Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Sinha, Manish
- Response of Money Stock to its Demand
Abstract Views :244 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Symbiosis Centre for Management and Human Resource Development, Pune-411057,, IN
1 Symbiosis Centre for Management and Human Resource Development, Pune-411057,, IN
Source
Drishtikon: A Management Journal, Vol 1, No 1 (2009), Pagination: 75-79Abstract
It is interesting to find out as to what is the position of supply of money in India as compared to its demand. Some believe that our supply of money is more than the demand for it and that explains the persistent inflation in the economy. The demand for money is modeled based on the Keynesian theory of demand for money where it is based on national income and interest rate. The money stock data of broad money (M3) has been taken for the years 1996 to 2005. The Keynesian model of demand for money tells us that RBI has been conservative in its money supply as the same is systematically lesser than the desired demand for money.Keywords
Keynes’ Theory of Money Supply, Real Income, Interest Rate
References
- Mohanty, D and Mitra, A K (1999). Experience with Monetary Targeting in India, Economic and Political Weekly, 16-23.
- Moosa, I (1992). The Demand for Money in India: A Cointegration Approach. The Indian Economic Journal, 40, 101-115.
- Nag, AK and Upadhyay G(1993). Estimating Money Demand Function: A Cointegration Approach, Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, 14, 47-66.
- Nunes, L Newbold, P and C-M Kuan (1997). Testing for Unit Roots with Breaks: Evidence on the Great Crash and the Unit Root Hypothesis Reconsidered. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 59, 435–448.
- Parikh, A (1994). An Approach to Monetary Targeting in India. Reserve Bank of India Development Research Group Study, 9, October.
- 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.
- Poole, W (1970). The Optimal Choice of Monetary Policy Instruments in a Simple Macro Model, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 192-216.
- Pradhan, BK and Subramanian A (1997). On the Stability of the Demand for Money in India, The Indian Economic Journal, 45, 106-117.
- Ramachandran, M (2004). Do Broad Money, Output, and Prices Stand for a Stable Relationship in India? Journal of Policy Modeling, 26, 983-1001.
- Understanding the Behaviour of Communities Towards Risk Management and its Impact on Productivity
Abstract Views :227 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 SCMHRD, Symbiosis International University, Maharashtra, IN
1 SCMHRD, Symbiosis International University, Maharashtra, IN
Source
Drishtikon: A Management Journal, Vol 9, No 1 (2018), Pagination: 27-36Abstract
In this paper we try to study the impact of risk mitigating behavior of communities and its Households on the overall productivity of the economic system. We have tried to look at the phenomenon in terms of a model having its objective function as maximizing productivity in the presence of the constraint of the risk of doing business outside the community. We see that if individuals in a community perceive the risk of economic transactions to grow exponentially as they move away from the locus of the community socially as well as physically, there is a limit to which they will travel the social and/or the physical distance.Keywords
Risk Management Behavior of Communities, Productivity, Economic Transactions.References
- Arrow, K. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources For Invention. In U.-N. Bureau, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609-626). Boston: Princeton University Press.
- Caplow, T., & Forman, R. (1950). Neighborhood interaction in a homogenous community. American Sociological Review, 357-366.
- Dasgupta, P. (2010). Selected Papers of Partha Dasgupta: Volume I: Institutions, Innovations, and Human Values and Volume II: Poverty, Population, and Natural Resources,. London: Oxford University Press.
- Festinger, L., Schacter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. Boston: Stanford University Press.
- Fleming, M., & Petty, R. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In M. Hogg, & D. Terry, Attitudes, Behaviour and Social Context: The role of norms and Group Membership (pp. 171-199). Mahwah: NJ:Erlbaum.
- Mayhew, B. H., & Levinger, R. (1977). Size and the density of interactions in human aggregates. American Journal of Sociology, 86-110.
- Mayhew, B. H., McPherson, M. J., Rotolo, T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1995). Sex and race homogeniety in naturally occuring groups. Social Forces, 15-52.
- McPherson, J., & Ranger-Moore, J. R. (1991). Evolution on a dancing landscape: Organizations and networks in a dynamic blau space. Social Forces, 19-42.
- Simmel, G. (1906). The sociology of secrecy and secret societies. American Journal of Sociology, 441-498.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & A. L.W, Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
- UNDP. (2009). India: Urban poverty report. New Delhi: Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation: Government of India.
- Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. MA: Addison Wesley: Cambridge.