47 views

Uploaded by eviews

In this paper, I employ a vector autoregression (VAR) model to analyze the relationship among exchange rate, money supply, interest rate, and prices.
First, I identify data. I decide the data cut off data at December 1997 employing Chow test. It means that Indonesian economic indicators employed here appear rather stable until then. Seasonal adjustment of X-11 is applied to the data and Dickey-Fuller test is examined for detecting a unit root. As a result, I employ the first order difference of logarithmic series of relevant data from April 1990 to February 2001.
Second, I specify a VAR model employing Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and decide that the VAR model must contain four-term lag and an exogenous constant term.
Third, I analyze this VAR model at three periods: 1) from September 1990 to June 1993, 2) from July 1994 to April 1997, and 3) from May 1998 to February 2001. I employ impulse response function to a unit shock, forecast error variance decomposition, and Granger causality to find out some empirical evidences.
Last, I state concluding remarks that although economic policy authorities operated interest rate as the first policy instrument before the Asian monetary crisis, after it money supply takes a place and at present we have to treat exchange rate as exogenous because a large extent of forecast errors in money supply, interest rate, and prices is originated from exchange rate.

- Aqm 2008 Lecture Random
- OXPGIVE
- doc 8991 Forecasting En
- Climate Change
- Taxonomy of Comm Fact in Psther
- Bayesian analysis of shape parameter of Lomax distribution using different loss functions
- How to Estimate Long-run Relationships in Economics
- A First Course in Mathematical Statistics - Nusbaum
- cross entropy
- Example Likelihood-Newton-Raphson
- 2012_leyes de Probabilidadhyfran
- ocean acoustics
- Notes 1
- Session 5. Confidence Interval of the Mean When SD is Known (18-22)
- What Does the PDF Test Mean
- Gumbel Distribution
- Plausible Values for Latent Variables Using
- 033 Lumantarna Et Al
- ams206-class2
- HowToUseAMOS5

You are on page 1of 43

2001/02 – No.1

In Indonesia

June 2001

Shinji YOSHIOKA*

JICA-TSQ, BAPPENAS

* The author is a JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) Expert to BAPPENAS (National

Development Planning Agency of Indonesian Government) from CAO (Cabinet Office of Japanese

Government). But the opinions expressed in the paper are derived from the author’s study results and are

not the official views of JICA, BAPPENAS, CAO, or any government. The author is grateful to the

colleagues at BAPPENAS for their insightful feedback to this study and also thankful to Mr. Ramli

Ripai, BAPPENAS, for his assistance in data processing. The author’s contact point is

yoshioka@link.net.id.

Summary

In this paper, I employ a vector autoregression (VAR) model to analyze the relationship

among exchange rate, money supply, interest rate, and prices.

First, I identify data. I decide the data cut off data at December 1997 employing Chow

test. It means that Indonesian economic indicators employed here appear rather stable

until then. Seasonal adjustment of X-11 is applied to the data and Dickey-Fuller test is

examined for detecting a unit root. As a result, I employ the first order difference of

logarithmic series of relevant data from April 1990 to February 2001.

Second, I specify a VAR model employing Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and

decide that the VAR model must contain four-term lag and an exogenous constant

term.

Third, I analyze this VAR model at three periods: 1) from September 1990 to June

1993, 2) from July 1994 to April 1997, and 3) from May 1998 to February 2001. I

employ impulse response function to a unit shock, forecast error variance

decomposition, and Granger causality to find out some empirical evidences.

Last, I state concluding remarks that although economic policy authorities operated

interest rate as the first policy instrument before the Asian monetary crisis, after it

money supply takes a place and at present we have to treat exchange rate as exogenous

because a large extent of forecast errors in money supply, interest rate, and prices is

originated from exchange rate.

Key Word: VAR, Impulse Response, Forecast Error

Variance Decomposition, Granger Causality, Exchange

Rate, Inflation, Money Supply, Asia and Indonesia

1

1. Introduction

In mid-1997, the monetary crisis in Asia was spread to Indonesia. Economic indicators,

especially exchange rate, prices, and those of monetary sector, fluctuated in a

skyrocket manner (see Chart 1). Some economic frameworks were also drastically

changed after the monetary crisis, e.g., Indonesia adopted floating foreign exchange

rate regime. During the monetary crisis, it appears that external shocks firstly

depreciated Indonesian Rupiah so much, then this depreciation inflated prices with

accommodating money supply, later the hike of prices and the currency depreciation

pulled up the interest rate, and finally, these high interest rates and prices depressed the

real economy in Indonesia together with consumers’ pessimistic future expectation 1.

I prepare this paper directly to answer this question, employing a vector autoregression

(VAR) model for impulse response functions, forecast error variance decomposition 2,

and the causality relationship between exchange rate, money supply, interest rate, and

prices in Indonesia and also mainly to contribute to improve relevant sector of existing

models developed at BAPPENAS-JICA-TSQ. This paper focuses primarily on the

monetary sector, exchange rate and prices. This is partly because of data availability.

After the monetary crisis, we cannot take so many observations that monthly data are

adopted in this paper. But regrettably, monthly GDP data is not available at present.

At BAPPENAS, a lot of Japanese long-term experts have been dispatched from Japan

according to Japanese technical cooperation scheme, which is operated by Japan

International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and working for economic modeling analysis

from 1980’s. Mainly, these economic models have been employed for economic

forecast for Indonesian national planning exercises. After the monetary crisis, it is an

urgent task to improve specification of monetary sector, exchange rate, and prices in

economic modeling.

This paper consists of five chapters, including this introduction. This chapter develops

main purpose of this paper and some discussion about a VAR model. The second

1

Here, I intentionally omitted that the real national income reduced because of the deterioration of terms of trade

caused by currency depreciation.

2

chapter identifies data. Main discussion points are data cut off date before the crisis,

seasonal adjustment, and a unit root problem. Chow test and Dickey-Fuller test are

employed. The third chapter specifies a VAR model. Here, Akaike Information

Criterion (AIC) and Schwarz-Bayese Information Criterion (SBIC) are employed and

also Kullback-Leibler Information (KLI) is referred briefly. The fourth chapter is the

main part of this paper and reveals relationship among exchange rate, money supply,

interest rate, and prices. Impulse response functions to unit shocks and forecast error

variance decomposition are employed in a VAR model. Also VAR model analysis

reveals Granger causality among these four variables 3. At the final chapter, some

concluding remarks are stated briefly. For these analyses in this paper, Excel, TSP and

EViews 4 are employed as generic software for economic modeling. Sample programs

and relevant data are available as both a printed technical appendix and a zipped file 5.

simultaneous linear equations model. A VAR model approach never assumes any

structural economic model a priori. In a VAR model, it expresses a vector of

endogenous variables as linear functions of their own and each other’s lagged values. It

is theoretically possible to include contemporaneous value and/or lagged exogenous

variables but I exclude them for analysis in this paper. This style of simultaneous

equation modeling was introduced into econometrics by Sims (1980) and is now

widely employed for small- to medium-sized macroeconometric models, partially for

forecasting. VAR models are easily handled because the equations can be estimated by

the ordinary least square method. They are also employed, equally to usual regressive

analysis, for a comprehensive estimation of impact strength from a variable to another

and for explaining abilities among each other. And constrained VAR models are

adopted for Granger causality analysis. In this paper, VAR models are employed for the

estimation of impact strength with impulse response functions, for calculation of

explanatory degree of influence among variables on forecast errors with forecast error

variance decomposition, and for Granger causality analysis with constrained

estimations.

2

Impulse responses and forecast error variance decompositions are called innovation accounting.

3

Yoshioka (1998) and Yoshioka (1999) analyze Granger causality among relevant variables in those papers so that

I revisited this theme.

4

Excel is the trademark of Microsoft Corp., TSP is that of TSP International, and EViews is that of Quantitative

Study Method. I employ Excel 2000, TEP 4.5, and EViews 3.1 (V4.0 is not arrived to me) under operation system of

Windows 2000 Professional.

5

Please take contact with the author at yoshioka@link.net.id.

3

Here, a simple example of a VAR model that consists of two endogenous variables

with one-term lag and an exogenous constant term is shown below. Following equation

system is obtained when the first variable x1,t depends on contemporaneous value of

the second variable x2,t and previous (one-term lagged) value of its own and the second

variable x2,t depends on contemporaneous value of the first variable x1,t and previous

(one-term lagged) value of its own in the same manner. It is, off course, possible to

introduce other variables and expand lag terms.

(EQ1.1) x1,t=α10+α11x2,t+α12x1,t-1+e1,t

(EQ1.2) x2,t=α20+α21x1,t+α22x2,t-1+e2,t

The following VAR model system of (EQ1.3) and (EQ1.4) will be obtained,

substituting x1,t at (EQ1.1) to right hand of (EQ1.2) and contrariwise, x2,t at (EQ1.2) to

right hand of (EQ1.1).

(EQ1.3) x1,t=π10+π11x1,t-1+π12x2,t-1+ε1,t

(EQ1.4) x2,t=π20+π21x1,t-1+π22x2,t-1+ε2,t

where: π10=(α10+α11α20)/(1-α11α21)

π11=α12/(1-α11α21)

π12=α11α22/(1-α11α21)

ε1,t=e1,t/(1-α11α21)

π20=(α20+α21α10)/(1-α11α21)

π21=α22/(1-α11α21)

π22=α21α22/(1-α11α21)

ε2,t=e2,t/(1-α11α21)

Since a VAR model system is derived above transformation, it is called a reduced form.

Here, we have to pay a deep attention that a VAR model system would be apparently

instable when (1-α11α21) is equal to zero or (α11α21) is equal to one at a statistic

significance level. And also, a VAR process must be assumed in a stationary series. We

thus have to employ Dickey-Fuller test at the first chapter to avoid this problem.

In this paper, a VAR model system contains four variables, such as exchange rate,

money supply, interest rate, and prices, and is expressed as below:

4

(EQ1.6) Mt = (C) + Σβ1iEt-i+ Σβ2iMt-i + Σβ3iRt-i + Σβ4iPt-i

(EQ1.7) Rt = (C) + Σγ1iEt-i + Σγ2iMt-i+ Σγ3iRt-i + Σγ4iPt-i

(EQ1.8) Pt = (C) + Σδ1iEt-i + Σδ2iMt-i + Σδ3iRt-i + Σδ4iPt-i

where: E exchange rate

M money supply

R interest rate

P prices

(C) constant term 6

i lag term (=1, 2, ……, n)

α,β,γ,δ estimated parameters

6

It cannot be decided a priori to include or exclude constant terms. They are thus expressed with parenthesis.

5

INDEX (1997 Apr. = 100)

1,000

200

400

600

800

0

Apr-90

Jul-90

Oct-90

Jan-91

Apr-91

Jul-91

Oct-91

Jan-92

Apr-92

Interest Rate

Exchange Rate

Jul-92

Oct-92

Jan-93

Apr-93

Jul-93

Oct-93

Jan-94

Apr-94

6

Jul-94

Oct-94

Jan-95

Chart 1

Apr-95

Jul-95

Oct-95

Jan-96

Apr-96

Jul-96

Oct-96

Jan-97

Apr-97

Jul-97

Oct-97

Jan-98

Apr-98

Jul-98

Oct-98

Jan-99

Apr-99

Money Supply (M1)

Jul-99

Oct-99

Jan-00

Consumer Price Index

Apr-00

Jul-00

Oct-00

Jan-01

2. Data Identification

We can obtain some relevant data from Bank Indonesia (2000) for the analysis in this

paper. Exchange rate 7 over US Dollar, money supply of M1, interest rates of Bank

Indonesia Certificate for one month (SBI in Indonesian), and prices of consumer price

index are employed. Among them, CPI could not be obtained a single consistent series.

There are data available until March 1998 on a basis of index 1989 = 100, and after

April 1997, index 1996 = 100 series. It is required to combine these two CPI series into

a consistent series, which was completed with Excel VBA Macro program. After this

modification of CPI data, all of relevant data are available from April 1990 to February

2001.

The Asian monetary crisis began in mid-1997. This was spread to Indonesian economy

with some lags after its origin. Since we can obtain observations of only approximate

three years for examining some empirical analysis after the crisis, we have to employ

monthly data that are seasonally adjusted, instead of introducing seasonal dummy,

which means that we lose observations for approximate one year. For data

identification, we have to decide the data cut off date, which represents reliable data

length reflecting the rather stable Indonesian economy before the monetary crisis. It is

required for both data identification and VAR model system specification.

Here, we employ Chow test for answering the question until when the Indonesian

economy appeared stable. Chow test is employed for the stability of individual data in

this paper although usually regarded as a special form of F-test that checks the stability

of regression coefficients over two or more subsamples of the data. This is normally

completed for the whole sample period, and then running the same regression for

subsamples, and finally, comparing the sums of squared residuals (SSRs). The

regression for subsamples are expressed as followings when total observation number

is T and they are divided into T1 and T2 = T - T1, which means that until the T1th period

estimated coefficients are stable. The equation (EQ2.1) shows estimation for whole

sample period, (EQ2.2) does for subsample period until T1 - 1, and (EQ2.3) does for

subsample period after T1:

7

Before the monetary crisis, Indonesian exchange rate is strongly restricted. When estimating its movement, we

might not obtain market behavior but economic policy authorities’ behavior. But, even though it is, it might make

7

(EQ2.1) y = const0 + α01x1 + α02x2 + …… + α0kxk + ε0

:t = T

: t < T1

: t ≧ T1

The first suffix of α indicates dataset number and the second does variable number.

We have to test following hypothesis for parameters stability:

(H2.1) const1 = const2, α11 =α21, α12 =α22, ……, α1k =α2k

SSR1 + SSR2

(EQ2.4) Chow =

T − 2k

k

where: SSRT sums of squared residuals for whole sample period

SSR1 sums of squared residuals until T1 - 1 period

SSR2 sums of squared residuals after T1 period

T number of observations

k number of parameters ( i.e., independent variables)

This F-statistic Chow is subject to F(k, T-2k). Table 1 and Chart 2 report results of

Chow test employing simple time trends regression.

A deep attention has to be paid that since the Indonesian economy experienced a

drastic fluctuation after the Asian monetary crisis, which is reported at Chart 1, almost

every Chow test result indicates statistical significance. At Table 1 and Chart 2, all

F-statistics are significant at 1 percent level. Among them, we have to pick up the

highest F-statistics. We can then observe some different cut off date from the results.

For exchange rate, the data until December 1997 appear stable, for money supply until

November, and for both interest rate and prices, until March 1998. Among these

candidates of cut off dates, I employ December 1998. This is mainly because it appears

the representative of average for these data, and partly because December is a good

8

timing to cut off.

9

Table 1 Results of Chow Test

Unit: F-Statistics

Exchange Money Interest Rate Prices

Rate Supply

1996 Dec. / 1997 Jan. 46.6372 355.697 11.7168 197.847

1997 Jan. / 1997 Feb. 48.7111 347.293 13.4818 198.133

1997 Feb. / 1997 Mar. 51.4749 341.205 15.6991 198.768

1997 Mar. / 1997 Apr. 55.1586 338.792 18.5799 200.369

1997 Apr. / 1997 May 60.1054 336.614 22.2594 202.913

1997 May / 1997 Jun. 66.8747 335.791 26.9415 207.274

1997 Jun. / 1997 Jul. 76.3383 326.485 33.0486 214.605

1997 Jul. / 1997 Aug. 89.0614 322.270 40.9522 225.584

1997 Aug. / 1997 Sep. 104.171 335.149 49.7026 241.914

1997 Sep. / 1997 Oct. 124.456 354.081 54.3941 266.385

1997 Oct. / 1997 Nov. 150.31 381.990 61.6963 303.779

1997 Nov. / 1997 Dec. 195.000 413.838 72.2216 367.639

1997 Dec. / 1998 Jan. 238.430 399.469 86.8363 484.963

1998 Jan. / 1998 Feb. 133.449 310.195 108.199 659.615

1998 Feb. / 1998 Mar. 101.581 256.656 135.949 746.794

1998 Mar. / 1998 Apr. 83.8169 206.604 158.342 779.945

1998 Apr. / 1998 May 73.3011 178.830 125.543 745.717

1998 May / 1998 Jun. 51.6037 147.024 83.8410 635.281

1998 Jun. / 1998 Jul. 25.6385 120.714 59.1489 503.432

1998 Jul. / 1998 Aug. 14.8968 105.564 36.2200 341.020

1998 Aug. / 1998 Sep. 9.95855 95.1821 23.0556 225.749

1998 Sep. / 1998 Oct. 6.76604 88.1189 15.6361 155.442

1998 Oct. / 1998 Nov. 6.10396 83.5492 12.3509 116.562

1998 Nov./1998 Dec. 5.66572 79.3016 11.1286 91.6224

Source: Author’s Estimation

10

F Statistics F Statistics

19 19

96 96

(1) Exchange Rate

19 De 19 De

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

50

100

150

200

97 c. 97 c. 250

19 Fe 19 Fe

97 b. 97 b.

19 19

Chart 2 Results of Chow Test

Ap Ap

97 r. 97 r.

19 Ju 19 Ju

97 n. 97 n.

19 Au 19 Au

97 g. 97 g.

19 Oc 19 Oc

97

11

t. 97 t.

19 De 19 De

98 c. 98 c.

19 Fe 19 Fe

98 b. 98 b.

19 Ap 19 Ap

98 r. 98 r.

19 Ju 19 Ju

98 n. 98 n.

19 Au 19 Au

98 g. 98 g.

Oc Oc

t. t.

F Statistics F Statistics

(4) Prices

19 19

(3) Interest Rate

96 96

19 De 19 De

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

97 c. 97 c.

19 Fe 19 Fe

97 b. 97 b.

19 Ap 19 Ap

97 r. 97 r.

19 Ju 19 Ju

97 n. 97 n.

19 Au 19 Au

97 g. 97 g.

19 Oc 19 Oc

97 97

12

t. t.

19 De 19 De

98 c. 98 c.

19 Fe 19 Fe

98 b. 98 b.

19 Ap 19 Ap

98 r. 98 r.

19 Ju 19 Ju

98 n. 98 n.

19 Au 19 Au

98 g. 98 g.

Oc Oc

t. t.

After deciding the cut of date, a seasonal adjustment has to be introduced not to lose

observations. Here, X-11 system of US Census Bureau is employed. This program is

implemented in EViews. Although X-12-ARIMA system is already provided at FTP

site of the entity, it is not applicable so far. According to the cut off date, X-11 runs for

seasonal adjust for data from April 1990 to December 1997. Seasonal adjusting

coefficients in 1997 are adopted for the rest of data, such as years 1998, 1999, 2000,

and 2001.

Now all of relevant data are available for the analysis in this paper.

It is well known that the data with time trend contains a unit root. In this paper, I

employ exchange rate, money supply, interest rate, and prices. These variables except

interest rate usually seem to have an upward time trend in Indonesia. Although in some

developed countries, exchange rate appears rather stable with some possible

fluctuation, Indonesian exchange rate apparently includes some strong upward time

trends. According to discussion at the first chapter, we have to avoid the risk of unit

root when analyzing a VAR model. For this purpose, Dickey-Fuller test is employed.

(EQ2.6) ut = γut-1 + εt

Here, εt is the stational covariant process with zero average. This model of (EQ2.5)

and (EQ2.6) is reduced to following one:

where: δ = α(1 - γ) + βγ

θ = β(1 - γ)

When γ = 1, e.g., θ = 0, then this model contains a unit root. The null hypothesis

should be then following:

(H2.2) γ = 1 (or θ = 0)

13

Dickey-Fuller test is based on testing the above hypothesis whileεt is assumed to be a

white noise error. We obtain following three statistic values:

π −1

(EQ2.9) t (1) =

SE (π )

(EQ2.10) F(0,1)

and F(0,1) is normal F-statistics to test the combined hypothesis ofγ = 1 and θ = 0.

It is already revealed that these are not subject to the standard normal distribution, the t

distribution or the F distribution. Collected distribution table are thus provided in

Fuller (1976) and Dickey-Fuller (1980).

Based on this Dickey-Fuller test, Table 2 reports the results of four series, which are

the original seasonal adjusted, the logarithmic, the first differential, and the first order

differential logarithmic series. Sims (1980) recommends to employ (1 - 0.75log(xt))2 =

1 - 1.5log(xt) + 0.5625log(xt-1) because empirically, it could be obtained appropriate

series for his analysis. But apparently, what kind of transformation should be employed

depends on various economic situations and the purpose of analysis. Here, I pick up

some more common series reported above Table 2.

Unit: Probability for Lower Tail Area

Exchange Money Interest Prices

Rate Supply Rate

Original Seasonal Adjusted Series 1.0000 .92822 .93947 .99636

Logarithmic Series 1.0000 .10127 .96061 .29166

First Order Differential Series .02224 .00000 .00000 .00001

First Order Differential Logarithmic Series .00842 .00000 .00000 .00000

Source: Author’s Estimation

The figures at Table 2 indicate risk for rejecting the null hypothesis (H2.2), which is

called lower tail area probability. Thus, the more this figure is, the more risk exists. For

both original seasonal adjusted and logarithmic series, all of variables appear to

contain unit roots. They are not appropriate for a VAR model. For the first differential

series of exchange rate, the null hypothesis (H2.2) cannot be rejected at 1 percent

significance while the first differential logarithmic series is able to reject it. It thus

14

appears that we have to employ the first differential logarithmic series for the VAR

model analysis.

15

3. Vector Autoregression (VAR) Model Specification

Since we already discussed at the chapter 1, it is required to decide how long the lag

length is and whether a constant term is included. Usually, for evaluating regression

results, many economists employ the coefficient of determination (R-square) or the

coefficient of determination adjusted for degree of freedom (Adjusted R-square). On

the other hand, it is well known that these statistic values do not indicate enough

penalties for increasing dependent variables. Employing a VAR model, increasing

dependent variables is equal to lengthen lag term. We thus employ another evaluating

standard.

econometrics by Akaike (1971) and Akaike (1973), based on likelihood ratio test 8, and

widely accepted as a generic criterion for a model specification. It is formulated as

following 9:

where: LML log of maximum likelihood

k number of parameters in a model

At the same time, Schwarz Bayse Information Criterion (SBIC) is also widely utilized

for a model specification, which is based on an ex post facto probability of Baysian

statistics. It is formulated as following:

where: LML log of maximum likelihood

k number of parameters in a model

n number of observations

8

Appendix for Chapter 3 develops a brief discussion about most likelihood method.

9

In some textbooks of econometrics like Maddala (1992), the formulation of AIC is calculated, normalized with

number of observations and expressed as

− 2 LML 2k

AIC = +

n n

And also according to Hall and Cummins (1999), TSP Version 4.4 or earlier was also calculating it normalized with

number of observations equal to Maddala’s formulation. But TSP 4.5 now calculates with (EQ3.1). But practically,

these two formulations of AIC differ only at the constant term and they do not have any difference or inconsistency

for the model specification.

16

I introduced two criteria but AIC is more widely accepted and applicable for all models

that can be estimated by the most likelihood method. And AIC appears more generic

than SBIC does. Since AIC indicates the gap between the most desirable model and the

actually tested model, the smaller AIC is, the better the actually tested model is. The

model with the smallest AIC should be specified.

Table 3 reports AIC and SBIC. According to AIC, a VAR model with a constant term

and four-lag terms shows the best statistics to be employed, and according to SBIC, a

model with two-lag terms does. Although I estimated SBIC, here, we should specify a

VAR model according to AIC. This is because AIC is consistent with a basic

econometric theory and Kullback-Laibler Information (KLI).

Unit: none

Lag Term in VAR Model Constant Term Included Constant Term Excluded

AIC SBIC AIC SBIC

1 -815.871 -791.328 -796.827 -796.827

2 -865.474 -821.296 -853.675 -814.406

3 -866.528 -802.715 -857.380 -798.476

4 -872.009 -788.561 -866.192 -787.653

5 -870.969 -767.886 -868.352 -770.178

6 -871.807 -749.090 -868.837 -751.028

Source: Author

of AIC. KLI indicates the gap between the true model and the actually tested model,

which is same as AIC. KLI is expressed as following:

where: E average (expectation value)

LML log of maximum likelihood

g true model

f actually tested model

17

Here, although g is unknown and, off course, impossible to be estimated, it depends

only on the true model and we can treat it as constant. To minimize KLI thus is equal

to maximize E [LML(g / f)]. When f is a model depends on some parameters as equal to

a multiple regression model and is included among them, it could be replaced by log of

maximum likelihood divided with number of observations, as follows:

(EQ3.4) h = LML(f) / n

where: n number of observations

following:

where: E average (expectation value)

k unknown number of parameters in a model

n number of observations

Apparently, we can obtain AIC as (EQ3.5) multiplied by -2n. AIC is thus consistent

with this KLI.

(Appendix to Chapter 3)

Maximum Likelihood Method

Both AIC and KLI are based on and employ the maximum likelihood method. It is well

known that the most likelihood estimator has some desirable features. It is an identical

estimator and its variance could be minimized, and a function substituted by the most

likelihood estimator is also regarded as the most likelihood estimator. But it is not a

necessarily an unbiased estimator.

following equation (EQ3.6) while maximum likelihood method solves its estimator

iteratively by (EQ3.7):

(EQ3.6) y = α0 + α2x + ε

(EQ3.7) y = β0 + β1x + β2(y-1 – β0– β1x-1) + ε

The maximum likelihood estimator and the ordinary least square estimator at the

18

estimation of regressive parameters are equal when following assumptions on an error

term are satisfied:

(EQ3.8) E(εt) = 0

Average is zero.

(EQ3.9) var(εt) = σ2

Homoschedasticity (i.e.,No heteroschedasticity).

(EQ3.10) E(εtεt-s) = 0 when s ≠ 0

No serial correlation.

(EQ3.11) E(εt (xt-E(xt))) = 0

No correlation with independent variables.

1 1

(EQ3.12) ε t ～f (ε t ) = exp(− 2 ε t )

2

2πσ 2σ

Subject to a normal distribution.

When parameters in a regressive equation are estimated by the most likelihood method,

we usually assume the equation (EQ3.6). But here, I change some expressions to avoid

possible confusion:

(EQ3.13) yt = α + βxt + εt

that “n” observations realize simultaneously, εt = yt – α – βxt (t = 1, 2, …, n) is

given by following likelihood function:

= f(ε1) f(ε2) …… f(εn)

1 1 n 2

=

( 2π ) n σ n

exp( − ∑εt )

2σ 2 t =1

(EQ3.14) on α and β as expressed below:

n n

∑ε = ∑ ( y t − α − βxt ) 2

2

(EQ3.15) t

t =1 t =1

Apparently, the estimator obtained by this methodology is totally equal to that by the

19

ordinary least square. But practically, since mostly maximum likelihood method will

be employed for avoiding a serial correlation problem at error terms, the assumption

(EQ3.10) is not usually satisfied.

20

4. VAR Model Estimation Results and Causality Analysis

At this chapter, I examine a VAR model estimation with variables of exchange rate,

money supply, interest rate, and prices and four-term lag and an exogenous constant

term: its general form is reported at the first chapter as (EQ1.5), (EQ1.6), (EQ1.7), and

(EQ1.8). Here, I employ three different estimation periods: 1) from September 1990 to

June 1993, 2) from July 1994 to April 1997, and 3) from May 1998 to February 2001.

This division of period is mainly because of data availability. First, I employ the last

period from May 1998 to February 2001 as a sample period of the post crisis and

second, pick up one from September 1990 to June as the earliest period from data

availability, and third, I do from July 1994 to April 1997 as an intermediate period of

these two. According to this division, I examine a VAR model analysis for an impulse

response function, forecast error variance decomposition, and Granger causality.

appear quite similar, it must be paid a deep attention that the former indicates a

repercussive response among endogenous variables when external shock is given to a

specific variable and the latter does degree of influence on forecast errors without any

external shocks in a forward looking manner. But practically, these two are dealt with

almost same so that one of these could be represent for the purpose of analysis while

this paper deals with both.

As known well, the simplest autoregression model without a constant term could be

expressed with a lag operator and its error terms as following:.

or

(EQ4.2) xt = (α1L + α2L2 + α3L3 + …… + αkLk)xt+ εt

or

(EQ4.3) (1 -α1L - α2L2 - α3L3 - …… - αkLk)xt =εt

or

1

(EQ4.4) xt = εt

1 − α 1 L − α 2 L − α 3 L3 − − α k Lk

2

21

Equally, this is adoptable to a VAR model, which is a special form of an autoregression

model. The transformation is following:

(EQ4.6) x2,t = α21x1,t-1 + α22x2,t-1 + ε2,t

(EQ4.5) and (EQ4.6) can be transformed to following matrix with lag operators:

1 − α 11 L − α 12 L x1,t ε 1,t

(EQ4.7) − α L 1 − α L x = ε

21 22 2 ,t 2 ,t

−1

x1,t 1 − α 11 L − α 12 L ε 1,t

(EQ4.8) =

x 2,t − α 21 L 1 − α 22 L ε 2,t

or

x1,t 1 1 − α 22 L α 12 L ε 1,t

=

1 − α 11 L ε 2,t

(EQ4.9)

x 2,t ∆ α 21 L

where: Δ = (1 - α11L)(1 - α22L) -α12Lα21L

= 1 - (α11 + α22)L + (α11α22 -α12α21)L2

= (1 - λ1L)(1 - λ2L)

Apparently, x1,t and x2,t can be expressed with contemporaneous and lagged ε1,t and

ε 2,t. This is well-known as an impulse response function, which indicates the

influence to x1,t and x2,t from ε 1,t and ε 2,t when an external shock is given.

Employing a VAR model, it is easily calculated. Practically, an impulse response

function shows an influence degree from a certain variable to another variables. Table

4 and Chart 3 report this impulse response functions to unit shocks.

22

Table 4: Impulse response Functions to Unit Shocks

Unit: none

Shock to Exchange Rate (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 -0.58627 0.0044241 0.0047612 -0.16041

3 0.47463 -0.015077 0.0010552 0.10229

4 0.17516 -0.0057388 0.0043627 0.044106

5 -0.046310 -0.0098253 -0.0016707 0.018928

6 0.26210 0.013105 0.0023030 0.096813

Shock to Money Supply (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 2.06241 -0.81878 0.049550 -0.26877

3 -0.24370 0.25601 -0.10163 1.35146

4 -2.28712 -0.076267 -0.0074947 -1.12579

5 1.09781 0.19934 -0.016003 1.36733

6 1.45031 -0.34316 0.046323 -0.098361

Shock to Interest Rate (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000

2 -0.16319 0.61857 -0.32985 -1.12584

3 6.17952 -0.77940 -0.088310 1.10994

4 4.73275 -0.088593 0.14050 0.090154

5 -1.62044 0.32543 -0.072169 0.77332

6 2.06521 -0.31853 0.11822 1.79686

Shock to Prices (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000

2 -0.26335 -0.074366 0.022515 0.41818

3 -0.0092563 0.077698 -0.011610 0.21092

4 0.17148 -0.018787 -0.011541 -0.032163

5 -0.57423 -0.033221 0.023996 -0.13678

6 -0.0023009 0.040021 -0.0085167 -0.15506

Shock to Exchange Rate (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 0.34116 -0.067072 -0.051032 0.41647

3 0.19793 -0.0029164 -0.0039273 0.26352

4 0.22465 0.072340 0.0085398 0.41067

5 -0.42412 0.059407 0.0096852 0.32191

6 -0.21989 -0.055094 0.032313 -0.23403

Shock to Money Supply (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 -0.44025 -0.42981 0.16041 -1.17167

3 1.21838 -0.17366 -0.20541 1.96952

4 -0.73729 -0.31226 -0.17966 -0.99064

5 -0.50287 0.52918 0.12320 -0.44243

6 0.43301 -0.010243 0.17728 0.43856

23

Shock to Interest Rate (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000

2 1.07042 0.67037 0.91306 1.02305

3 -0.99434 0.42122 1.01087 1.81081

4 0.40995 0.73232 0.91085 0.41619

5 0.085369 0.80238 0.93236 1.23296

6 -0.074728 0.70349 0.76368 0.76715

Shock to Prices (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000

2 0.023565 -0.082434 -0.028884 0.047341

3 -0.095507 -0.022780 0.078851 -0.045127

4 0.12413 0.047967 0.11328 0.024636

5 0.0096101 0.059992 0.033726 0.068854

6 -0.069634 0.018492 0.035564 -0.083268

Shock to Exchange Rate (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 -0.15168 0.50000 0.36002 0.67243

3 -0.44810 1.65088 0.63711 -2.33912

4 -0.072834 0.17165 -0.077227 -3.46991

5 -0.050919 -0.49430 -0.10606 2.75987

6 -0.015000 -0.60996 0.046910 -0.097416

Shock to Money Supply (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 0.078032 -0.41857 0.21356 -0.95309

3 0.021370 0.057516 -0.016871 -0.12544

4 -0.14745 0.31253 -0.039454 -0.22428

5 0.010908 -0.036531 0.045121 0.61000

6 0.036636 -0.42364 -0.035045 -0.69386

Shock to Interest Rate (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000

2 0.22017 0.32545 0.78764 -2.57144

3 0.19007 0.60057 0.45054 2.59669

4 -0.12537 0.67219 0.54219 1.43706

5 -0.18478 0.77774 0.23558 -1.58299

6 -0.094573 0.25882 -0.094935 -2.98778

Shock to Prices (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000

2 0.039264 -0.030234 0.025353 0.43415

3 0.035276 0.099478 0.0013195 0.10609

4 -0.00030867 0.18530 0.036412 -0.28611

5 -0.012489 0.18911 0.064879 -0.10025

6 0.0014626 0.011037 0.064652 -0.084185

Source: Author’s Estimation

24

Chart 3. Impulse Responses

E to E M to E R to E P to E

7 7 7 7

6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

-1 -1 -1 -1

-2 -2 -2 -2

-3 -3 -3 -3

E to M M to M R to M P to M

1.5

1.5

1.5 1.5

1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.5

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0.5

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-1.0

-1.0 -1.0 -1.0

E to R M to R R to R P to R

1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

E to P M to P R to P P to P

2.0

2.0 2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5 1.5

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

-1.0

-1.5

25

Chart 3. Impulse Responses

E to E M to E R to E P to E

1.5 1.5 1.5

1.5

1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

E to M M to M R to M P to M

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

E to R M to R R to R P to R

1.25 1.25

1.25 1.25

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.50 0.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

E to P M to P R to P P to P

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

-1.5

26

Chart 3. Impulse Responses

E to E M to E R to E P to E

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

0.5

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

E to M M to M R to M P to M

2.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.5

1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

0.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

-1.0 -1.0

-1.0 -1.0

E to R M to R R to R P to R

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75

0.75 0.75

0.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

E to P M to P R to P P to P

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

-1 -1 -1 -1

-2 -2 -2 -2

-3 -3 -3 -3

-4 -4 -4

-4

27

From Table 4 and Chart3, we can point out some feature of relationship among these

four variables as following. But a deep attention has to be paid that the variables

employed here, except for prices, are observed at so strongly restricted markets that the

responses might not be those of markets but of policy authorities’ behavior and/or

response.

First, we can point out a strongly convergent tendency against own shocks. Own

shocks, e.g., exchange rate to exchange rate, money supply to money supply, interest

rate to interest rate, and prices to prices, are quickly absorbed in a few months except

the interest rate case at period from July 1994 to April 1997. But the only exceptional

case also shows rather convergent tendency and never does divergent one. In this

meaning, Indonesian economy is rather stable even after the monetary crisis.

Second, before the crisis, interest rate has a strong influence to another variables.

Especially, money supply seems to be managed in an accommodating manner against

interest rate. But, here, so-called price puzzle is observed, which is prices’ positive

reaction against interest or money supply shocks 10. Also this price puzzle is observed

against exchange rate after the crisis. This leading role of interest rate is anyway

switched to exchange rate after the crisis.

Third, we can observe different reflection of money supply, interest rate, and prices

against exchange rate shocks before and after the crisis. The results of the first two

periods, e.g., that from September 1990 to June 1993 and that from July 1994 to April

1997, reveal very little influences from exchange rate to another variables. On contrary,

after the crisis, exchange rate shocks have rather strong influences to another variables.

Fourth, concerning to money supply and prices, money supply’s influence power at the

previous two periods is also replaced by exchange rate after the crisis. Money supply

seems to be managed against interest rate in a accommodating manner before the crisis

while prices has very little influence to all variables.

model can be expressed with a lag operator and an error term. The forecasted value of

xt+n at forward nth term then can be expressed sum of forecasted value at tth term and a

10

This is also discussed at Christiano et al. (1998).

28

forecast error as following:

where: fxt(n) forecasted value of x at tth term

εt(n) forecast error

where: E average (expectation value)

Off course, εt(n) is assumed to be a white noise, so: E[εt(n)] = 0. And the variance

of an error term is expressed with coefficients of regression and variance of the first

order error term as following:

where: σ2 = var[εt(1)]

E average (expectation value)

forecast errors to a certain variable from another variables. Table 5 and Chart4 report

forecast error variance decomposition of the VAR model 11.

11

For his purpose, here, a shock of Choleski factorization is given to the VAR model, instead of a unit shock.

29

Table 5: Forecast Error Variance Decomposition

Unit: percent

Forecasting Exchange Rate (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 100.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 84.77247 1.41285 0.026196 13.78849

3 78.37531 4.84297 0.48290 16.29882

4 76.88759 5.22246 1.17447 16.71548

5 75.98343 6.24914 1.17404 16.59340

6 72.69166 6.59694 1.68859 19.02281

Forecasting Money Supply (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 5.52443 94.47557 0.00000 0.00000

2 3.55299 96.07905 0.18349 0.18447

3 3.32652 91.68405 0.47106 4.51837

4 4.08085 88.00045 0.69199 7.22671

5 4.09276 84.27489 0.76363 10.86872

6 3.87557 84.93975 0.89085 10.29384

Forecasting Interest Rate (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 7.25892 0.17091 92.57016 0.00000

2 8.70630 13.87346 75.56080 1.85944

3 8.54881 28.93309 59.63032 2.88778

4 10.17653 28.20545 58.81152 2.80649

5 9.94633 29.49281 57.18677 3.37408

6 9.21871 30.37896 54.07730 6.32503

Forecasting Prices (Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 4.86692 2.81706 5.16067 87.15535

2 9.52478 12.70025 7.39038 70.38459

3 8.89110 17.56186 6.79281 66.75423

4 9.04822 17.77749 7.11232 66.06198

5 11.85301 17.54168 7.52542 63.07989

6 11.80441 19.06002 7.63695 61.49862

Forecasting Exchange Rate (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 100.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 87.07125 1.86068 2.59641 8.47166

3 84.67596 1.75663 2.46049 11.10692

4 76.77520 4.47262 2.18642 16.56575

5 75.29937 5.35385 1.87365 17.47314

6 71.81486 7.78195 2.40805 17.99514

Forecasting Money Supply (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 4.38334 95.61666 0.00000 0.00000

2 3.44408 89.25529 2.00179 5.29884

3 11.87854 68.53844 4.11716 15.46587

4 12.28308 65.48820 5.25707 16.97166

5 13.59172 66.09088 5.21518 15.10222

6 13.95566 64.64544 6.30359 15.09531

30

Forecasting Interest Rate (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.010264 22.21627 77.77347 0.00000

2 1.63936 14.22518 81.53359 2.60187

3 4.36881 9.48391 79.37600 6.77129

4 3.49900 8.97447 81.90584 5.62068

5 3.10338 8.90160 81.90204 6.09298

6 3.13095 9.27283 81.68202 5.91420

Forecasting Prices (Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 0.34940 0.28919 0.11011 99.25130

2 1.32403 7.84096 1.47475 89.36026

3 1.81961 12.35879 9.81250 76.00910

4 2.39347 10.58248 22.96475 64.05930

5 2.39580 12.15143 23.37191 62.08086

6 3.01283 11.84695 24.20269 60.93753

Forecasting Exchange Rate (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 100.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2 93.10452 0.67524 6.02565 0.19460

3 77.95304 8.61459 11.31500 2.11738

4 72.64257 7.93903 13.51862 5.89977

5 70.54865 8.12640 13.25538 8.06957

6 69.05818 10.12923 12.95021 7.86237

Forecasting Money Supply (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 14.25448 85.74552 0.00000 0.00000

2 14.41089 77.14703 5.46855 2.97353

3 14.61639 76.76926 5.61280 3.00155

4 21.82766 70.02697 5.46938 2.67599

5 21.55459 67.75738 7.11351 3.57452

6 19.73288 68.10143 7.83910 4.32659

Forecasting Interest Rate (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 18.58113 6.38546 75.03342 0.00000

2 34.80912 4.37368 57.43683 3.38037

3 38.59166 4.19799 52.44563 4.76472

4 34.62133 4.44809 56.17429 4.75629

5 33.76116 5.93319 54.93195 5.37370

6 32.74067 5.73755 53.96414 7.55763

Forecasting Prices (Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001)

Lag Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

1 2.15391 2.28718 30.56588 64.99303

2 21.73296 1.88059 29.55124 46.83521

3 32.61009 7.18169 23.29407 36.91415

4 31.64081 15.82915 19.80255 32.72748

5 29.83651 20.65059 22.18338 27.32952

6 29.42071 19.39004 25.90706 25.28219

Source: Author’s Estimation

31

32

33

34

From Table 5 and Chart4, we can point out some feature of relationship among these

four variables as following. Different from impulse response functions, analysis of

forecast error variance decomposition reveals degree of influence on forecast errors

directly derived from a VAR model without any external shocks. The forecasted

variable itself is thus the most influential.

First, we have to point out that exchange rate explains errors at another variables after

the crisis to a sizable degree, comparing with that at the first two periods. This result is

consistent with that derived from impulse response functions mentioned above. It may

imply that many variables might be misestimated if exchange rate is wrongly

forecasted. At the final concluding remarks, since I will revisit this point, at a

macroeconomic modeling framework, exchange rate must be treated as exogenous and

it is strongly recommended to examine some alternative simulations on different

assumptions of exchange rate, instead of endogenizing it.

Second, at the first two periods, exchange rate forecast error is under prices influence

to a sizable extent. This may suggest that the purchase power parity hypothesis is

dominant for Indonesian exchange rate. But at the third period, interest rate is powerful

for forecast error of exchange rate, comparing with the former two periods.

Third, also at the first two periods, prices have sizable explaining ability for money

supply. But, here, at the final period, interest rate also occupy the dominant position.

These two facts suggest that after the crisis, economic variables get more sensitive for

interest rate. In other words, importance of interest rate now gets more than before the

crisis.

Fourth, money supply error is under prices influence at the first two periods. Prices

error is also under money supply influence. These two variables influence with each

other. On contrary, prices error is always under money supply influence. This is

consistent with the traditional economic views. And prices are influenced by another

variables time by time.

as following:

35

(EQ4.14) xt=α0＋α1xt-1＋α2yt-1

(EQ4.15) yt=β0＋β1xt-1＋β2yt-1

(EQ4.16) xt=α0＋α1xt-1

(EQ4.17) yt=β0＋β2yt-1

Granger (1969) devises some tests for causality analysis. According to this, when β1

is zero, xt fails to cause yt. For testing this Granger causality, we have to estimates two

sets of VAR models. First, we have to estimate unconstraint (EQ4.14) and (EQ4.15)

and obtain sums of squared residual, SSR01 and SSR02, respectively. Second, we

estimate (EQ4.16), which is a constrained form that the parameter of yt-1 is assumed as

zero (α2 = 0) and obtain sum of squared residual, SSR11 and in an equal manner, we do

(EQ4.17), which is also a constrained form that the parameter of xt-1 is assumed as zero

(β1 = 0), and obtain sum of squared residual, SSR12. F statistics are calculated based

on following equations:

( SSR11 − SSR01 ) / p

(EQ4.18) 12 Fx _ y = ～F ( p, T − np − 1)

SSR01 /(T − np − 1)

( SSR12 − SSR02 ) / p

(EQ4.19) Fy _ x = ～F ( p, T − np − 1)

SSR02 /(T − np − 1)

where: p lag length of a VAR model

n variable number of a VAR model

T number of observations

SSR01 sum of squared residual of (EQ4.14)

SSR02 sum of squared residual of (EQ4.15)

SSR11 sum of squared residual of (EQ4.16)

SSR12 sum of squared residual of (EQ4.17)

There are also some critical views on Granger causality. Some economists, including

Leamer (1985), suggest to utilize the simple word “precede” instead of the complicated

word “Granger causality” since all that can be tested is whether a certain variable

precedes another, and that the time series causality, which is usually understood in the

economic fields, is not tested. However, since it has already been well established in

the econometric literature, we can adopt the concept of Granger causality with a deep

attention.

12

Here, since the VAR model discussed in this paper includes a constant term, freedom of degree of F statistics are

subject to F(p, T-np-1). When a VAR model excluded a constant term, it should be F(p, T-np).

36

Table 6: Results of Granger Causality Analysis

Unit: Probability

Estimation Period: Sep. 1990 – Jun. 1993

From Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

To

Exchange Rate N.A. 0.74203 0.07230 0.34857

Money Supply 0.28220 N.A. 0.04503 0.09151

Interest Rate 0.68492 0.50230 N.A. 0.46370

Prices 0.04969 0.47700 0.14770 N.A.

Estimation Period: Jul. 1994 – Apr. 1997

From Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

To

Exchange Rate N.A. 0.40843 0.03358 0.87284

Money Supply 0.14805 N.A. 0.09305 0.53811

Interest Rate 0.23768 0.46541 N.A. 0.00565

Prices 0.09450 0.12105 0.12755 N.A.

Estimation Period: May 1998 – Feb. 2001

from Exchange Rate Money Supply Interest Rate Prices

To

Exchange Rate N.A. 0.13540 0.03958 0.22760

Money Supply 0.17040 N.A. 0.94629 0.20455

Interest Rate 0.03556 0.01619 N.A. 0.41100

Prices 0.80872 0.25285 0.04416 N.A.

Source: Author’s Estimation

Table 6 reports the results of Granger causality analysis employing the VAR model.

Table 5 reveals some very interesting features. At the estimation period of September

1990 to June 1993, interest rate appears to precede other tree variables. But exchange

rate precedes prices with more probability than exchange rate does. Money supply thus

is managed in an accommodated manner. Interest rate appears the first-hand

operational object of economic policy authorities at this period. At the estimation

period from July 1994 to April 1997, we can observe almost the same causality

relationship as the previous period but prices precedes interest rate with more statistical

significance. This may be result that interest rate operation by economic policy

authorities falls behind a gradual inflation. In general, the causality analysis of these

first two periods seems quite similar. On contrary, after the Asian monetary crisis,

money supply precedes interest rate although managed in an accommodated manner at

the first two periods. Economic policy authorities might have switched the first-hand

operational object from interest rate to money supply. And interest rate precedes both

exchange rate and prices. Exchange rate also precedes interest rate. This causality

37

relationship between exchange rate and interest rate is rather difficult to be understood.

38

5. Conclusion

For concluding remarks, I mainly pick up some points of monetary and economic

policy authorities’ behavior from causality analysis, those of explanatory powers from

analysis of forecast error variance decomposition, and those of impact diffusion from

analysis of impulse response functions.

As is stressed before, since the variables employed here, except for prices, are

observed at very strongly restricted markets, the relationship among them might not be

results of markets but of economic policy authorities’ behavior and/or response, such

as the government and/or the central bank.

Relating to monetary and economic policy authorities’ behavior, the first two periods,

such as that from September 1990 to June 1993 and that from July 1994 to April 1997,

are quite similar. Interest rate appears the main first-hand operational object variable of

authorities. The operation of interest rate then influences other variables. Among them,

money supply is subject to an accommodated manner. On contrary, after the crisis,

shocks on exchange rate have a sizable impact on another variables, especially money

supply and interest rate. This might be consistent with some phenomena observed in

Indonesia. At present, exchange rate is one of the most important factors.

But after the monetary crisis, the analysis of Granger causality reveals that money

supply gets the position of the first-hand operational object to another variables to

sizable extent. It might have some relations with the liberalization of money and

financial markets because this is a normal diffusion route in developed countries. Both

exchange rate and interest rate are operated by money supply and diffuse prices,

containing a strong repercussion with each other. But since the data employed here

fluctuate so much in this period, it is very difficult to find out clear direction of

diffusion. On the other hand, since forecast errors of interest rate and prices are

explained by exchange rate to a large extent, authorities’ switched operations based on

money supply after the monetary crisis are not so successful. This may be a natural

outcome of economic turmoil in Indonesia but authorities behavior changed to a rather

normal direction compared with other developed countries, which should be continued.

39

5.2 Implications to Economic Modeling

Apparently, the results of analysis supports that before the crisis, money supply should

be formulated as a function of interest rate and after the crisis, contrarily, interest rate

should be formulated as a function of money supply in a model while, off course, there

seems that a strong repercussion exists. And it could be stated that before and after the

crisis, the lag pattern is totally changes. According to the analysis of impulse response

function, money supply, which is the first-hand operational object variable of

authorities’ policy very quickly diffuse other variables, such as exchange rate, interest

rate, and prices, since shocks to money supply are quickly absorbed by itself.

For the purpose of forecasting economy employing a model, after the monetary crisis,

a sizable extent of errors in money supply, interest rate, and prices is originated from

fluctuations of exchange rate, compared with preceding periods, so that at present it is

recommended to treat exchange rate as exogenous. And alternative simulations based

on various exchange rate assumptions must be examined. Also prices are now

fluctuating as if residuals of other variables almost equal to money supply at the

preceding two periods before the crisis, which is resulted from analysis of forecast

error variance decomposition, so that we must pay a deep attention when estimating

prices equations.

40

(References)

Applications of Statistics, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1971

Likelihood Principle,” in B. N. Petrov and F. Csaki (eds.), 2nd International

Symposium on Information Theory, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp.267-281

Equation in a Complete System of Stochastic Equations,” Annals of

Mathematical Statistics 20(1), 1949, pp.46-63

Indonesia) Bank Indonesia, 2000 and each year

Chow, G. C. (1960), “Tests for Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear

Regressions,” ECONOMETRICA 28(3), July 1960, pp.591-605

“Monetary Policy Shocks: What Have We Learned and to What End,” NBER

Working Paper No. 6400, 1998

Cross-Spectral Methods,” ECONOMETRICA 37(3), August1969, pp.424-38

Hall, Bronwyn H. and Cummins, Clint (1999), “User’s Guide for TSP Version 4.5,”

TSP International, 1999

and A. Meltzer (eds.) Understanding Monetary Regimes (supplement to the

Journal of Monetary Economics), 1985, pp.255-304

41

Shiskin, J. (1967), “The X-11 Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal Adjustment

Program,” Technical Paper No.15, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1967

Review 62(4), September 1972, pp.540-52

1980, pp.1-48

Yoshioka, Shinji, (1998), “ODA and Asian FDI Inflow -Empirical Analysis in Selected

Southeast Asian Countries-,” Papers and Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Foreign Direct Investment in East Asia Vol.1, October 1998,

Economic Planning Agency

Yoshioka, S., (1999), “Relationship among Unemployment Rate, Wage, GDP, and

Private Consumption in the United States and Japan,” (Nichibei niokeru

Shitsugyoritsu, Chingin, GDP, oyobi Kojinshohi no Kankei), Journal of

Research on Social and Economic Life (Kokumin Seikatsu Kenkyu) Vol.38,

No.2, September 1999 (in Japanese)

42

- Aqm 2008 Lecture RandomUploaded byarthur42
- OXPGIVEUploaded bynmhiri
- doc 8991 Forecasting EnUploaded byMohamed Abodabash
- Climate ChangeUploaded byJaime AC
- Taxonomy of Comm Fact in PstherUploaded byJulia Linzenbold
- Bayesian analysis of shape parameter of Lomax distribution using different loss functionsUploaded byPremier Publishers
- How to Estimate Long-run Relationships in EconomicsUploaded byrunawayyy
- A First Course in Mathematical Statistics - NusbaumUploaded byAnonymous hV7iivn
- cross entropyUploaded byjuan.vesa
- Example Likelihood-Newton-RaphsonUploaded byEdgar Mauricio Loza Ramírez
- 2012_leyes de ProbabilidadhyfranUploaded byelosoandino
- ocean acousticsUploaded byNaim Nesaragi
- Notes 1Uploaded bySandeep Singh
- Session 5. Confidence Interval of the Mean When SD is Known (18-22)Uploaded byRoldan Soriano Cardona
- What Does the PDF Test MeanUploaded bytantan_7549802
- Gumbel DistributionUploaded byMisty Bell
- Plausible Values for Latent Variables UsingUploaded byfranckiko2
- 033 Lumantarna Et AlUploaded byKuber Bogati
- ams206-class2Uploaded bybetho1992
- HowToUseAMOS5Uploaded bybrij_jesh
- Pert 10 Uji Arima Untuk Metode Arch GarchUploaded byaris
- Chap 11_nonlinear Time Series Models_himadriUploaded byhelloapurba
- Main-report-of-IMC.pdfUploaded bySakhawat Hossain
- Some Chain–Type Estimators for Population Variance in Two Phase SamplingUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Chap 4Uploaded byAmsalu Walelign
- ashley lopez final projectUploaded byapi-457977371
- SSRN-id1526387Uploaded byNguyễn Thành Luân
- A Comparative Study of Parametric of Mortality Projection ModelsUploaded byJorge Bravo
- 405Second2016Midterm With SolutionsUploaded byRussell Kim
- 02 Multiple RegressionUploaded byRhea Mirchandani

- PovertyUploaded byeviews
- ar2010eUploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0304Uploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0302Uploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0206Uploaded byeviews
- e_dis119aUploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0301Uploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0209Uploaded byeviews
- RandomUploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0202Uploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0208Uploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0109Uploaded byeviews
- AsiaUploaded byeviews
- TSQDP0106Uploaded byeviews
- swiUploaded byeviews
- RemitUploaded byeviews
- Dis 082Uploaded byeviews
- APEC_MAPA_EUploaded byeviews

- Knee Point Detection for Detecting Automatically the Number of Clusters During Clustering TechniquesUploaded byMarub Asub
- 10.1016@j.socscimed.2018.02.026Uploaded byThiagoSoares
- Genetic AlgorithmsUploaded byIrina Alexandra
- Threshold Inflation in PakistanUploaded byFarooq Arby
- chave-oecologia05.pdfUploaded byDwi Putra Apriyanto
- Semiparametric Model and Bayesian Analysis for Clustered Accelerated Life Testing DataUploaded bySEP-Publisher
- Multiple Regression.pptUploaded byGovindamal Thangiah
- Evidence From Csi Index Future and Hsi Index Finance EssayUploaded byHND Assignment Help
- Ma RssUploaded byroark47
- uiyioUploaded by53melmel
- MPRA Paper 71963Uploaded bySANCHIT TULI 1623642
- Final Report_Marius and ChaoyunUploaded byMarius-Mihail Mihai
- Predictive Benthic Habitat Suitability Model for the EstuaryUploaded byMeMed Boulala
- Settlement Prediction of Shallow Foundations on Granular Soils Using B-spline Neurofuzzy ModelsUploaded byEdwin Cornejo
- pst_gospodinov-rotondiUploaded byDragomir Gospodinov
- Salman HameedUploaded bysalman
- Org Transformation- What Matters Most is the Leader's ActionsUploaded byThomas Ooi Wei Min
- Clustering.pdfUploaded byMarius_2010
- Logistic NotesUploaded byHimesh Anand
- tmpEEF7Uploaded byFrontiers
- Analisis GofUploaded byKang Edi Riadi
- Arouri, M. E. H., & Nguyen, D. K. (2010). Oil Prices, Stock Markets and Portfolio Investment Evidence From Sector Analysis in Europe Over the Last Decade. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4528-4539.Uploaded bylcr89
- Mixed Models - General.pdfUploaded byscjofyWFawlroa2r06YFVabfbaj
- Robust Determinants Ipo Underpricing and Their Implications for Ipo ResearchUploaded byArfian Triputra Anugrawinata
- Detecting trend and seasonal changes in satellite image time seriesUploaded byM s
- The Multidimensional Work Motivation ScaleUploaded byUnsaSabrinaHarjanto
- Water_Resources_in_a_Variable_and_Changing_Climate (Recovered).pdfUploaded byGeorge Laimeheriwa
- Modelling the interaction between stocks and interest ratesUploaded byktrinh78
- Supply ChainUploaded byarriva
- Heritability of borderline personality disorder features is similar across three countriesUploaded byElaspiri