1460
Views
149
Downloads |
A nexus between fiscal policy and inflation: a case study of Indonesia using SVAR model
Julie Ann Q. Basconcillo 
Article | Year: 2023 | Pages: 477 - 503 | Volume: 47 | Issue: 4 Received: March 22, 2023 | Accepted: September 27, 2023 | Published online: December 11, 2023
|
FULL ARTICLE
FIGURES & DATA
REFERENCES
CROSSMARK POLICY
METRICS
LICENCING
PDF
Source: Author’s calculation based on data from sources indicated in appendix table A1.
Note: The size of the shock is one unit or one percentage point. The solid line refers to the impulse response of the structural decomposition; dashed lines refer to the ± 2 standard error bands. Lag length is 2 across government spending components, except for social protection, where lag length is 3.
|
Variable
|
Definition
|
Source
|
|
Central
government expenditures (CG)
|
Central
government expenditures
|
Ministry
of Finance’s State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan
Belanja Negara or APBN)
|
|
Government
consumption (GC)
|
Central
government expenditures on employee compensation and use of goods and
services
|
|
Social
protection (SP)
|
Central
government spending on social benefits in the form of transfers of money,
goods or services
|
|
Subsidy
(SUB)
|
Central
government spending on energy and non-energy items
|
|
Exchange
rate (ER)
|
Bilateral
nominal rupiah per US$ exchange rate
|
Bank
Indonesia’s
Indonesian
Economic Financial Statistics (Statistik Ekonomi dan Keuangan Indonesia or
SEKI)
|
|
Debt-to-GDP
ratio (DEBT)
|
Ratio
of central government debt to nominal GDP
|
Indonesian
Public Sector Debt Statistics (Statistik Utang Sektor Publik Indonesia)
|
|
Output
gap (GAP)
|
Difference
between log of real GDP and log of potential GDP
|
Indonesian
Bureau of Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik or BPS)
|
|
IPI
gap
|
Difference
between log of the real and log of potential total production of large and
medium non-oil manufacturing establishments
|
|
Tax
(TAX)
|
Ratio
of tax revenue to nominal GDP
|
Government
Financial Statistics
|
|
Inflation
rate (INF)
|
First
difference of logarithm of the consumer price index: all itemsb
|
Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis
|
|
GDP
deflator
|
First
difference of logarithm of the GDP deflator index: all itemsb
|
|
Interest
rate (INT)
|
Short-term
interest rate based on the BI 7-Day Reverse Repo Rate
|
Bank
Indonesia’s
Indonesian
Economic Financial Statistics (SEKI)
|
|
Investment
lending rate
|
Investment
lending rates of the reporting banks’ branches located in Indonesia
|
|
Private
consumption (PC)
|
Household
consumption expenditures
|
Indonesian
Bureau of Statistics (BPS)
|
bThis definition of inflation rate is the one used for SVAR modeling. The ones shown in the descriptive statistics and graph refer to the published inflation rates.
|
Statistic
|
CGa
|
GCa
|
SUBa
|
SPa
|
TAXa
|
DEBTa
|
GAP
|
INF
|
INT
|
ER
|
PCa
|
|
Mean
|
11.6
|
3.7
|
3.1
|
0.9
|
11.1
|
32.1
|
0.0
|
6.2
|
7.6
|
11,307
|
55.7
|
|
Median
|
11.4
|
3.8
|
2.4
|
1.0
|
11.2
|
29.8
|
0.1
|
5.4
|
7.0
|
10,250
|
54.4
|
|
Max.
|
18.0
|
5.2
|
23.9
|
2.0
|
14.2
|
52.0
|
3.4
|
17.8
|
17.7
|
16,359
|
60.5
|
|
Min.
|
7.5
|
2.4
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
7.7
|
22.6
|
-5.5
|
1.2
|
3.5
|
8,310
|
52.6
|
|
Std. dev.
|
1.97
|
0.62
|
3.02
|
0.36
|
1.39
|
7.93
|
1.22
|
3.63
|
3.36
|
2,367
|
2.20
|
|
Skewness
|
0.56
|
0.08
|
4.19
|
0.01
|
-0.25
|
0.87
|
-0.93
|
1.24
|
1.34
|
0.40
|
0.82
|
|
Kurtosis
|
3.42
|
2.49
|
27.62
|
3.32
|
2.71
|
2.65
|
z.41
|
4.26
|
4.40
|
1.59
|
2.38
|
|
Jarque-Bera
|
5.18
|
1.04
|
2,478
|
0.31
|
1.25
|
10.50
|
83.81
|
28.26
|
33.3
|
9.69
|
11.35
|
|
P-value
|
0.07
|
0.59
|
0.00
|
0.86
|
0.54
|
0.01
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.01
|
0.00
|
|
Obs.
|
88
|
88
|
88
|
72
|
88
|
80
|
88
|
88
|
88
|
88
|
88
|
|
Variable
|
ADF t-statistic
|
KPSS (LM-Stat)
|
Status
|
|
|
Ho: series has unit root
|
Ho: series is stationary
|
|
|
|
Intercept only
|
Intercept with
Trend
|
Intercept only
|
Intercept with
Trend
|
|
|
Log
Central government
|
-0.732 (2)
|
|
-4.878 (1)
|
***
|
1.112
|
***
|
0.058
|
|
TS
|
|
Log
Government consumption
|
-1.551 (1)
|
|
-2.725 (1)
|
|
1.162
|
***
|
0.249
|
***
|
|
|
D(Log
Government consumption)
|
-9.709 (1)
|
***
|
-9.767 (1)
|
***
|
0.185
|
|
0.113
|
|
I(1)
|
|
Log
Subsidy
|
-5.169 (1)
|
***
|
-5.270(1)
|
***
|
0.186
|
|
0.167
|
**
|
I(0)
|
|
Log
Social protection
|
-20.745 (0)
|
***
|
-20.931 (0)
|
***
|
0.512
|
**
|
0.119
|
|
I(0)
|
|
As Percent of GDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central
government/GDP
|
-3.850 (1)
|
***
|
-4.315 (1)
|
***
|
0.830
|
***
|
0.117
|
|
I(0)
|
|
Government
consumption/GDP
|
-2.760 (1)
|
*
|
-5.712 (0)
|
***
|
1.080
|
***
|
0.186
|
**
|
|
|
D(Government
consumption/GDP)
|
-14.342
|
***
|
-14.316
|
***
|
0.095
|
|
0.081
|
|
I(1)
|
|
Subsidy/GDP
|
-6.788 (1)
|
***
|
-12.153 (0)
|
***
|
0.862
|
***
|
0.069
|
|
I(0)
|
|
Social
protection/GDP
|
-4.859 (0)
|
***
|
-5.023 (0)
|
***
|
0.219
|
|
0.147
|
**
|
I(0)
|
|
Debt
ratio
|
-1.678 (1)
|
|
-1.248 (1)
|
|
0.356
|
*
|
0.301
|
***
|
|
|
D(Debt
ratio)
|
-5.817 (0)
|
***
|
-7.017 (0)
|
***
|
0.825
|
***
|
0.071
|
|
I(1)
|
|
Tax
ratio
|
-1.979 (2)
|
|
-6.659 (0)
|
***
|
1.179
|
***
|
0.063
|
|
TS
|
|
Log
Exchange rate
|
-0.554 (0)
|
|
-2.915 (0)
|
|
0.995
|
***
|
0.208
|
**
|
|
|
D(Log
Exchange rate)
|
-11.315 (0)
|
***
|
-11.570
|
***
|
0.185
|
|
0.056
|
|
I(1)
|
|
Inflation
rate
|
-6.709 (0)
|
***
|
-8.060 (0)
|
***
|
0.963
|
***
|
0.042
|
|
I(0)
|
|
Interest
rate
|
-3.967 (2)
|
***
|
-5.137 (1)
|
***
|
1.029
|
***
|
0.124
|
*
|
TS
|
|
Output
gap
|
-4.051 (0)
|
***
|
-4.023 (0)
|
**
|
0.038
|
|
0.038
|
|
I(0)
|
|
GDP
growth
|
-3.79 (0)
|
***
|
-3.94 (0)
|
**
|
0.31
|
|
0.15
|
**
|
I(0)
|
|
Log
Private consumption
|
-1.026 (0)
|
|
-0.937 (0)
|
|
1.202
|
***
|
0.184
|
**
|
|
|
D(Log
Private Consumption)
|
-9.988 (0)
|
***
|
-10.046 (0)
|
***
|
0.239
|
|
0.149
|
**
|
I(1)
|
|
Private
Consumption/GDP
|
-1.101 (0)
|
|
-1.585 (0)
|
|
1.066
|
***
|
0.263
|
***
|
|
|
D(Private
Consumption/GDP
|
-8.775 (0)
|
***
|
-8.782 (0)
|
***
|
0.144
|
|
0.097
|
|
I(1)
|
|
IPI
gap
|
-5.603 (0)
|
***
|
-5.570 (0)
|
***
|
0.039
|
|
0.039
|
|
I(0)
|
|
GDP deflator
|
-4.023 (1)
|
***
|
-7.403 (0)
|
***
|
0.659
|
**
|
0.103
|
|
I(0)
|
|
Lending
rate
|
-1.501 (1)
|
|
-4.425 (1)
|
***
|
1.115
|
***
|
0.122
|
*
|
TS
|
***, ** and * denote 1%, 5% and 10% significance levels of null hypothesis rejection, respectively. Values inside parentheses refer to lag lengths based on Schwarz Information Criterion. The KPSS output only provides the asymptotic critical values. TS stands for trend-stationarity.
|
Variable
|
Break Date
|
|
Deterministic Component
|
Status
|
|
Log
Central government
|
|
|
Constant + Trend
|
Level
|
|
Log Government
consumption
|
|
|
Constant
|
FD
|
|
Log
Subsidy
|
2008Q2
|
*
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
2015Q2
|
*
|
Constant
|
|
|
Log
Social protection
|
|
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
As Percent of GDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central
government/GDP
|
2009Q2
|
*
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
Government
consumption/GDP
|
|
|
Constant
|
FD
|
|
Subsidy/GDP
|
2015Q2
|
*
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
Social protection/GDP
|
|
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
Exchange
rate
|
|
|
Constant
|
FD
|
|
Tax
|
2008Q3
|
|
Constant + Trend
|
Level
|
|
Debt
|
2011Q4
|
*
|
Constant
|
FD
|
|
Output gap
|
2019Q4
|
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
Inflation
rate
|
2008Q3
|
*
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
Interest rate
|
2005Q2
|
|
Constant + Trend
|
Level
|
|
2013Q3
|
*
|
|
Log Private
consumption
|
|
|
Constant
|
FD
|
|
Private
consumption/GDP
|
|
|
Constant
|
FD
|
|
IPI gap
|
2019Q4
|
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
GDP
deflator
|
2008Q3
|
*
|
Constant
|
Level
|
|
Lending rate
|
2014Q1
|
*
|
Constant + Trend
|
Level
|
|
Paired Series
|
Engle-Granger tau-statistic
|
Phillips-Ouliaris tau-statistic
|
Decision
|
|
DEBT
and LER
|
-1.555 (1)
|
-2.342
|
Do not reject null
|
|
DEBT and PCGDP
|
-0.011 (1)
|
-0.633
|
Do not reject null
|
|
LER
and PCGDP (with trend)
|
-3.996 (0)**
|
-4.004**
|
Reject null
|
|
LER and PCGDP (without
trend)
|
-1.801 (0)
|
-1.769
|
Do not reject null
|
|
LER
and LPC
|
-2.771 (0)
|
-2.770
|
Do not reject null
|
Note: The size of shock is one unit or one percentage point. The solid line refers to the impulse response of the structural decomposition; dashed lines refer to the ± 2 standard error bands. Lag length is 2 for central government spending and government consumption spending, lag length for subsidy and social protection spending is 1.
a Definition and sources are shown in table A1.
Note: The size of shock is one unit or one percentage point. The solid line refers to the impulse response
of the structural decomposition; dashed lines refer to the ± 2 standard error bands. Lag length is 2
across government spending instruments, except for social protection, where lag length is 3.
Amisano, G. and Giannini, C., 1997. Topics in Structural VAR Econometrics. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer [ CrossRef]
Asandului, M. [et al.], 2021. The asymmetric effects of fiscal policy on inflation and economic activity in post-communist European countries. Post-Communist Economies, 33(7), pp. 899-919 [ CrossRef]
Auerbach, A. J. and Gorodnichenko, Y., 2017. Fiscal stimulus and fiscal sustainability. NBER Working Paper, No. 23789 [ CrossRef]
Basri, M. C. and Rahardja, S., 2010. The Indonesian economy amidst the global crisis: Good policy and good luck. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 27(1), pp. 77-97 [ CrossRef]
Basri, M. C. and Siregar, R. Y., 2009. Navigating policy responses at the national level in the midst of the global financial crisis: The experience of Indonesia. Asian Economic Papers, 8(3), pp. 1-35 [ CrossRef]
Bayer, C. [et al.], 2020. The coronavirus stimulus package: How large is the transfer multiplier? CEPR Working Paper, No. 14600.
Bhattarai, K. and Trzeciakiewicz, D., 2017. Macroeconomic impacts of fiscal policy shocks in the UK: A DSGE analysis. Economic Modelling, 61, pp. 321-338 [ CrossRef]
Blanchard, O. and Perotti, R., 2002. An empirical characterization of the dynamic effects of changes in government spending and taxes on output. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), pp. 1329-1368 [ CrossRef]
Breitung, J., Brüggemann, R. and Lütkepohl, H., 2004. Structural vector autoregressive modelling and impulse responses. In: H. Lütkepohl and M. Krätzig, eds. Applied Time Series Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159-196 [ CrossRef]
Budiman, A. [et al.], 2022. Pandemic shocks and macro-financial policy responses: An estimated DSGE-VAR model for Indonesia. Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking, 25(3), pp. 399-438 [ CrossRef]
Campante, F., Sturzenegger, F. and Velasco, A., 2021. A dvanced macroeconomics: An easy guide. London: LSE Press [ CrossRef]
Cevik, S. and Miryugin, F., 2023. It’s never different: Fiscal policy shocks and inflation. IMF Working Paper, No. 23/98 [ CrossRef]iv>
De Castro, F. and Hernández, P., 2006. The economic effects of exogenous fiscal shocks in Spain: A SVAR approach. ECB Working Paper, No. 647.
Demid, E., 2018. Fiscal and monetary policy: coordination or conflict? International Economic Journal, 32(4), pp. 547-571 [ CrossRef]
Di Giorgio, G., Nisticò, S. and Traficante, G., 2018. Government spending and the exchange rate. International Review of Economics and Finance, 54, pp. 55-73 [ CrossRef]
Faria-e-Castro, M., 2021. Fiscal policy during a pandemic. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 125, p.104088 [ CrossRef]
Ferrara, L. [et al.], 2021. Questioning the puzzle: Fiscal policy, real exchange rate and inflation. Journal of International Economics, 133, 103524 [ CrossRef]
Fontana, G., 2009. The transmission mechanism of fiscal policy: A critical assessment of current theories and empirical methodologies. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 31(4), pp. 587-604 [ CrossRef]
Gabriel, R. D., Klein, M. and Pessoa, A. S., 2023. The effects of government spending in the Eurozone. Journal of the European Economic Association, 21(4), pp. 1397-1427 [ CrossRef]
Gootjes, B. and de Haan, J., 2022. Procyclicality of fiscal policy in European Union countries. Journal of International Money and Finance, 120, 102276 [ CrossRef]
Hannan, E. J. and Quinn, B. G., 1979. The determination of the order of an autoregression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 41(2), pp. 190-195 [ CrossRef]
Hannan, S. A., Honjo, K. and Raissi, M., 2022. Mexico needs a fiscal twist: Response to COVID-19 and beyond. International Economics, 169, pp. 175-190 [ CrossRef]
Haug, A. A. and Power, I., 2020. Government spending multipliers in times of tight and loose monetary policy in New Zealand. Economic Record, 98(322), pp. 249-270 [ CrossRef]
Herrera, S., Kouame, W. A. and Mandon, P., 2019. Why some countries can escape the fiscal pro-cyclicality trap and others cannot? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 8963 [ CrossRef]
Hinterlang, N. [et al.], 2023. Gauging the effects of the German COVID-19 fiscal stimulus package. European Economic Review, 154, 104407 [ CrossRef]
Hur, S. K., Mallick, S. and Park, D., 2014. Fiscal policy and crowding out in developing Asia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(6), pp. 1117-1132 [ CrossRef]
Jazuli, M. R., Steenmans, I. and Mulugetta, Y., 2021. Navigating policy dilemmas in fuel-subsidy reductions: Learning from Indonesia’s experiences. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 17(1), pp. 391-403 [ CrossRef]
Jørgensen, P. L. and Ravn, S. H., 2022. The inflation response to government spending shocks: A fiscal price puzzle? European Economic Review, 141, 103982 [ CrossRef]
Juhro, S. M. and Rummel, O., 2022. Monetary policy framework. In: P. Warjiyo and S. M. Juhro, eds. Central Bank Policy Mix: Issues, Challenges, and Policy Responses. Handbook of Central Banking Studies, pp. 29-48 [ CrossRef]
Juhro, S. M., Narayan, P. K. and Njindan Iyke, B., 2022. Understanding monetary and fiscal policy rule interactions in Indonesia. Applied Economics, 54(45), pp. 5190-5208 [ CrossRef]
Kilian, L. and Lutkepohl, H., 2017. Structural vector autoregressive analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ CrossRef]
Kirsanova, T. [et al.], 2007. Optimal fiscal policy rules in a monetary union. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 39(7), pp. 1759-1784 [ CrossRef]
Klein, M. and Linnemann, L., 2023. The composition of public spending and the inflationary effects of fiscal policy shocks. European Economic Review, 155 (104460) [ CrossRef]
Kühn, S., Muysken, J. and van Veen, T., 2010. The adverse effect of government spending on private consumption in New Keynesian models. Metroeconomica, 61(4), pp. 621-639 [ CrossRef]
Landmann, O., 2018. On the logic of fiscal policy coordination in a monetary union. Open Econ Review, 29(1), pp. 69-87 [ CrossRef]
Leeper, E. M. and Leith, C., 2016. Understanding inflation as a joint monetary-fiscal phenomenon. Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 3 [ CrossRef]
Li, J. F. and Lin, Z. X., 2016. Social benefit expenditures and stagflation: Evidence from the United States. Applied Economics, 48(55), pp. 5340-5347 [ CrossRef]
Makin, A. J. and Layton, A., 2021. The global fiscal response to COVID-19: Risks and repercussions. Economic Analysis and Policy, 69, pp. 340-349 [ CrossRef]
McManus, R. and Ozkan, F. G., 2015. On the consequences of pro-cyclical fiscal policy. Fiscal Studies, 36(1), pp. 29-50 [ CrossRef]
Mountford, A. and Uhlig H., 2009. What are the effects of fiscal policy shocks? Journal of Applied Economics, 24, pp. 960-992 [ CrossRef]
Perotti, R., 2004. Public investment: Another (different) look. I nnocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research Working Paper, No. 277 [ CrossRef]
Petrevski, G., Bogoev, J. and Tevdovski, D., 2016. Fiscal and monetary policy effects in three South Eastern European economies. Empirical Economics, 50, pp. 415-441 [ CrossRef]
Railavo, J., 2004. Stability consequences of fiscal policy rules. Bank of Finland Discussion Paper, No. 1 [ CrossRef]
Ravn, M. O., Schmitt-Grohe, S. and Uribe, M., 2012. Consumption, government spending, and the real exchange rate. Journal of Monetary Economics, 59, pp. 215-234 [ CrossRef]
Sahminan, S. [et al.], 2017. A dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model to assess the impact of structural reforms on the Indonesian economy. Buletin Ekonomi Moneter Dan Perbankan, 20(2), pp. 149-180 [ CrossRef]
Sanches, M. S. and Carvalho, L. B., 2022. Multiplier effects of social protection: A SVAR approach for Brazil. International Review of Applied Economics, 37(1), pp. 93-112 [ CrossRef]
Surjaningsih, N., Diah Utari, G. A. and Trisnanto, B., 2012. The impact of fiscal policy on the output and inflation. Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking, 14(4), pp. 367-396 [ CrossRef]
Taylor, J. B., 1993. Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 39, pp. 195-214 [ CrossRef]
|
|
December, 2023
IV/2023 |
