Dr.DEBESH BHOWMIK

Dr.DEBESH BHOWMIK

Sunday, 29 January 2017

Behaviour and Determinants of Real Effective Exchange Rate of India"






MBA Department of Vidyasagar University organised a two days International Seminar during 25-26 January,2017 on Recent Innovations in Management,Accounting Business and Entrepreneurship.
I have presented a paper on "Behaviour and Determinants of Real Effective Exchange Rate of India"The details of the paper is given below.






In this paper,author endeavours to establish the patterns and trends of Real Effective Exchange Rate of India during 1970-2015 and tries to show the determinants of REER eg,growth rate,current account deficit as per cent of GDP,per cent of openness, foreign direct investment inflows, and foreign exchange reserves excluding gold.The author used semi-log,double log linear and exponential model,autoregession,ARIMA ,GARCH models for trends and volatility.Bai-Perron (2003) model was applied to show structural breaks and Hodrick-Prescott (1997 ) model was applied for smoothness of cyclical trend.Johansen (1988, 1991, 1996) models were used to fit cointegration test and vector error correctons.Residual tests were done to verify autocorrelations, normality and impulse response functions were found to show stability and convergence.
                      The paper concludes that REER has been declining at the rate 0.4085 per cent per year which is insignificant at 5% level during 1970-2015 but it is exponentially declining at the rate of 0.2028 per cent which is significant.AR(1) of REER is convergent,stationary and significant but AR(2) is convergent ,nonstationary and insignificant.Even ARIMA(1,1,1) is nonstationary because AR(1) is stationary but MA(1) is nonstationary.GARCH(1,1) showed insignificant.Thus the series REER is highly volatile.This series contains five significant structural breaks in 1976,1986,1992,(downward)2004 and 2010(upward).It’s pattern is cyclical which was turned to smooth cycle.Trace statistic showed three cointegrating vectors and Max-Eigen Statistic showed two cointegrating vectors that verify cointegration in the order one.Vector Error Correction model is stable because all roots lie in the unit root circle but it is nonstationary because impulse response functions are diverging and error corrections are significant  only in degree of openness and FDI inflows in relating REER during 1970-2015 with one period lag.Residuals test of VECM confirmed non normality and autocorrelations.
         Only sound fiscal and monetary policy can control upward movement of REER so that significant relationships can be achieved with those selected determinants that would spur the growth of international trade.

Key words---Real Effective Exchange Rate, stationary,structural breaks, causality, cointegration,vector error correction
JEL-F15,F31,F32,F36,F43,O13,O24,O54
Behaviour and determinants of Real Effective Exchange Rate of India

I.Introduction
Real Effective Exchange Rate is an important tool in managing international trade and finance and macroeconomic stability in an open economy. It influenced export and import prices and trade volumes. Appreciation and depreciation of REER determined terms of trade, openness, foreign exchange reserves of an economy to at great extent.FDI inflows and current account balance are largely depend on the REER because in the liberalized and globalised world the adjustment in balance of payments is largely correlated with the movement of REER.The REER is closely related with the nominal and real rate by definition when it is trade weighted or export weighted with group of countries. Exchange rate policy whether it is nominal or real controls national inflation and influenced international inflation in which interest rate differential is the crucial and key variable. Today, under globalization REER is closely related with the growth rate also since volatility of REER is the barrier of high growth in which volume of trade affects. According to Balassa-Samuelson effect,volatility of REER influenced export competitiveness and productivity.In calculating REER based with export or trade weighted 36 countries,RBI did not consider productivity.Even,India have not long run data on REER,and NEER. However,India could not predict well the nature of capital account convertibility,the productivity changes and terms of trade changes in relating to REER. Therefore, the task before RBI is crucial because policy of exchange rate also related with monetary and fiscal policies as well.
II.Objective of the study
This paper endeavours to study the behavior patterns of REER and its determinants in India during 1970-2015 where the author assumed that the basic determinants of REER are growth rate,current account deficit as per cent of GDP,openness of the economy,foreign direct investment inflows,foreign exchange reserves excluding gold and so on .The relation were calculated through cointegration and vector error correction models.The policies of REER and limitations of the paper are also the aims of this study. 


VIII.Conclusion
REER of India during 1970-2015 is significantly decreasing exponentially at the rate of0.2028% per year.AR(2),ARIMA(1,1,1) are non stationary, GARCH(1,1) is exstremely volatile.REER has five structural breaks in 1976,1986,1992,2004 and 2010 ,it follows random walk, REER has bidirectional causality with growth rate,current account balance,FDI inflows but unidirectional causality with openness and foreign exchange reserves.
Johansen unrestricted cointegration rank test among REER ,growth rate,current account deficit,trade openness,FDI inflows and foreign exchange reserves assured that Trace Statistic contains three cointegrating equations and Max Eigen Statistic contains two cointegrating equations which determined they are cointegrated in the order one, All the estimated equations of VECM are not good fit except Δx3t and Δx4t where error correction processes are significant and even the changes of variables are not related with previous period significantly.
TOT,NEER are not included,model could be explained in pre reform and post reform period and in different exchange rate regime.It is necessary to reduce inflation,to rise foreign exchange reserves,to increase trade surplus and to rise productivity which will lower cost that may decrease price level and REER.
More the protection the less is the REER volatility,so avoid capital account liberalization. Again,the higher the foreign exchange reserves the lower is the commodity TOT shock to REER which tends to lower volatility of REER. RBI is trying to resist volatility of REER and formulates [i] to develop skill in dealing spot and foreward market,[ii] to compete with FED rate by reducing interest rate,[iii] to increase in outflow of port folio which will call for new exchange rate and monetary policy,[iv] to allow alternative exchange rate policy to check appreciation of REER which enhance capital inflows,[v] to monitor excessive exchange rate depreciation which follows loss of foreign exchange reserves during macro economic shocks ,[vi] thus Rajan said India needs macroeconomic stability.

Friday, 27 January 2017

Growth -Inflation Nexus in USA:A Threshold Regression Approach





MBA department of Vidyasagar University organized two days International Seminar during 25-26 January,2017 on the theme “Recent Innovations in Management,Accounting ,Business and Entrepreneurship”.Honourable V.C. Prof. Ranjan Banerjee inaugurated the seminar. Prof.V.G.Venkatesh ,Waikato University,NewZealand addressed as chief guest  on “Changing dynamics in supply chain in International perspectives”and Prof.Ankit Katrodia of South Africa addressed as Special guest on “Scope of entrepreneurship:A comparison between India and South Africa”.Prof.R.P.Banerjee,Formerly IIM and now Director of EIILM,Kolkata addressed on Emerging Issues of Management in India and Overseas” and Prof.T.P.Ghosh from IMT,Dubai addressed on Oil Dependency of G.C.C. market.More than 40 renouned scholars presented their research papers.
Prof Debasish Biswas of Vidyasagar University,MBA Deparment and I(Dr.Debesh Bhowmik,-Former Principal) also have presented a paper jointly on “Growth-Inflation nexus in USA:A Threshold Regression Approach”
The details of the paper is given below.




Growth-Inflation nexus in USA:A Threshold Regression Approach

Dr.Debesh Bhowmik
(Retired Principal and Associated in International Institute for Development Studies,Kolkata. debeshbhowmik@rediffmail.com)
Dr.Debasish Biswas
(Assistant Professor,MBA Department,Vidyasagar University,debasish762010@yahoo.com)

Abstract

The paper endeavours to find out the nature of inflation of USA during 1961-2015 and
to find out the nexus between inflation and growth using Granger causality, Johansen cointegration and vector error correction models.It also showed threshold limit of inflation of 1.75-3.0 per cent in USA using GDP deflator as inflation and taking World Bank Data. It finds one structural break at 1992 and no random walk with drift. Growth inflation nexus is negative. They are cointegrated and showed unidirectional causality. Error correction process is very fast and significant but vector error correction model is stable but divergent. Federal Reserve Bank is in favour of fiscal and monetary policy reforms to curb inflation.

Key words: Inflation,Economic growth, Granger Causality,Vector Error Correction, Threshold,Monetary policy

JEL:C13,E22,E31,E37,E52,O40,O49
I.Introduction

The relationship between inflation and economic growth plays an important role in the economy.
High and stable output growth and low inflation are the two main goals of macroeconomic policy. In the economic literature, there has been considerable debate on the nature of inflation and growth relationship. Mundel (1965) and Tobin (1965) predict a positive relationship between the rate of inflation and the rate of capital accumulation, which in turn, implies a positive relationship to the rate of economic growth. Fischer and Modigliani (1978) suggest a negative and nonlinear relationship between the rate of inflation and economic growth through the new growth theory mechanism. They mention that inflation restricts economic growth largely by reducing the efficiency of investment rather than its level. Both the views of the structuralists and the monetarists up to a certain extent, that is, low inflation is helpful for economic growth but once the economy achieves faster growth then inflation is detrimental for the sustainability of such growth. High inflation can cause companies or investors to shift resources away from high to low inflation countries as a hedge against losses that might be generated from rising costs of inflation. However, low inflation levels promote economic growth by making prices and wages more flexible. If high inflation is detrimental for the economy and low inflation is beneficial, then it is natural to ask what the optimal level of inflation for an economy is.  For each country or group of countries there exists a certain level or a range of inflation (threshold inflation) which is conducive for growth. If inflation is indeed harmful for economic growth when it reaches a particular threshold level, then knowing this level as well as potential losses of output growth in the short run and in the long run is crucial for formulating macroeconomic policies. Hence it is important to investigate the existence and nature of the link between these two variables.


VIII.Conclusion
The paper concludes that inflation of USA has been declining at the rate of 1.58% per year during 1961-2015.It has no random walk with drift but it showed a structural break in 1992 at 2.27% .One percent increase in inflation rate per year led to 0.88% decrease in growth rate per year in USA at the specified time. Growth inflation causality is unidirectional and they are cointegrated in the order one. Error correction is speedy and significant which was found in VECM which is stable but divergent. The threshold level of inflation rate or target rate is a limit of 1.75-3.00 per cent beyond which growth will be more adverse for the economy. 

Sunday, 1 January 2017

THE TRENDS AND DETERMINANTS OF INDIAN EXPORTS: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS

This paper has been presented in the 99th conference of Indian Economic Association at S.V.University,Tirupati on 28/12/2016 


THE TRENDS AND DETERMINANTS OF INDIAN EXPORTS: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS


Dr.Debesh Bhowmik
Ex.Principal and Associate Editor, Arthabeekshan-Journal of BEA
Life member-Indian Economic Association
The Indian Econometric Society
Economic Association of Bihar
Bengal Economic Association








THE TRENDS AND DETERMINANTS OF INDIAN EXPORTS:AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Dr.Debesh Bhowmik (Ex.Principal and Associate Editor, Arthabbekshan-Journal of BEA)
ABSTRACT
The paper explored that Indian exports increased at the rate 11.28% per year during 1968-2015 whose residuals are heteroscedastic having autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation problems. Export is exponentially increasing at the rate of 0.6058% per year . Indian exports showed four structural breaks in the year 1976,1988, 1995 and 2004 respectively. Hodrick- Prescott Filter is found good fit with minimized cycles.
The paper observed that Indian exports is positively significant with exchange rate, degree of openness and GDP during 1968-2015 but export unit value index, WPI, FDI inflows have shown insignificant usual relation with export. Its ADF are significant in both level and first difference series. The cross correlation coefficients are positive and significant. The exports and its determinants are cointegrated in the order one where Trace Statistic has five cointegrating vectors and Max Eigen Statistic has three cointegrating vectors. So, VECM showed speedy error correction process with good fit of the estimated seven equations but VECM is not stable and stationary having non normal distribution and without serial correlation.

Key words – Export trends, determinants of exports, cointegration, VEC
JEL-F14 ,F20, F21, P33
THE FULL PAPER WAS PUBLISHED IN THE INDIAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL,SPECIAL NUMBER,DECEMBER,2016,


Thursday, 15 December 2016

Recent Demonitisation in India


Recent Demonitisation in India
Dr.Debesh Bhowmik



What is demonitisation

Demonetization is the act of stripping a currency unit of its status as legal tender. Demonetization is necessary whenever there is a change of national currency. The old unit of currency must be retired and replaced with a new currency unit.
There are multiple reasons why nations demonetize their local units of currency. Some reasons include to combat inflation, to combat corruption, and to discourage a cash system. The process of demonetization involves either introducing new notes or coins of the same currency or completely replacing the old currency with new currency.

During the regimes of silver standard and gold standard and even in bimetallic standard,the nature of demonitisation in various countries were rather different.
Gold was demonetized in stages, first by FD Roosevelt in 1933, who confiscated (stole) the American people’s Gold and gave them paper in return… at the rate of $20.67 /oz… Then in a few months he marked up the value of the Gold (that is, devalued the paper given to the people) to $35.00 / oz.; a loss of more than 50% of value in a few months. On 6 March 1933, soon after he took office, President Roosevelt declared a nationwide bank moratorium for four days to stop heavy withdrawals and forbade banks to pay out gold or to export it. On 5 April the president ordered all gold coins and gold certificates in hoards of more than a hundred dollars turned in for other money. The government took in $300 million of gold coin and $470 million of gold certificates by 10 May.
The demonetization of Gold was completed by Nixon in 1971, when he ‘closed the Gold window’… that is, reneged on the US commitment to redeem every thirty five US Dollars for one oz. of Gold, as per the Bretton Woods agreement. Gold was demonetized fraudulently; the honest approach would have been to devalue the Dollar, to balance all newly printed Dollars against physical Gold reserves. Already the EU has ‘demonetized’ the 500 Euro bill, and Citibank in the US has stopped accepting cash (Dollars; legal tender for all debt, public or private).Then $100 Dollar bill was under imminent threat.
Indian History
In the history of Indian monetary system,demonitisation of silver,gold and their currencies occurred frequently.
In 1835, a declaration from Governor-General William Bentinck in Calcutta demonetised all old gold coins and introduced a unified coinage system for India with the Madras silver rupee as the standard. The gold mohur (coin) of the Mughal empire was deliberately undervalued to dissuade its usage, and soon its circulation began to fall. In 1841 came another proclamation authorising the government to receive gold, but it continued to pay out only silver.Gold mohars were accepted in public treasures at the rate of 1:15.Even under the regime of silver standard,in 1874,government adopted gold currency.In 1893,gold and silver coinage were no longer legal tender and government introduced gold exchange standard in stead of gold standard in India by British government where gold standard was the monetary system,even in its territories gold standard were  the system.
Demonitisation in India and foreign countries
·  The sudden move to demonetize Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes is not new. Rs 1,000 and higher denomination notes were first demonetized in January 1946 and again in 1978.
·  The highest denomination note ever printed by the Reserve Bank of India was the Rs 10,000 note in 1938 and again in 1954. But these notes were demonetized in January 1946 and again in January 1978, according to RBI data. Rs 1,000 and Rs 10,000 bank notes were in circulation prior to January 1946. Higher denomination banknotes of Rs 1,000, Rs 5,000 and Rs 10,000 were reintroduced in 1954 and all of them were demonetized in January 1978.
In recent times,outside India,there are a few examples of demonitisation.
In 1982, Ghana rolled out the decision to demonetise their 50 cedi currency notes in order to monitor money laundering and corruption. The change was not welcomed warmly, creating chaos across the country and finally resulted in a move back to physical assets and foreign currency.
Nigeria’s economy collapsed after the 1984 demonetisation move that did not go as planned. The military government of then President Muhammadu Buhari introduced different coloured notes to invalidate their old currency in order to fight black money.
Around 80% of Myanmar’s currency was demonetised in 1987 by the military to curb black money, but the move resulted in a lot of protests and the country witnessed several killings.
Under the governance of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991, the then Soviet Union demonetised the higher denominations of ruble bills, the 50s and 100s. The move did not go well and resulted in takeover of Mikhail’s leadership within eight months of the plan.
North Korea faced demonetisation of their currency in 2010, which led to major economy breakdown with people left to starve for basics.
Zimbabwe once had hundred trillion dollar note, which was demonetised and was exchanged in a mocking way dropping trillion dollars to $0.5 dollar.
In the beginning of this year, head of European Central Bank, Mario Draghi announced that the bank is thinking to abolish the region’s most-valuable bank note, the 500 euro bill in order to curb tax evasion and terrorism financing. Similarly, former US treasury secretary Larry Summers has also called for the demonetisation of $100 bill.
Advantages of Demonetization
  1. The biggest advantage of demonetization is that it helps the government to track people who are having large sums of unaccounted cash or cash on which no income tax has been paid because many people who earn black money keep that money as cash in their houses or in some secret place which is very difficult to find and when demonetization happens all that cash is of no value and such people have two options one is to deposit the money in bank accounts and pay taxes on such amount and second option is to let the value of that cash reduced to zero.
  2. Since black money is used for illegal activities like terrorism funding, gambling, money laundering and also inflating the price of major assets classes like real estate, gold and due to demonetization all such activities will get reduced for some time and also it will take years for people to generate that amount of black money again and hence in a way it helps in putting an end this circle of people doing illegal activities to earn black money and using that black money to do more illegal activities.
  3. Another benefit is that due to people disclosing their income by depositing money in their bank accounts government gets a good amount of tax revenue which can be used by the government towards the betterment of society by providing good infrastructure, hospitals, educational institutions, roads and many facilities for poor and needy sections of society.
  4. Demonetization would lead to generation in employment. Government can now lend massively to infrastructure sector through the recapitalized Public Sector Banks. This would generate a lot of employment opportunities thereby moving more people out of poverty.
5.      In the long run,demonitisation has positive impact in the economy. It will boost the formal economy in the long run as black money hoarders will not able to make their money white. Middle class citizens may get benefitted from the short term fall in real estate prices. This move along with the implementation of GST is likely to make the system more efficient, accountable and transparent.

Disadvantages
  1. The biggest disadvantage of demonetization is that once people in the country gets to know about it than initially for few days there is chaos and frenzy among public as everybody wants to get rid of demonetized notes which in turn sometimes can lead to law and order problem and chaotic situation especially in banks and ATMs which are the only medium to change the old currency units to new currency units.
  2. Another disadvantage is that destruction of old currency units and printing of new currency new units involve costs which has to be borne by the government and if the costs are higher than benefits then there is no use of demonetization.
  3. Another problem is that majority of times this move is targeted towards black money but if people have not kept cash as their black money and rotated or used that money in other asset classes like real estate, gold and so on then there is no guarantee that demonetization will help in catching corrupt people.
4.      Agriculture & allied sector, small traders, SME, services sector, households, political parties, professionals like doctor, carpenter, retail outlets, utility service providers etc have been facing huge disruptions. The above sectors are expected to face the most significant impact of the demonetization process. GDP with the reduction in the consumption demand, GDP formation in the country could get adversely impacted. However, the sluggishness is expected to be less significant as the demand is only got deferred and will re-enter the system once the situation becomes normal.

5.      Demonetization is not a big disaster like global banking sector crisis of 2007; but at the same time, it will act as a liquidity shock that disturbs economic activities.
6.      liquidity shock started which means people are not able to get sufficient volume of popular denomination especially Rs 500.  This currency unit is the favourable denomination in daily life. It constituted to nearly 49% of the previous currency supply in terms of value.
  1. Most active segments of the population who constitute the ‘base of the pyramid’ uses currency to meet their transactions. The daily wage earners, other labourers, small traders etc. who reside out of the formal economy uses cash frequently. These sections will lose income in the absence of liquid cash. Cash stringency will compel firms to reduce labour cost and thus reduces income to the poor working class.
There will be a trickle up effect of the liquidity chaos to the higher income people with time.
        [i] Consumption will be hit: When liquidity shortage strikes, it is consumption that is going to be adversely affected first. 
Consumption ↓→ Production ↓→ Employment ↓→ Growth ↓→ Tax revenue ↓
[ii] Loss of Growth momentum- India risks its position of being the fastest growing largest economy: reduced consumption, income,      investment etc. may reduce India’s GDP growth as the liquidity impact itself may last three -four months.
[iii] Impact on bank deposits and interest rate: Deposit in the short term may rise, but in the long term, its effect will come down. The savings with the banks are actually liquid cash people stored. It is difficult to assume that such ready cash once stored in their hands will be put into savings for a long term. They saved this money into banks just to convert the old notes into new notes. These are not voluntary savings aimed to get interest. It will be converted into active liquidity by the savers when full-fledged new currency supply take place. This means that new savings with banks is only transitory or short-term deposit. It may be encashed by the savers at the appropriate time. It is not necessary that demonetization will produce big savings in the banking system in the medium term. Most of the savings are obtained by biggie public sector banks like the SBI. They may reduce interest rate in the short/medium term. But they can't follow it in the long term. 
There is no doubt that the rate of growth of GDP in the near term will be affected. Around 80 percent of our GDP is contributed by small businesses and demonetisation has affected the liquidity of these businesses in the short term and will remain impacted till all the abrogated notes are replaced. It is estimated that 20 percent of the GDP is contributed by black money, out of which the cash component is around 4-5 percent and the remaining contributions coming from benami properties, gold and other asset classes. If we believe these statistics then the impact on GDP also will be limited. One can therefore conclude that the impact on GDP will be limited and for a shorter duration. The success of this move depends on the amount of impounded currency which will be exchanged or deposited with the banks. The government expects that only around 80 percent of the impounded currency will be returned and the remaining forfeited by the black money holders. If the amount of currency returned or exchanged is in the vicinity of 93-95 percent then the gamble of the government would backfire, though in such an event the effect on GDP would be minimal.
Some Remarks
Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has called the Narendra Modi government’s demonetisation move “despotic action that has struck at the root of economy based on trust.”
“It (demonetisation) undermines notes, it undermines bank accounts, it undermines the entire economy of trust. That is the sense in which it is despotic,” Prof. Sen told to a TV channel.
He further said his immediate point of view on demonetisation is on its economic aspect.
“It’s (demonetisation) a disaster on economy of trust. In the last 20 years, the country has been growing very fast. But it is all based on acceptance of each other’s word. By taking despotic action and saying we had promised but won’t fulfil our promise, you hit at the root of this,” Prof. Sen said.
“Telling the public suddenly that the promissory notes you have, do not promise anything with certainty, is a more complex manifestation of authoritarianism, allegedly justified — or so the government claims — because some of these notes, held by some crooked people, involve black money. At one stroke the move declares all Indians — indeed all holders of Indian currency — as possibly crooks, unless they can establish they are not,” Amartya Sen said in an interview with The Indian Express. Amartya Sen said the demonetisation drive has only caused inconvenience to common man who are deprived of their money even if it was earned legally. “Only an authoritarian government can calmly cause such misery to the people — with millions of innocent people being deprived of their money and being subjected to suffering, inconvenience and indignity in trying to get their own money back,” said Amartya Sen.
Rejecting government’s claim that the demonetisation drive will help to curb black money, Amartya Sen said it will be another failure of Narendra Modi government. Amartya Sen said, “It is hard to see how. This will be as much of a failure as the government’s earlier promise of bringing black money stacked away abroad back to India (and giving all Indians a sudden gift — what an empty promise!). The people who are best equipped to avoid the intended trap of demonetisation are precisely the ones who are seasoned dealers in black money — not the common people and small traders who are undergoing one more misery in addition to all the deprivations and indignities from which they suffer.”
Prof.Kausik Basu said thatDemonetization was ostensibly implemented to combat corruption, terrorism financing and inflation. But it was poorly designed, with scant attention paid to the laws of the market, and it is likely to fail. So far its effects have been disastrous for the middle- and lower-middle classes, as well as the poor. And the worst may be yet to come. India has a large amount of what is known as “black money,” meaning cash or any other form of wealth that has evaded taxation. According to a 2010 World Bank estimate, the most reliable available, the shadow economy in India makes up one-fifth of the country’s G.D.P. (A 2013 study by McKinsey, the consulting firm, puts the figure at more than one-quarter.)
Black money tends to exacerbate inequality because the biggest evasions occur at the top of the income spectrum. It also deprives the government of money to spend on infrastructure and public services like health care and education. According to the World Bank’s most recent estimate, from 2012, India’s tax-to-G.D.P. ratio is about 11 percent, compared with about 14 percent for Brazil, about 26 percent for South Africa and about 35 percent for Denmark. The government’s wish to tackle these problems is laudable, but demonetization is a ham-fisted move that will put only a temporary dent in corruption, if even that, and is likely to rock the entire economy. The government’s demonetization dragnet will no doubt catch some illicit cash. Some people will turn in their black money and pay a penalty; others will destroy part of their illegal stashes in order not to draw attention to their businesses. But the overall benefits will be small and fleeting.
One reason is that the bulk of black money in India isn’t money at all: It’s held in gold and silver, real estate and overseas bank accounts. Another is that even if demonetization can flush out the black money that is held in cash, with no improvement in catching and punishing tax evaders, people with ill-gotten gains will simply start saving in the new bills currently being issued. There also is no evidence that black money actually is more inflationary than white money; nor in theory should it be. Black money is just money held by people instead of the government. It’s an excessive money supply that tends to create inflation; whether that money is white or black makes little difference. Tackling corruption also goes beyond currency, cash or even banking. It requires changing institutions and mind-sets, and carefully crafting policies that acknowledge the complexity of economic and social life. The government could start by increasing penalties for tax evasion and amending India’s outdated anti-graft laws.
In a country like India, where the illegal economy is so intimately intertwined with the mainstream economy, one inept government intervention against shadow activities can do a lot of harm to the vast majority, who are just trying to make a legitimate living.
Rajan said ,I am not quite sure if what you meant is demonetise the old notes and introduce new notes instead. In the past demonetisation has been thought off as a way of getting black money out of circulation. Because people then have to come and say "how do I have this ten crores in cash sitting in my safe" and they have to explain where they got the money from. It is often cited as a solution. Unfortunately, my sense is the clever find ways around it.
They find ways to divide up their hoard in to many smaller pieces. You do find that people who haven't thought of a way to convert black to white, throw it into the Hundi in some temples. I think there are ways around demonetization. It is not that easy to flush out the black money. Of course, a fair amount may be in the form of gold, therefore even harder to catch. I would focus more on the incentives to generate and retain black money. A lot of the incentives are on taxes.
My sense is the current tax rate in this country is for the most part reasonable. We have a reasonable tax regime, for example, the maximum tax rate on high-incomes is 33%, in the US it is already 39% plus State taxes, etc., it takes it to near 50. We are actually lower than many industrial countries. Given that, there is no reason why everybody who should pay taxes is not paying taxes. I would focus more on tracking data and better tax administration to get at where money is not being declared. I think it is very hard in this modern economy to hide your money that easily”.
Post-Demonitisation period
We have faced very short run effects on the following areas of the economy,name,[i]share market returns fell and there is shock in stock market,[ii]bank deposits rose abruptfly,[iii]adverse impact on industry especially on automobile,GDP,consumption and reality sector ,[iv]land price decreased,[v]housing price fell down,[vi]inflation rate came down
It is expected by the government that high credit in the economy may improve unemployment but it should be noted that NPA may increase if loans from banks are not repaid in time and high NPA will cause fall in banking profits.
If government fails to supply of adequate liquidity in banks and ATMs for the people then liquidity crisis may lead to banking crisis that may produce financial crisis too.

Lastly,adopting another currency or introducing a new currency does not solve the economic crises, unless it is followed by massive corrections in the macroeconomic fundamentals