Empirical assessment of the relationship between conventional and unconventional monetary policy instruments and macroeconomic indicators in Uzbekistan

Authors

  • Dilshod Safaroliyevich Djumonov Scientific Research Center “Scientific Foundations and Problems of theDevelopment of the Economy of Uzbekistan” under Tashkent State University of Economics
  • Sayfillo Saidovich Nasriddinov Branch of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Astrakhan State Technical University”, Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan
  • Shovkat Maxsumovich Ilmuratov Branch of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Astrakhan State Technical University”, Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan
  • Nurlan Alimjanovich Kaldibayev Department of Corporate Economics and Management, Tashkent State University of Economics, Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33152/jmphss-10.3.2

Keywords:

unconventional monetary policy, central bank total assets, policy rate, consumer price index, exchange rate, gross domestic product

Abstract

This paper examines the macroeconomic effects of both conventional and unconventional monetary policy instruments in Uzbekistan with the aim of assessing their relative effectiveness. The empirical results indicate that the conventional interest rate channel exhibits relatively more stable and consistent effects across different model specifications compared to the unconventional balance sheet channel. The policy rate exerts statistically significant causal effects on GDP, inflation, and the exchange rate within both the VECM and Toda–Yamamoto frameworks. The findings further suggest that the effects of unconventional monetary policy materialize gradually, with considerable lags, and are most pronounced in long-run equilibrium relationships. Overall, the empirical evidence indicates that monetary policy transmission in Uzbekistan operates through a hybrid mechanism, wherein conventional interest rate instruments retain their primary role while unconventional balance sheet expansion policies serve as a complementary stabilization tool.

References

Abeygunawardana, K., Amarasekara, C., & Tilakaratne, C. D. (2017). Macroeconomic effects of monetary policy shocks. South Asia Economic Journal, 18(1), 35–36.

Bhattarai, S., Chatterjee, A., & Park, W. Y. (2015). Effects of US quantitative easing on emerging market economies. Globalization Institute Working Papers 255. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Bindseil, U., & Fotia, A. (2021). Introduction to central banking. Springer Briefs in Quantitative Finance. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70884-9

Boeckx, J., Dossche, M., & Peersman, G. (2017). Effectiveness and transmission of the ECB's balance sheet policies. International Journal of Central Banking, 13(1), 297–333.

Borio, C., & Zabai, A. (2018). Unconventional monetary policies: A re-appraisal. In P. Conti-Brown & R. M. Lastra (Eds.), Research handbook on central banking (pp. 398–444). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fiorelli, C., & Meliciani, V. (2019). Economic growth in the era of unconventional monetary instruments: A FAVAR approach. Journal of Macroeconomics, 62(C), 14.

Gagnon, J., Raskin, M., Remache, J., & Sack, B. (2011). The financial market effects of the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchases. International Journal of Central Banking, 7(1), 3–43.

Galí, J. (2015). Monetary policy, inflation, and the business cycle. Princeton University Press.

Gambacorta, L., Hofmann, B., & Peersman, G. (2014). The effectiveness of unconventional monetary policy at the zero lower bound: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 46(4), 615–642.

Gertler, M., & Karadi, P. (2011). A model of unconventional monetary policy. Journal of Monetary Economics, 58(1), 17–34.

Goto, E. (2023). Industry effects of unconventional monetary policy, within and across countries. Journal of International Money and Finance, 136.

Kevin, D. S. (2017). Conventional and unconventional monetary policy rules. Journal of Macroeconomics, 54(Part A), 127–147.

Krishnamurthy, A., & Vissing-Jorgensen, A. (2011). The effects of quantitative easing on interest rates: Channels and implications for policy (NBER Working Paper No. w17555). National Bureau of Economic Research.

McMahon, M., Peiris, M. U., & Polemarchakis, H. (2018). Perils of unconventional monetary policy. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 93(C), 92–114.

Nam, M. H. (2018). The effect of quantitative easing on inflation in Korea. East Asian Economic Review, 22(4), 507.

Pattipeilohy, C. (2016). A comparative analysis of developments in central bank balance sheet composition (BIS Working Paper No. 559). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2763125

Rogoff, K. (1985). The optimal degree of commitment to an intermediate monetary target. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100(4), 1169–1189.

Weale, M., & Wieladek, T. (2016). What are the macroeconomic effects of asset purchases? Journal of Monetary Economics, 79(C), 81.

Woodford, M. (2005). Central bank communication and policy effectiveness (NBER Working Paper No. 11898).

Yehoue, E. B., Stone, M., & Ishi, K. (2009). Unconventional central bank measures for emerging economies (IMF Working Paper No. 09/226). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1493543

Published

2026-05-28

How to Cite

Djumonov, D. S., Nasriddinov, S. S., Ilmuratov, S. M., & Kaldibayev, N. A. (2026). Empirical assessment of the relationship between conventional and unconventional monetary policy instruments and macroeconomic indicators in Uzbekistan. Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(3), 352-366. https://doi.org/10.33152/jmphss-10.3.2