Tula, Tula, Russian Federation
Tula, Tula, Russian Federation
This paper evaluates the relationships between indicators characterizing economic development and monetary policy in Russia. Rosstat and Central Bank data for the period from 2000 to 2024 were used. Correlation relationships were assessed, and regression models were constructed, which proved statistically significant. The results showed that inflation had a positive impact on economic growth and economic efficiency in Russia from 2000 to 2024. Other financial indicators of the economy had a significantly smaller, and many had an insignificant, impact on economic growth and economic efficiency. In particular, the Central Bank's key rate did not have a significant impact on economic growth and economic efficiency. Since the key rate is the most important instrument of monetary policy, it can be assumed that the priority goal of monetary policy was inflation targeting, rather than economic growth and economic efficiency. At the same time, profits in the financial sector were maximized. Clearly, monetary policy needs to be adjusted and its targeting changed. Economic growth, as we know, should be the primary objective. Furthermore, the results obtained suggest that it is appropriate to discuss the target inflation level, as in the Russian context, inflation, even at a level higher than 3–4%, can have a positive impact on economic growth and efficiency.
economic growth, return on assets, inflation, key rate, dollar exchange rate, budget balance
1. Maevskiy V. Vvedenie v evolyucionnuyu makroekonomiku [Tekst] / V. Maevskiy. — M.: Yaponiya segodnya, 1997. 106 s.
2. Perez C. Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital:The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. Elgar Publishing, 2003. 224 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781005323
3. Ball L. The case for a long-run inflation target of four percent.IMF Working Paper, 2014, no. 92. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498395601.001
4. Barnes M.L., Gumbau-Brisa F., Lie D., Olivei G.P. Closedform estimates of the New Keynesian Phillips Curve with time-varying trend inflation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Working Papers, 2009, no. 09–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1523943
5. Bohn F. Political instablility and seigniorage: An inseparable couple — or a threesome with debt? Review of International Economics, 2019, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 347–366. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12379
6. Boivin J., Gianotti M. Has monetary policy become more effective? Review of Economics and Statistics, 2006, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 445–462. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.3.445
7. Chan J.C., Clark T.E., Koop G. A new model of inflation, trend inflation, and long-run inflation expectations. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2018, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 5–53. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12452
8. Clark T.E. Comparing measures of core inflation. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, 2001, vol. 86, pp. 5–31.
9. Cogley T., Sbordone A.M. Trend inflation, indexation, and inflation persistence in the New Keynesian Phillips curve.American Economic Review, 2008, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 21012126. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.5.2101
10. Coibion O., Gorodnichenko Y., Wieland J. The optimal inflation rate in New Keynesian models: Should central banks raise their inflation targets in light of the zero lower bound? Review of Economic Studies, 2012, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 13711406. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rds013
