, Hossein.Tavakolian@atu.ac.ir
Abstract: (46 Views)
This study quantifies the relative importance of the main categories of macroeconomic shocks in explaining Iranian inflation over 1989:Q2 – 2025:Q1. A small-open-economy dynamic stochastic general-equilibrium (DSGE) model is estimated that identifies four structural disturbances-supply-side, aggregate-demand, monetary-policy shocks, and shocks to household wealth driven by equity-market fluctuations -while embedding the institutional features of Iran’s dual monetary–exchange-rate framework. Forecast-error-variance decompositions show that supply shocks account for 55 percent of one-quarter-ahead inflation volatility, rising to 63 percent at the one-year horizon. Demand shocks explain 22 percent in the short run and less than 15 percent in the longer run, whereas the contribution of monetary-policy shocks declines from 18 percent (one quarter) to roughly 10 percent (three years). Asset-wealth shocks related to the equity market never exceed 5 percent. Two episodes—2011-2013 and 2018 onward—when oil-export constraints and sharp currency depreciations coincided, register the highest supply-side shares. The results imply that achieving durable single-digit inflation in Iran is unlikely without a credible foreign-exchange buffer and a rehabilitated banking sector, because supply-driven shocks quickly propagate to consumer prices through the exchange-rate and cost-push channels.
Keywords: supply shocks, aggregate demand, interbank-rate corridor, monetary policy, DSGE model, Iran.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
human force and population economics
Received: Jul 01 2025 | Accepted: Nov 01 2025
Received: Jul 01 2025 | Accepted: Nov 01 2025
References
1. Bindseil, U. (2014). Monetary policy operations and the financial system. Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716907.001.0001]
2. Bleaney, M., & Greenaway, D. (2001). The impact of terms of trade and real exchange rate volatility on investment and growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of development Economics, 65(2), 491-500. [DOI:10.1016/S0304-3878(01)00147-X]
3. Calvo, G. A. (1983). Staggered prices in a utility-maximizing framework. Journal of Monetary Economics, 12(3), 383-398. [DOI:10.1016/0304-3932(83)90060-0]
4. Dixit, A. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review, 67(3), 297-308.
5. Farzanegan, M. R. (2011). Oil revenue shocks and government spending behavior in Iran. Energy Economics, 33(6), 1055-1069. [DOI:10.1016/j.eneco.2011.04.007]
6. Friedman, M. (1971). Government revenue from inflation. Journal of Political Economy, 79(4), 846-856. [DOI:10.1086/259791]
7. Ghiaie, H., Tabarraei, H. R., & Tavakolian, H. (2022). Alternative monetary policy regimes in an oil-exporting economy. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 83, 161-177. [DOI:10.1016/j.qref.2021.06.018]
8. Iacoviello, M. (2005). House prices, borrowing constraints, and monetary policy in the business cycle. American Economic Review, 95(3), 739-764. [DOI:10.1257/0002828054201477]
9. Mohaddes, K., & Raissi, M. (2017). Do sovereign wealth funds dampen the negative effects of commodity price volatility? Journal of Commodity Markets, 8, 18-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcomm.2017.05.005]
| Rights and permissions | |
.jpg) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
