臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

The study on the money demand stability has occupied the field of monetary economics for decades. We re-investigate it in order to understand money demand function under influence of structural changes. Previous studies which have neglected structural changes may have distorted results; that is the reason which motivates this research. To do what previous studies have failed, in this paper, we re-examine the money demand stability of four ASEAN countries (hereafter ASEAN-4) for the period from 1970Q1 to 2004Q4; those are Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore, respectively. Conclusions drawn from the empirical findings suggest that in implementing monetary policy, monetary authorities may have to also consider structural change on money demand function. Therefore, this study may serve as a guideline for monetary authority of ASEAN-4 countries to conduct monetary policy more effectively. Our money determinants inclusion which differs with Chaisrisawatsuk et. al. (2004) and Dekle and Pradhan (1999) as they did not consider structural change in unit root tests, therefore their empirical results might be biased. Evidences show that breakpoints of most series are happened on the aggression of Asian financial crisis. Next, the sign and magnitude of each money determinants can be considered by the government of ASEAN-4 countries in choosing correct monetary instrument and determining the proper time and dosage of intervention, but it depends on the parameter stability of the cointegrating relationships. Furthermore, most of money demand functions are found to be not stable, and then there is harder for each government to set up the monetary policies towards money equilibrium, except for Singapore. Our instability results differ with Dekle and Pradhan (1999) which treated structural changes as known information by using dummy variable, because we regard the structural break events as unknown information to avoid subjectivity. Most of graphical results show that Asian financial crisis is the source of instability, and several cases can be referred to the changing of national leadership. At last, several outcomes of Gregory and Hansen (1996, hereafter GH) test contradicts with Johansen (1988) test results, due to the traditional cointegration test did not consider structural break into calculation. But without any confirmation from weak exogeneity test, we cannot assure whether cointegrating relationships are money demand functions or not. Most of breakpoints are outsourced from Asian financial crisis and located within the instable regime, consistent with the Hansen (1992) oscillatory results.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ……..…………………………………………………………………….… i
TABLE OF CONTENTS …….…..………………………………………………...……. iii
LIST OF FIGURES ……..……………………………………..………………………… v
LIST OF TABLES …....………………………………………..………………………… viii

CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………….……. 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND MODEL SPECIFICATION ……………...……… 6
3. DATA DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY ………………………………… 11
3.1. Data Description ………………………………………………………….…. 11
3.1.1. Indonesia ……….……………………………………..………..…… 11
3.1.2. Malaysia ……….………………………………………..………..…. 12
3.1.3. Singapore ……….………………………………….……………..… 12
3.1.4. Thailand ……………………………………………..………............ 13
3.2. Unit Root Test ………………………………………………………………. 13
3.2.1. Elliot, Rothenberg and Stock (1996) Unit Root Test ….……...….… 14
3.2.2. Ng and Perron (2001) Unit Root Test …..…………………….……. 15
3.2.3. Zivot and Andrews (1992) Unit Root Test …………..….….............. 16
3.2.4. Perron (1997) Unit Root Test ……………………………................. 16
3.3. Cointegration and Weak Exogeneity Test …………………….…………….. 18
3.3.1. Trace Test …………………………………………….………….…. 19
3.3.2. Maximum Eigenvalue Test …………………………………………. 19
3.3.3. Weak Exogeneity Test ………………………………..……………. 19
3.4. Parameter Stability and Structural Change Test ………………...................... 20
3.4.1. Hansen (1992) Parameter Stability Test ……………………............. 20
3.4.2. Gregory and Hansen (1996) Structural Break Test …...……............. 22
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS …………………………………………………………… 24
4.1. Indonesia …………………………………………………………………….. 24
4.1.1. Empirical Result from the Long Period (1971:1 – 2004:4) ………… 24
4.1.2. Empirical Result from the Shorter Period (1983:1 – 2004:4) ……… 26
4.1.3. Comparison between the Long and Shorter Period ………………… 28
4.2. Malaysia …………………………………………………………………….. 29
4.2.1. Empirical Result from the Long Period (1970:1 – 2004:4) ………… 30
4.2.2. Empirical Result from the Shorter Period (1980:1 – 2004:4) ……… 31
4.2.3. Comparison between the Long and Shorter Period ………………… 33
4.3. Singapore ……………………………………………………………………. 34
4.3.1. Empirical Result from the Long Period (1970:1 – 2004:4) ………… 35
4.3.2. Empirical Result from the Shorter Period (1980:1 – 2004:4) ……… 36
4.3.3. Comparison between the Long and Shorter Period ………………… 38
4.4. Thailand …………………………………………………………………….. 39
4.4.1. Empirical Result from the Long Period (1970:1 – 2004:4) ………… 40
4.4.2. Empirical Result from the Shorter Period (1980:1 – 2004:4) ……… 41
4.4.3. Comparison between the Long and Shorter Period ………………… 42
4.5. Comparisons between countries …………………………………………….. 43
5. CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………………………… 46

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 135

Books:

Beim, D.O., Calomiris, C.W., 2001. Emerging financial markets. McGraw Hill, New York.

Fuller, W.A., 1976. Introduction to statistical time series. Wiley, New York.

Stock, J.M., 1994. Unit roots, structural break and trends. In: Engle, R.F., McFadden, D. (Eds). Handbook of Econometrics, North Holland, 2738-2841.



Journal Articles:

Arize, A.C., 1994. A re-examination of the demand for money in small developing economies. Applied Economics 26, 217-228.

Chaisrisawatsuk, S., Sharma, S.C., Chowdhury, A.R., 2004. Money demand stability under currency substitution: some recent evidence. Applied Financial Economics 14, 19-27.

Cheung, Y.W., Lai, K.S., 1993. Finite sample sizes of Johansen’s likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistic 55 (3), 313-328.

Choudhry, T., 1996. Real stock prices and the long-run money demand function: evidence from Canada and USA. Journal of International Money and Finance 15, 1-17.

Chow, G.C., 1960. Tests of equality between subsets of coefficients in two linear regression models. Econometrica, 591-605.

Chowdhury, A.R., 1997. The financial structure and the demand for money in Thailand. Applied Economics, 29, 401-409.

Dekle, R., Pradhan, M., 1999. Financial liberalization and money demand in the ASEAN countries. International Journal of Finance and Economics 4, 205-215.

Dickey, D., Fuller, W.A., 1979. Distribution of the estimates for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 427-431.

Elliott G., Rothenberg, T.J., Stock, J.H., 1996. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64, 813-836.

Engle, R., Granger, C., 1987. Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 55, 257-276.

Engle, R., Yoo, B.S., 1987. Forecasting and testing in cointegrated systems. Journal of Econometrics 35, 143-159.

Ericsson, N.R., Sharma, S., 1998. Broad money demand and financial liberalization in Greece. Empirical Economics 23 (3), 417-436.

Friedman, M., 1956. The quantity theory of money: a restatement. In: Friedman, M. (Ed.). Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Friedman, M., 1988. Money and the stock market. Journal of Political Economy 96, 221-245.

Friedman, M., Schwartz, A.J., 1991. Alternative approaches to analyzing economic data. The American Economic Review 81(1), 39-49.

Gregory, A.W., Hansen, B.E., 1996. Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. Journal of Econometrics 70, 99-126.

Hansen, B.E., 1992. Test for parameter instability in regressions with I(1) process. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 10 (3), 321-335.

Hasza, D., Fuller, W., 1982. Testing for nonstationary parameter specifications in seasonal time series model. The Annals of Statistics 19, 1209-1216.

Johansen, S., 1988. Statistical analysis of cointegrating vector. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 12, 231-254.

Johansen, S., Juselius, K., 1990. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on integration – with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 52, 169-210.

Johansen, S., Juselius, K., 1992. Some structural hypotheses in a multivariate cointegration analysis of purchasing power parity and uncovered interest parity for the UK. Journal of Econometrics 53, 211-244.

Judd, J.P., Scadding, J.L., 1982. The search for a stable money demand function: a survey of the post-1973 literature. Journal of Economic Literature 20, 993-1023.

Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P., Schmidt, P., Shin, Y., 1992. Testing the null hypothesis of stationary against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics 54, 159-178.


Lee, C. C., Chang, C. P., 2005. Structural breaks, energy consumption, and economic growth revisited: evidence from Taiwan. Energy Economics 27 (6), 857-872.

MacKinnon, J.G., 1996. Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11, 601-618.

Melnick, R., 1995. Financial services, cointegration, and the demand for money in Israel. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 27, 321-350.

Ng, S., Perron, P., 2001. Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69, 1519-1554.

Osborn, D.R., 1990. A survey of seasonality in UK macroeconomic variables. International Journal of Forecasting 6, 327-336.

Oskooee, M.B., Techaratanachai, A., 2001. Currency substitution in Thailand. Journal of Policy Modelling 23, 141-145.

Osterwald-Lenum, M., 1992. A note with quntiles of the asymptotic distribution of the maximum likelihood cointegration rank test statistics. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 54 (3), 461-472.

Perron, P., 1989. The great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57, 1361-1401.

Perron, P., 1997. Further evidence on breaking trend functions in macroeconomic variables. Journal of Econometrics 80, 355-385.

Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., Smith, R.J., 2001. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics 16, 289-326.

Phillips, P., Perron, P., 1988. Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrica 75, 335-346.

Phillips, P.C.B., 1987. Time series regression with a unit root. Econometrica 55, 277-301.

Pradhan, B. K., Subramanian, A., 2003. On the stability of demand for money in a developing economy: some empirical issues. Journal of Development Economics 72, 335-351.

Price, S., 1994. The demand for Indonesian narrow money: long-run equilibrium, error correction and forward-looking behavior. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development 3, 147-163.

Salkever, D.S., 1976. The use of dummy variables to compute predictions, prediction errors and confidence intervals. Journal of Econometrics 4, 393-397.

Sriram, S.S., 2000. A survey of recent empirical money demand studies. IMF Staff Papers 47, 334-365.

Sriram, S.S., 2002. Determinants and stability of demand for M2 in Malaysia. Journal of Asian Economics 13, 337-356.

Tang, T.C., 2002. Demand for M3 and expenditure components in Malaysia: assessment from bounds testing approach. Applied Economics Letters 9, 721-725.

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 and Economic Statistics 10, 251-270.



Electronic Resources:

AREMOS economic-statistic data banks, CDROM version;
IFS, Intline, USFIND databanks.

ASEAN Statistical Yearbook, 2004.
http://www.aseansec.org/macroeconomic/aq_gdp25.htm

Global Financial Database, acquired through National Sun Yat Sen University. http://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.php3

International Financial Statistics Online.
http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/