assets meet decline in real value during
inflation. Unanticipated inflation benefits debtors at the expense of creditors. For the macroeconomic management, low rates of inflation are
prerequisites particularly in developing countries.
Inflation can have a series of adverse consequences for the economy. Firstly, inflation erodes
the purchasing power of the people and hence,
leads to a contraction in economic growth. It
leads to increase in macroeconomic instability
as an inflationary environment creates many uncertainties. Secondly, inflation has regressive
consequences on the poverty profile of a country. The increase in overall prices hurts the poor
more since their consumption basket becomes
significantly reduced in every inflationary bout.
Thirdly, inflation can damage a countrys competitiveness by leading to an appreciation of the
local currency and a consequent overvalued exchange rate, which have a negative effect on exports.
In case of Pakistan the mid-1970s was the
most inflationary time, with inflation rates averaging more than 15 percent annually. The oil price
46
reached twenty percent by the middle of the decade, with the consumer price index (CPI) not
lagging far behind. Compared to the historical
level of single digits, the inflation of the 1990s
created a serious disturbance. It was the period
of liberalized policies, frequent changes of the
governments, inconsistency of the policies and
of nuclear explosion. Increase in procurement
prices of wheat (Hassan et al. 1995), government
borrowing, private sector borrowing, exchange
rate depreciation and adaptive expectations were
the main factors behind this surge in inflation.
In the era of 2001-08, the inflation has shown
a mixed trend. During 2001-04 inflation remained low but CPI shot up in 2004-05 and it
reached to 9.3 percent. It dropped to 8 percent
in 2005-06 but it again shoot up in 2006-08 and
reached to its historical high level. Non-government sector borrowing and rise in import prices
may be the factors behind it.
In the long-run, certainly, the inflation is considered to beas Friedman (1963) statedalways and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
However, structuralist school of thought pointed
out supply side developments in explaining inflation. It holds that supply constraints that drive
up prices of specific goods can have wider repercussions on the overall price level. If inflation is a monetary phenomenon, it is the responsibility of the central bank and the fiscal authorities to achieve price stability. If inflation is caused
primarily by structural factors then government
should adopt policies to avoid these supply side
bottlenecks.
The causing factors of inflation in Pakistan
remained inconclusive in both fiscal and monetary aspects. Heavily dependent on specifications, the varying econometric results have yet
to resolve the debate. Some of the empirical studies (see for instance, Bilquees 1988; Hassan et
al. 1995) found that contrary to popular perceptions about the contribution of monetary expansions and supply shocks to inflation, it was the
rise in procurement prices and administered
prices, as well as the increase in indirect taxes in
the 1994-5 budget, that explain the spiraling inflation. It explained that government demand
management policy, in the form of reducing the
rate of monetary growth and controlling the budget deficit, was not too successful to combat inflation in the absence of controls on procurement
prices of wheat, and fuel, gas and electricity
charges.
47
DETERMINANTS OF INFLATION
Khan et al. (2007) have taken inflationary expectations to explain inflation. Imported inflation is discussed by Khalid (2005); Naqvi et
al. (2006) and Khan et al. (2007). Credit expansion is discussed in explaining inflation by Khalid
(2005), and Khan et al. (2007).
In the recent literature, Khalid (2005) used a
bivariate VAR and concluded that imported inflation, deficit-GDP ratio, seigniorage, money
depth, exchange rate depreciation, openness and
domestic credit were the important determinants
of inflation. Agha and Khan (2006) have looked
at the fiscal deficit and total bank borrowing by
the government sector to explain inflation.
Whereas Khan et al. (2007) identified inflation
expectations, private sector credit and imported
inflation as the most significant explanatory factors. According to our knowledge, none of the
studies have included four indicators of inflation.
We will use time series data set of 34 years to
explain the determinants of inflation taking a different set of variables and four indicators of inflation as mentioned earlier.
Inflation determines many macro-economic
factors and is also determined by them. We are
focusing on the latter, i.e. how inflation is determined by macro-economic variables. For instance, exchange rate depreciation which means
more rupees per dollar and hence increased number of rupees for imports alternatively increase
in cost of imports results into inflationary effect
on domestic prices. Increase in the import prices
other than due to exchange rate depreciation is
also considered to increase inflation to capture
the external price shock. In case of Pakistan, it
leads to increase the cost of production as the
major imports are comprised of machinery and
raw material for local industry. International inflation through inelastic imports of raw-material
used in domestic industry exerts upward pressure on domestic prices.
Theoretically, expectations play a critical role
in the determination of future prices and rising
prices create expectations. People expect higher
salaries to compensate for expected increase in
prices. Along with it speculation in asset prices
increases and funds for manufacturing sector diverts to real estate and stock markets. Consequently, hoarders, profit seekers and renters become active in expectation of higher prices in
the future.
Conceptually, increase in support prices may
have positive effect on inflation through rise in
48
Where the dependant variables are as:
CPI = Consumer Price Index
WPI = Wholesale Price Index
SPI = Sensitive Price Index
GDPD = GDP Deflator
The explanatory variables are:
BD = Budget Deficit
ER = Exchange Rate (Rupees/Dollar)
WSP = Wheat Support Price in rupees/40 Kg
IR = Annual Interest Rate
IMP = Value of Annual Imports in rupees
SP = Annual Support Prices of Sugarcane,
Rice, Wheat, and Cotton in rupees
M2 = M2 Supply of Money
CPILAG = One Year Lagged Value of
Consumer Price Index
WPILAG = One Year Lagged Value of
Wholesale Price Index
SPILAG = One Year Lagged Value of
Sensitive Price Index
GDPDLAG = One Year Lagged Value of
GDP Deflator
In the models the budget deficit (BD), exchange rate (ER), wheat support price (WSP),
interest rate (IR), value of imports (IMP), support prices of sugar, cotton, rice and wheat (SP),
and money supply (M2) are used to explain the
variation in CPI, WPI, SPI and GDP deflator respectively. The adaptive expectation for each indicator is explanatory to relevant indicator, e.g.
one year lagged value of CPI (CPILAG) is explanatory variable of CPI and so on.
For the models, we hypothesized that fiscal
policy may be an important determinant of inflation. Budget deficit financed by printing
money and borrowing resulted in the expansion
of money supply so it may create inflationary
pressure. If government finances fiscal deficit by
non-bank borrowing, it increases domestic interest rate due to the sale of treasury bills, shortterm federal bond, etc. it may create inflationary
pressure. Exchange rate is expressed as rupees
per dollar, which means that a depreciation of
Pakistani rupee would mean more rupees for a
dollar and it increases the cost of imports and
would have an inflationary effect on prices.
It is, further, hypothesized that a rise in interest rate increases the cost of borrowing, and leads
to reduce the demand for loans that in turn reduces money supply and negatively affects the
prices. It is expected that increase in the value of
imports would create inflationary pressure in the
long-run. Value of imports captures both the ef-
49
DETERMINANTS OF INFLATION
Table 1: Estimates of OLS models: Determinants of four
indicators of inflation
Variables
Model 4
(for GDP
Deflator)
Co-efficient
and
T-stat
Constant
LNWPILAG
0.56
(2.16)
0.02
(0.95)
0.32
(3.12)*
0.006
(0.09)
-0.21
(-2.21)*
0.15
(3.65)*
0.17
(2.00)*
0.49
(6.35)
-
LNSPILAG
LNBD
LNER
LNWSP
LNIR
LNIMP
LNSP
LNCPILAG
0.65
(2.86)
0.01
(0.09)
0.34
(2.16)*
0.06
(0.55)
-0.42
(-2.56)*
0.24
(2.92)*
0.22
(2.89)*
-
0.53
(1.96)
0.03
(0.75)
0.32
(1.88)*
0.02
(0.56)
-0.06
(-0.79)
0.13
(2.20)*
0.14
(1.81)*
-
0.47
(1.67)
0.009
(0.19)
0.60
(4.29)*
0.18
(1.63)
-0.23
(-1.57)**
0.20
(2.99)*
0.19
(1.41)**
-
0.51
(4.74)
-
LNGDPDLAG -
0.80
(5.28)
-
LNM2
0.04
(0.72)
0.998
0.998
0.05
(0.65)
0.998
0.997
0.51
(6.61)
0.05
(0.51)
0.998
0.997
1.89
1.84
2.12
0.04
(0.82)
0.999
0.999
R squared
Adjusted R
squared
Durbin-Watson 2.05
Stat
Number of Observations: 34
Sample: 1971-72 to 2005-06
Note: Coefficients are formatted bold and in the parenthesis are T-Statistics
*shows significant at 5 percent level and ** shows significant at 10 percent level.
Turkey) that budget deficit is insignificant factor for the explanation of CPI. Jones and Khilji
(1988 for Pakistan) have also estimated that budget deficit remains insignificant in affecting CPI.
The explanation may be that impact of budget
deficit on inflation depends upon the method of
covering the deficit. In Pakistan, like most developing countries, three methods are used to finance the deficit, i.e. domestic borrowing from
non-bank source, external borrowing and borrowing from the banking system. Domestic borrowing from non-bank source may lead to crowding out of investment by raising the interest rate
and thus leading to reduced aggregate demand.
The external borrowing helps to preserve domestic investment rates and also leads to reduce future consumption/investment when foreign debt
is repaid by increasing exports and reducing imports that may have positive or negative effect
on inflation. Bank borrowing for budgetary support can either be from commercial banks or from
the central bank. When a commercial bank subscribes loan to government its cash is reduced.
This act involves a shift of private purchasing
power to public purchasing power. The expenditure of government so financed remains noninflationary. It means that governments policy
of financing the deficit has no inflationary effects.
As expected, the exchange rate depreciation
has positive effect on indicators of inflation. The
co-efficient of exchange rate in model 1 shows
that a 10 percent increase in exchange rate led to
increase CPI by 3.2 percent. From model 2, it is
estimated that WPI would increase by 3.4 percent with every 10 percent increase in exchange
rate. For model 3 it is estimated that a 10 percent
increase in exchange rate would increase SPI by
3.2 percent. Similarly, from model 4 it is estimated that a 10 percent increase in exchange rate
would result into 6 percent increase in GDP deflator. The results are supported by a number of
studies, for instance, Hossain and Akhtar (1986)
Hossain (1989), Bilquees (1988), Naqvi et al.
(1994), Hassan et al. (1995) and Maliszewski
(2003) explained the positive effect of exchange
rate depreciation on inflation. The explanation
may be that exchange rate depreciation increase
the cost of imports and raise the nominal value
of goods produced domestically which in turn
put upward pressure on the inflation measured
by any of the indicators. Another alternative explanation may be that exchange rate depreciation makes the imports costlier resulting into increased cost of production.
Wheat support price was expected to have
increasing effect on inflation in Pakistan. Hassan
et al. (1995) estimated an increasing effect of
wheat support price on CPI but Khan et al. (2007)
concluded the insignificant effect of wheat support price on CPI. Our results have shown that
wheat support price have played no role in explaining CPI in the long-run, and the effects on
WPI and SPI are also insignificant. The estimates
are supported by the findings of Khan et al.
(2007). It explained that government policy to
raise procurement prices of wheat has not affected the consumers and poor community in the
part of price hike. The results of model 4 have
shown that wheat support price has positively
50
affected the GDP deflator. A 10 percent increase
in wheat support price has resulted into 1.8 percent increase in GDP deflator. The explanation
may be that increase in the wheat support price
raised nominal value of GDP and hence increased
the inflation measured by GDP deflator.
The interest rate was hypothesized to affect
inflation negatively. Our results have shown that
a 10 percent increase in interest rate would lead
to decrease CPI by 2.1 percent. It implies that
increase in interest rate enhances the cost of borrowing which results into reduced aggregate demand. It ultimately affects the CPI negatively.
From model 2 it is concluded that WPI would be
negatively affected by interest rate. The WPI
would come down by 4.2 percent with a 10 percent increase in interest rate. However, in model
3, the interest rate has shown insignificant results. In the model 4, the estimates have shown
that GDP deflator is negatively related with interest rate. A 10 percent increase in interest rate
has resulted into 2.3 percent decrease in GDP
deflator. The explanation may be that increase
in interest rate raised the cost of borrowing and
hence reduced the physical investment and diverted the capital to financial investment. In our
models we have included the value of imports
along with depreciation of exchange rate as explanatory variables, because there may be other
factors for change in value of imports rather than
exchange rate, like the tariffs and global prices.
Our results have shown that a 10 percent increase
in the value of imports would increase the CPI
by 1.5 percent. The explanation may be that the
value of imports of necessary raw-material for
textile, petroleum and machinery increases the
cost of production and thus raises CPI, while the
increased value of imports of consumer goods
directly enhance the CPI. It is also estimated that
a 10 percent increase in the value of imports
would increase the WPI by 2.4 percent. The
traded goods are part of WPI basket so increased
value of imports results into increase in cost of
production and prices domestically and rise in
WPI. Similarly, SPI would increase by 1.3 percent and GDP deflator by 2 percent with a 10
percent increase in the value of imports. The estimated co-efficient of value of imports in model
4 bear positive sign and is statistically significant. Increase in the value of imported items that
are used in the production domestically increase
the nominal value of GDP and hence increase
the GDP deflator. Pakistans imports are mainly
comprised of few items namely petroleum, ma-
51
DETERMINANTS OF INFLATION