Abstract
In this paper, we estimate the welfare cost of inflation (WCI) to understand how costly anticipated inflation is in India. The WCI is estimated both in partial and general equilibrium framework using consumer surplus and compensating variation approaches. Based on the quarterly data from 1996–97Q1 to 2014–15Q2, we found that the WCI at an inflation rate of 10% is ~ 0.53% of GDP. This implies that reducing inflation from 10 to 0% may result in an output gain of 0.53% of GDP. The study also shows that the WCI is an increasing function of rate of inflation and inflation elasticity of money demand. The inflation elasticity is estimated through double-log and semi-log specifications of money demand using Fisher and Seater (Am Econ Rev 402–415, 1993) long-horizon regression approach. It is found that the specification of money demand influences the magnitude of WCI.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
People will try to economize their cash balance either by buying more of physical goods or by changing the procedure of their payment.
This is in accordance with the Fischer equation, i = r + π, where ‘i’ is the money rate of interest and ‘π’ being the inflation rate.
The income elasticity is assumed to be unitary. Restricting it to unity, rules out the possibility of economies of scale due to money holding.
Logarithmic transformation is used for the sake of convenience to interpret the parameters in terms of elasticities.
The integral \( \left( {\mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{\pi } m \left( x \right)dx} \right) \) represents the total consumer surplus lost by the consumer due to increase in inflation and \( \pi .m(\pi ) \) represents part of the consumer surplus that the government gets as seigniorage revenue. The net of these two is the WCI.
McCallum and Goodfriend (1987) proposed another framework of the general equilibrium model wherein the real money balance enters the utility function as transaction technology which reduces the cost of transactions. However, such estimates of welfare cost obtained from McCallum and Goodfriend (1987) to that of the Sidrauski’s (1967) model were not found out to be significantly different (Lucas 2000). Thus, we restricted our model to Sidrauski’s (1967) framework for the estimation of the WCI.
These condition implies that ucc < 0, uzz < 0, j = uccuzz – u2zc > 0.
For goods not to be inferior, the condition required is J1 = uzz – ucz z/uc < 0 and J2 = uccuz/uc – ucz < 0.
The costate variable can be interpreted as the Lagrange multiplier associated with the state equation.
Shadow price gives the small change in the objective function arising from a small change in the constraint.
The transversality condition means that the value of the household’s per capita assets must approach zero as time approaches infinity.
For all i > 0, m (0) > m (i) and w (0) < w (i).
Derivation of these equations is given in “Appendix 1”.
The RBI has recently formulated a new consumer price index CPI (combined) that is relatively broad, consisting of CPI-RL and CPI-UE but the data for this series is available only from 2011 onwards and cannot be used for any historical analysis.
All the variables such as inflation (π), log of inflation (ln (π)) and log of the real money balance (ln (m)) follow an autoregressive process with a unit root.
We define welfare in terms of the percentage change in the GDP of the country. The WCI being 0.51 percent means that with the reduction in the inflation, there is an increases in the output (GDP) by 0.51. The increase in welfare is synonymously used with the increase in the GDP.
Bullard and Russell (2004) found that the WCI at an inflation rate of 10 percent in the US is around 11.2 percent of GDP.
We used DSolve routine in Mathematica, version 10.4 for Eq. (2.20)
References
Bailey, M.J. 1956. The welfare cost of inflationary finance. Journal of political Economy 64 (2): 93–110.
Baumol WJ (1952) The transactions demand for cash: an inventory theoretic approach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 66 (4): 545–556.
Bullard J, Russell SH (2004) How costly is sustained low inflation for the US economy? Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Review 86 (May/June 2004).
Cooley TF, Hansen GD (1989) The inflation tax in a real business cycle model. The American Economic Review 79 (4): 733–748.
Dotsey, M., and P. Ireland. 1996. The welfare cost of inflation in general equilibrium. Journal of Monetary Economics 37 (1): 29–47.
Feldstein MS (1997) The costs and benefits of going from low inflation to price stability. In Reducing inflation: Motivation and strategy, eds. Romer, C., and D. Romer, 123–166. Chicago: NBER.
Fischer, S. 1981. Towards an understanding of the costs of inflation: Ii. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 15: 5–41.
Fisher ME, Seater JJ (1993) Long-run neutrality and superneutrality in an ARIMA framework. The American Economic Review 83 (3): 402–415.
Friedman M (1969) The optimal quantity of money. In The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays, 1–50. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company
Gupta, R., and J. Uwilingiye. 2008. Measuring the welfare cost of inflation in South Africa. South African Journal of Economics 76 (1): 16–25.
Ireland, P.N. 2009. On the welfare cost of inflation and the recent behavior of money demand. American Economic Review 99 (3): 1040–1052.
Izadkhasti, H., S. Samadi, and R.D. Isfahani. 2013. The welfare cost of inflation in consumer surplus and compensating variation method: Case study of iran. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 3 (8): 250.
Kumar, S. 2014. The varying interest elasticity and the cost of inflation in India. Applied Economics Letters 21 (7): 497–500.
Lucas, J.R.E. 1981. Discussion of: Stanley fischer, “towards an understanding of the costs of inflation: Ii”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 15: 43–52.
Lucas, J.R.E. 2000. Inflation and welfare. Econometrica 68 (2): 247–274.
Lucas, R.E. 1994. On the welfare cost of inflation. Stanford: Stanford University.
McCallum BT, Goodfriend M (1987) Money: Theoretical analysis of the demand for money, working paper, 2157, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Serletis, A., and K. Yavari. 2004. The welfare cost of inflation in Canada and the United States. Economics Letters 84 (2): 199–204.
Serletis, A., and K. Yavari. 2005. The welfare cost of inflation in Italy. Applied Economics Letters 12 (3): 165–168.
Serletis, A., and K. Yavari. 2007. On the welfare cost of inflation in Europe. Applied Economics Letters 14 (2): 111–113.
Sidrauski, M. 1967. Rational choice and patterns of growth in a monetary economy. The American Economic Review 57 (2): 534–544.
Tobin, J. 1956. The interest-elasticity of transactions demand for cash. The Review of Economics and Statistics 38 (3): 241–247.
Uwilingye, J., and R. Gupta. 2009. Measuring the welfare cost of inflation in South Africa: a reconsideration: inflation. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 12 (2): 137–146.
Yavari, K., and A. Serletis. 2011. Inflation and welfare in latin america. Open Economies Review 22 (1): 39–52.
Zee, H.H. 2001. Welfare cost of (low) inflation: a general equilibrium perspective. FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis 57 (4): 376–393.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Here, derive WCI in a general equilibrium framework using Lucas (2000) approach as:
where c is the consumption good, z is real money balance and φ is a function. Using Eq. (26) we have:
and from Lucas (2000) the nominal interest rate is given by;
Equation (29) can be transformed into a differential equation with \( \psi \left( m \right) \) as the inverse money demand function as:
Differentiating (28) with respective to (26) we get
Using the value of Eq. (30) in Eq. (31) with m = \( \frac{m\left( i \right)}{1 + w\left( i \right)} \) we have
Solving Eq. (32) and using the money demand function \( m\left( \pi \right) = A\pi^{ - \eta } \) we have
which represents the WCI under double-log specification in general equilibrium framework. For semi-log specification we have
where w’(π) represents the first order derivative of the WCI. It becomes difficult to solve Eq. (34) manually in its derivative form, so we used ‘Mathematica softwareFootnote 20’ for getting the solution.
Appendix 2
The unit-root test is carried-out for inflation (π), the natural log of inflation (ln (π)) and the natural log of the real money balance (ln (m)). The null hypothesis tests whether the time series posses a unit root and is non-stationary. The results of both the tests are given in Tables 3 and 4.
Appendix 3
In Table 5, we show the estimates of WCI in a partial equilibrium framework under both the double-log(DL) and semi-log (SL) specifications of money demand.
Appendix 4
Table 6 represents the WCI in partial and general equilibrium frameworks using both the double-log (DL) and semi-log (SL) specifications of money demand. The first column represents the inflation rate next two columns represents the WCI under DL specification while the last two columns represents the WCI under SL specification.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shah, I.A., Agarwal, M.L. & Kundu, S. Welfare Cost of Inflation: Evidence from India. J. Quant. Econ. 17, 781–799 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-018-0140-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-018-0140-9
Keywords
- Welfare cost of inflation
- Inflation elasticity
- Consumer surplus
- Compensating variation approach
- Money demand