This paper considers the role of financial frictions and the conduct of monetary policy in Uganda. It makes use of a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model, which incorporates small open-economy features and financial frictions that are introduced though the activities of heterogeneous agents in the household. Most of the parameters in the model are estimated with the aid of Bayesian techniques and quarterly macroeconomic data from 2000q1 to 2015q4. The results suggest that the central bank currently responds to changes in the interest rate spread, despite the fact that capital and financial markets are relatively inefficient in this low-income country. In addition, the analysis also suggests that to reduce macroeconomic volatility, the central bank should continue to respond to these financial sector frictions and that it may be possible to derive a more favourable sacrifice ratio by making use of a slightly more aggressive response to macroeconomic developments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Gray et al. (2011) describe how various economic factors (including changes to interest rates) affect financial sector credit risks. They also describe how the financial sector affects measures of economic activity. This has been particularly evident during the recent crises, as the Global Financial Crisis , Latin American Crisis , and Asian Crisis  were all mainly triggered by financial sector weaknesses.
This additional objective is been pursued in tandem with the primary role of fostering price stability. At present, financial sector stability models at the BOU are detached from the monetary policy models. This is in many ways similar to many other countries, which partly reflects the institutional arrangements in central banks, where macroeconomic models that are used for forecasting and policy analysis reside in monetary/economic policy analysis divisions, while financial system analysis models reside in the bank supervision/financial stability divisions (Vlcek and Roger 2012).
In the November 2012 monetary policy statement by the Governor of the BOU, it was noted that “...whereas inter-bank rates, wholesale deposit interest rates and securities yields have all followed the downward trend of the central bank rate, commercial bank lending rates have been sticky downwards” (Tumusiime-Mutebile 2012).
Such features would suggest that the bank lending channel for monetary policy transmission may be dominated by the effects of changes in the central bank short-term interest rates, which influence that rate that is charged by commercial banks on loans and paid on deposits (Mishra et al. 2010).
Where the definition of the sacrifice ratio is the amount of output growth that is sacrificed to reduce the level of inflation (Ball 1994).
An additional online appendix includes a brief review of the literature that considers the application of structural macroeconomic models in LICs. It also incorporates further details relating to the data, the full log-linear specification of this model and additional figures that relate to the estimation results.
The inclusion of exchange rate in the Taylor rule is supported by Blanchard et al. (2010), who suggest that central banks in small open-economies should openly recognise exchange rate stability as part of their objective function.
Further details relating to the data and the transformations that have been applied are included in the online appendix.
The estimation procedure utilises a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm and the Brooks and Gelman (1998) measure of convergence, where five chains of 100,000 draws are used for randomly selected starting values. The average acceptance rate for all the chains is about 25.07%, and for each chain, 40,000 draws are kept after the initial burn in phase. Convergence is monitored with the aid of univariate and the multivariate diagnostic MCMC plots and suggests that it is achieved after about 50,000 draws.
The existence of relatively underdeveloped financial and capital markets and statements by the central bank Governor on the inefficiency of monetary policy transmission would support a more conservative estimate for these parameters.
The prior and posterior density plots have been included in the online appendix.
A number of researchers have also suggested that large estimates for the interest rate smoothing parameter indicate relatively persistent inflationary shocks (Rudebusch 2002).
Since we are looking to compare the impulse response functions from two models in this case, the results reflect the mean dynamic responses of the variables. The corresponding Bayesian impulse response functions that include 90% confidence intervals for the posterior distributions are included in the online appendix.
The results from the historical decompositions of the real exchange rate, terms of trade, policy rate and lending rate are contained in the online appendix.
When comparing the influence of the shocks on inflation during the pre- and post-crisis subsamples, we note that cost-push have become more prominent, although this is possibly due to the inflationary spike in 2011, rather than the onset of global financial crisis.
As noted previously, Woodford (2012) suggests that measures of financial frictions should be included in monetary policy loss functions.
The loss function values for the estimated parameters have not been included in this table as it is ultimately derived from the likelihood function, while the loss function for optimal coefficients is derived from the weighted volatility of specific variables. As such, these are not comparable.
Additional counter-factual experiments were performed by varying the weights on exchange rate and interest rate spreads between 0.1 to 0.2. These did not change the reported results by a significant degree.
This would be consistent with the findings of Alpanda et al. (2010).
Note that the coefficient values for the estimated coefficients and the optimal coefficients in the third column are extremely similar, which would suggest that the central bank has been pursuing a near optimal monetary policy rule following the onset of the Global Financial Crisis. However, as shown in the online appendix, these differences do nevertheless result in a gap in the sacrifice ratio, when comparing the result that is produced by the estimated and optimal coefficients in the post-crisis subsample.
In the early literature, the sacrifice ratio was obtained from the relationship between output and inflation that was based on estimates for the Philips curve (c.f. Okun 1978; Gordon et al. 1982). More recently, Ball (1994) and Cecchetti and Rich (2001) use monetary policy impulse response functions that are derived from vector autoregressive (VAR) models to estimate the sacrifice ratio.
The results of these sacrifice ratios is contained in the online appendix.
Alpanda S, Kotzé K, Woglom G (2010) Should central banks of small open economies respond to exchange rate fluctuations? the case of South Africa. ERSA working paper, no. 174
An S, Schorfheide F (2007) Bayesian analysis of DSGE models. Econom Rev 26(2–4):113–172
Baldini A, Benes J, Berg A, Dao MC, Portillo RA (2015) Monetary policy in low income countries in the face of the global crisis: a structural analysis. Pac Econ Rev 20(1):149–192
Ball L (1994) What determines the sacrifice ratio? In: Monetary policy. The University of Chicago Press, pp 155–193
Berg A, Gottschalk J, Portillo R, Zanna L-F (2010a) The macroeconomics of medium-term aid scaling-up scenarios. IMF working papers, pp 1–45
Berg A, Unsal DF, Portillo R (2010b) On the optimal adherence to money targets in a new-Keynesian framework: an application to low-income countries. IMF working papers (no. 10-134), Washington, International Monetary Fund
Bernanke BS, Gertler M, Gilchrist S (1999) The financial accelerator in a quantitative business cycle framework. Handb Macroecon 1:1341–1393
Blanchard O, Dell Ariccia G, Mauro P (2010) Rethinking macroeconomic policy. J Money Credit Bank 42(s1):199–215
Brooks SP, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 7(4):434–455
Calvo GA (1983) Staggered prices in a utility-maximizing framework. J Monet Econ 12(3):383–398
Cecchetti SG, Rich RW (2001) Structural estimates of the US sacrifice ratio. J Bus Econ Stat 19(4):416–427
Curdia V, Woodford M (2010) Credit spreads and monetary policy. J Money Credit Bank 42(s1):3–35
Fernández-Villaverde J (2010) The econometrics of DSGE models. SERIEs 1(1–2):3–49
Gali J, Monacelli T (2005) Monetary policy and exchange rate volatility in a small open economy. Rev Econ Stud 72(3):707–734
Gordon RJ, King SR, Modigliani F (1982) The output cost of disinflation in traditional and vector autoregressive models. Brook Pap Econ Act 1:205–244
Gray DF, García C, Luna L, Restrepo J (2011) Incorporating financial sector risk into monetary policy models: application to Chile. IMF working papers, pp 1–34
Justiniano A, Preston B (2010) Monetary policy and uncertainty in an empirical small open-economy model. J Appl Econom 25(1):93–128
Kiyotaki N, Moore J et al (1997) Credit chains. J Polit Econ 105(21):211–248
McCulley P, Toloui R (2008) Chasing the neutral rate down: Financial conditions, monetary policy, and the Taylor rule. Global Central Bank Focus, pp 2002–2008
Mishkin FS (1996) The channels of monetary transmission: lessons for monetary policy. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research
Mishra P, Montiel PJ, Spilimbergo A (2010) Monetary transmission in low income countries. IMF working papers, pp 1–42
Modigliani F, Miller MH (1958) The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. Am Econ Rev 261–297
Okun AM (1978) Efficient disinflationary policies. Am Econ Rev 68(2):348–352
Patinkin D (1956) Money, interest, and prices: an integration of monetary and value theory. Row, Peterson, Evanston
Quadrini V (2011) Financial frictions in macroeconomic fluctuations. FRB Richmond Econ Q 97(3):209–254
Rudebusch GD (2002) Term structure evidence on interest rate smoothing and monetary policy inertia. J Monet Econ 49(6):1161–1187
Schmitt-Grohé S, Uribe M (2003) Closing small open economy models. J Int Econ 61(1):163–185
Steinbach R, Du Plessis S, Smit B (2014) Monetary policy and financial shocks in an empirical small open-economy DSGE model. Technical report, EcoMod
Stiglitz JE, Weiss A (1981) Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. Am Econ Rev 71(3):393–410
Svensson LE (2012) The relation between monetary policy and financial policy. Int J Central Bank 8(S1 s 293):295
Taylor JB (1993) Discretion versus policy rules in practice. In: Carnegie–Rochester conference series on public policy, vol 39. Elsevier, pp 195–214
Taylor JB (2009) The financial crisis and the policy responses: an empirical analysis of what went wrong. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research
Tobin J (1969) A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. J Money Credit Bank 1(1):15–29
Tumusiime-Mutebile E (2012) Monetary policy statement. Technical report, Bank of Uganda
Vlcek MJ, Roger MS (2012) Macrofinancial modeling at central banks: recent developments and future directions (no 12–21). International Monetary Fund
Vredin A (2015) Inflation targeting and financial stability: providing policymakers with relevant information. BIS working paper 503, Bank of International Settlements
Woodford M (2012) Inflation targeting and financial stability. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not in any way represent the official position of the Bank of Uganda.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Anguyo, F.L., Gupta, R. & Kotzé, K. Monetary policy and financial frictions in a small open-economy model for Uganda. Empir Econ 59, 1213–1241 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01728-y
- Monetary policy
- Inflation targeting
- Financial frictions
- Small open economy
- Low-income country
- Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model
- Bayesian estimation