







































American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and 

Economics 
ISSN: 2837-1909| Impact Factor : 6.71 

Volume. 11, Number 2; April-June, 2024; 

Published By: Scientific and Academic Development Institute (SADI) 

8933 Willis Ave Los Angeles, California 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE| editorial@sadijournals.org 

 

 

92 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

DYNAMICS OF MONETARY POLICY, FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT, 

AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN NIGERIA: EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVE 
 

 

Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. 

Ulster Business School, Magee, Ulster University, UK 

Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria 

Olaniran-O@ulster.ac.uk/ polomola@oauife.edu.ng  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12607378 

Abstract: This study empirically investigated the nexus between monetary policy, financial development and 

income inequality in Nigeria. Annual time series data on monetary policy, financial development indicators and 

income inequality were sourced from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) statistical Bulletin and the Standardized 

World Income Inequality Database (SWIID). The Vector Autoregression Model (VAR) model was employed as 

the analytical technique and the variance decomposition result revealed that monetary policy is more sensitive to 

shocks from the financial sector while the financial sector and income inequality are mostly driven by shocks 

emanating from each other. The impulse response result revealed that income inequality is positively driven by 

changes in monetary policy and financial development while the response of monetary policy to financial 

development is sensitive to the financial development indicator employed. The study recommends that to curtail 

income inequality, monetary and financial sector stability must be prioritized by the monetary authorities in 

Nigeria.   

KEYWORDS: Financial Development, Income Inequality, Vector Autoregression, Variance Decomposition, 

Impulse Response 

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Studies over time in the extant literature have examined the linkage between monetary policy and financial 

development (see Albanesi, 2007; Billi & Vredin, 2014; Ekpeno, Godwin & Chuku, 2017; Furceri, Loungani and 

Zdzienicka, 2017), monetary policy dynamics and income inequality (Auclert, 2019; Coibon, Kueng & Silvia, 

2012; Nakajima, 2015; Bivens, 2015; Cloyne, Ferreira & Surico, 2016; Mumtaz & Theophilopoulou, 2016; 

Furceri, Loungani & Zdzienicka, 2017; Davytan, 2017; Aye, Clance & Gupta, 2019), as well as financial 

development and income inequality (Greenwood & Jovanovic, 1990; Banerjee & Newmann, 1993; Galor & Zeira, 

1993; Beck, Kunt & Levine, 2007; Law & Tan, 2009; Jauch & Watzka, 2012; Fowowe & Abidoye, 2013; 

Shahbaz, Loganathan, Tiwari & Sherafatian-Jahromi, 2015; Tita & Aziakpono, 2016; Younsi & Bechtini, 2018; 

Brei, Ferri & Gambacorta, 2018; Baiardi & Morana, 2018). However, the empirical link between monetary policy, 

mailto:Olaniran-O@ulster.ac.uk/
mailto:polomola@oauife.edu.ng


Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

93 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

financial development, and income inequality in developed and developing countries remains a gray area that is 

largely unexplored. 

The motivation for this stems from the fact that monetary policy actions of the Central Bank have far-reaching 

effect on financial development, which in turn influences income inequality in the economy. For instance, an 

expansionary monetary policy is expected to increase the quantity of money in the economy through the reduction 

of interest rates (Bauer & Eric, 2022; Coibon et al. 2012; Nakajima, 2015; Mumtaz & Theophilopoulou, 2016).  

This action boosts household’s access to loans and increases their level of wealth. It will also increase the level 

of investment in the stock market by households that are financial market participants, thereby enhancing financial 

development (Billi & Vredin, 2014; Furceri, Loungani and Zdzienicka, 2017). However, this process can also 

exert inflationary pressure (general price increase) on the economy, which eventually widens income inequality 

because of the fall in the value of money. This makes poor households poorer because they hold a large proportion 

of their income in cash and are mostly non-participants in the financial market (Younsi & Bechtini, 2018; Brei, 

Ferri & Gambacorta, 2018)   

On the other hand, rich households hold a small portion of their income as cash and are mostly active participants 

in the financial market. This makes them less susceptible to inflationary shocks while also benefitting from the 

yields of their investment in the stock market, thus making them richer. The foregoing implies that monetary 

policy, financial development, and income inequality are interwoven, because they are connected to each other 

(Frost & Stralen, 2018). The implication of this is that shocks to any of these three variables can influence the 

performance of the other variables in developing countries (Nigeria, in this case).  

As pointed out earlier, the adoption of an expansionary monetary policy enhances financial sector performance 

but raises income inequality; however, financial development plays a key role in the conduct of monetary policy 

and overall economic performance (Billi & Vredin, 2014). The question to ask here is whether policymakers 

should abandon financial development to lessen inequality through monetary policy or pursue financial 

development at the expense of widening inequality in the economy. This paper is a departure from previous 

studies in two ways. First, we examine the dynamic relationship among monetary policy, financial development, 

and income inequality in Nigeria within the framework of a dynamic time series VAR model; no known study 

has previously done this. Second, we adopt different measures of financial development and the monetary policy 

rate as a measure of monetary policy in Nigeria to obtain a more robust and reliable estimation of our model. The 

rest of the paper is structured as follows: section two contains the literature review, section three contains the 

methodology, section four presents the results and discussion while section five concludes the paper. 

 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 

A review of some studies on the link between monetary policy, financial development, and income inequality is 

discussed as follows: 

Saiki and Frost (2014) in Japan examined the distributional effects of unconventional monetary policy shocks on 

inequality between 2008 and 2014. With specific reference to the income composition channel, the vector 

autoregression analysis (VAR) technique was employed, and the result showed that expansionary monetary policy 

shocks increase income inequality in Japan during the study period. 

Denk and Cournède (2015) investigated the financial development - income inequality linkage for OECD nations 

between 1974 and 2011 using a panel fixed effect (FE) regression estimation technique. The results revealed that 

financial development has driven higher income inequality. Greater loan availability and stock markets contribute 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

94 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

to unequal distribution of income. Also, the study found evidence of reverse causality from greater income 

inequality to household borrowing in OECD nations during the study period. 

Bahmani-Oskoe and Zhang (2015) studied financial development - income inequality link in 17 emerging 

countries using an error correction modeling technique. The findings of the study revealed that in the short run, 

financial development has a stabilizing influence on income inequality in ten countries and an unequalizing effect 

in five countries during the study period. However, in the long run, the study found an equalizing effect in three 

countries: Denmark, Kenya, and Turkey. 

Batabyal and Chowdhury (2015) empirically examined the financial development - income inequality linkage in 

thirty (30) Commonwealth countries between 1995 and 2008, while also considering the role of corruption in 

these countries. The study adopted the ordinary least squares (OLS) and the instrumental variable (IV) regression 

models to analyze the data collected. The results showed that financial development positively influences income 

inequality at increased levels of corruption in all countries. However, the effect is significantly higher for low and 

middle-income countries than for high-income countries. 

 Sehrawat and Giri (2016), between 1986 and 2012, probed financial development and rural - urban income 

inequality in six South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries, while considering the 

role of economic growth. Employing panel fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) regression analysis, a 

long run connection was established among the variables of interest. The main findings of the study revealed that 

improvements in the financial system and economic growth heighten rural - urban income inequality during the 

study period. 

Anthanasius and Meshach (2016) empirically studied financial development and inequality for Africa between 

1985 and 2007, by adopting a balanced panel 15 African nations. The study adopted the Augmented Mean Group 

(AMG) estimator to determine the optimal levels of financial development and inequality. The findings revealed 

that an asymmetric link exists between financial development and inequality in the sampled African countries, 

and the relationship changes from an inverted u-shape to a u-shape based on the indicator of financial development 

adopted. 

Babu, Bhaskaran and Venakatesh (2016) examined inequality and long-run growth in 29 emerging economies 

between 1980 and 2010 using the system generalized method of moments (SGMM). It was revealed that by 

adjusting for transfers, inequality exerts an injurious impact on output eventually. Furthermore, the study found 

no ambiguity among re-distribution and output. 

Areosa and Areosa (2016) examined the transmission channels of income inequality in Brazil. This study 

investigated optimum monetary policy while putting inequality into consideration by employing a DSGE model 

without a financial system, price inflexibility, and unskilled agents. The result showed that contractionary 

monetary shocks raise inequality and lower output gap and inflation. With regards to the monetary policy 

objectives of stabilizing inequality, including inequality stabilization, the outcome revealed that welfare declines 

as unskilled agents increase and monetary policy becomes ineffective when skilled agents are scarce. 

 Azleen and Mansur (2017) empirically studied the link between financial development and inequality in Malaysia 

from 1970 to 2007. This study employed autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bound testing and the error 

correction mechanism (ECM) to test the long-run relationship in the variables. In addition, the variance 

decomposition (VD) affirmed granger causation in the variables. The results showed that long-term connection 

exists among the variables and financial development insignificantly influence inequality in the sample period. 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

95 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

Younsi & Bechtini (2018) examined output, financial development and income inequality in Brazil, Russia, India, 

China and South Africa (BRICS) between 1995 and 2015. By constructing an index for financial development 

using principal component analysis (PCA) and employing fixed effects estimation, the study found a significant 

and positive link between GDP per capita growth and income inequality, but the nonlinear coefficient revealed 

an inverse but significant impact on inequality. However, the financial development proxy seems to be statistically 

significant and positively influenced inequality in the countries. 

Samarina and Nguyen (2019) examined the distributional influence of monetary policy on income inequality in 

the Euro area between 1994 and 2014. The study explored the earnings heterogeneity and income composition 

distributive channels of monetary policy channels using panel vector autoregression and local projection. The 

main finding of the study revealed that expansionary monetary policy shocks reduce income inequality in the 

Euro area during the study period. 

Hoeberger, Priftis and Vogel (2019) investigated the link between the distributional impact of conventional 

monetary policy and income inequality in the Euro area between 1999 and 2017. Earnings heterogeneity and 

income composition channels were explored in the case of an open-economy dynamic stochastic general 

equilibrium (DSGE) model during the study period. The results showed that expansionary monetary policy shocks 

reduce income inequality, whereas contractional monetary policy raises income inequality in the observed area. 

 3.0 METHODOLOGY 

To determine the dynamic relationship among monetary policy, financial development, and income inequality in 

Nigeria, the vector autoregression technique is adopted. Thus, the vector (Zt) of endogenous variables included 

in the reduced-form VAR is expressed as follows: 

   
( , , )t t t tZ MP FD INQ=

                                                          (1)                      

where MPt is monetary policy, FD is financial development, and INQt is income inequality which is measured by 

the gini coefficient. In this model, all variables are assumed to be endogenous, affecting each other 

contemporaneously and with lags. The impulse response and variance decomposition analysis of the VAR model 

will be interpreted to achieve this objective. In vector form, the equation is generally specified as:              

                        1 2 3 1..........t t i t i t i p t p tZ k Z Z Z Z    − − − −= + + + + + +
                   (2)   

On the basis of equation (3.14), we re-specify equation (3.13) as follows: 

     
0 2

1 1 1

p q r

t i t i i t i i t i t

i i i

MP MP FD INQ    − − −

= = =

 = +  +  +  +          

     
0 3

1 1 1

q p r

t i t i i t i i t i t

i i i

FD FD MP INQ    − − −

= = =

 = +  +  +  +             

      
0 4

1 1 1

p qr

t i t i i t i i t i t

i i i

INQ INQ MP FD    − − −

= = =

 = +  +  +  +          (3) 

Data for this study were sourced from the central bank of Nigeria (CBN) statistical bulletin and the Standardized 

World Income Inequality Database (SWIID). Quarterly time series data will be used for this study. 

4.0 Results and Discussion 

4.1 Analysis of the Unit Root Test  

Testing for the existence of unit roots is a principal concern in the study of time series models. The presence of a 

unit root implies that the time series under investigation is non-stationary, whereas the absence of unit roots 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

96 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

indicates that the stochastic process is stationary (Iyoha and Ekanem, 2002). The results of the ADF and PP tests 

are shown in Table 1. The decision rule adopted here is that if the absolute value of the ADF statistics or that of 

the PP statistics is less than the 5% critical value, then the tested variable is non-stationary. On the other hand, if 

the absolute value of the ADF test or that of the PP test is greater than the 5% critical value, then it is judged that 

the tested variable is stationary. 

Based on the result of the unit root test presented in table 1, both the Augmented Dickey Fuller and Phillip Peron 

tests indicate that income inequality, monetary policy, and financial development are stationary in their level form 

i.e. I(0) though monetary policy and financial development became stationary at level after being differenced 

once. Thus, the outcome supports the use of the vector autoregression framework in examining the dynamic 

relationship among monetary policy, financial development, and income inequality in Nigeria during study 

period. 

 

Table 1: Unit Root Test 

     Variables Test Level     

    T.stat P-value Decision 

       GINI         ADF -5.2825        0.0002***           I(0) 

           PP -2.9147        0.0342***           I(0) 

      D(MP)         ADF -5.7086        0.0003***          I(0) 

           PP -3.8706        0.016***          I(0) 

       D(FD)        ADF -11.62        0.0002***          I(0) 

           PP -11.619        0.0001***          I(0) 

           

Source: Author’s Computation 

4.2 lag length selection criteria 

After verifying the unit root properties of the variables, it is imperative to select the optimal lag length for the 

series. The optimal number of lags was identified using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Schwartz-

Bayesian Criterion (SBC). Table 2 shows that the Akaike Information Criterion and Schwartz-Bayesian Criterion 

(as well as other techniques in the table) indicate that the optimal lag length for the model is one. Specifically, 

this study follows the Akaike Information Criterion, which is employed because it is adjudged to be quite superior 

in its forecasting prowess in a regression model, both for in-sample and out-sample analysis (Gujarati and Porter, 

2009).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

97 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

Table 2:   lag length criteria 

 Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ 

0 -2301.763 NA   7.98e+08  37.52460  37.66178  37.58032 

1 -2149.424  287.3380   1.20e+08*   35.63292*   36.59317*   36.02297* 

2 -2132.75  29.82377  1.66e+08  35.94716  37.73049  36.67154 

3 -2116.741  27.07177  2.31e+08  36.27222  38.87863  37.33094 

4 -2078.808  60.44663  2.29e+08  36.24078  39.67027  37.63383 

5 -2058.303  30.67408  3.04e+08  36.49273  40.74530  38.22012 

6 -2042.113  22.64021  4.40e+08  36.81484  41.89049  38.87656 

7 -2024.775  22.55312  6.39e+08  37.11829  43.01702  39.51434 

8 -1966.587   70.01432*  4.90e+08  36.75752  43.47933  39.48790 

Source: Author’s Computation 

Note: * indicates the lag order selected by the criterion; LR, FPE, AIC, SBC, and HQ indicate sequential modified 

LR test statistic, Final Prediction Error, Akaike Information Criterion, Schwartz Bayesian Information Criterion 

and, Hannan-Quinn, respectively. 

4.3 Forecast error variance decomposition results 

Variance decomposition measures the percentage change in the dependent variable induced by shocks to the 

explanatory variables in the model. The variance decomposition results are presented in tables 3, 4, and 5. 

(I) Variance Decomposition of the Monetary Policy 

Table 3 reveals that in the first period, financial development indicators accounted for about 9.35% of the 

variations in monetary policy, whereas income inequality did not contribute to the variations in monetary policy 

in this period. In the second period, income inequality accounted for only 0.25% of the variations in monetary 

policy, whereas financial development accounted for approximately 12.5%. The contributions of financial 

development and income inequality increased further in the third and fourth periods as they accounted for 

approximately 14.5% and 0.34% of the variations in monetary policy, respectively. This trend continued in the 

fifth, sixth, and seventh periods as financial development and income inequality accounted for an average of 

approximately 10% and 0.36% of the variations in monetary policy during these periods respectively. 

In the eighth, ninth and tenth periods, income inequality was responsible for 0.37%, 0.40% and 0.44% of the 

variations in monetary policy, while financial development accounted for an average of 11% of the variations in 

monetary policy during these periods. The implication of the foregoing is that financial development accounted 

for a much larger share of the variations in monetary policy whereas income inequality accounted for only a small 

portion of the variations in monetary policy during the study period. Thus, in the short run (first, second and third 

period), middle periods (fifth, sixth and seventh periods) and the long run (eighth, ninth and tenth periods), the 

contributions of financial development to the variations in monetary policy are more pronounced than that of 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

98 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

income inequality in Nigeria. We can then say that monetary policy responded more to shocks from financial 

development than to income inequality shocks during the study period.  

This finding is in tandem with economic theory, which stipulates a direct relationship between financial 

development and monetary policy, indicating that variations in monetary policy in the economy are always 

traceable to the performance of the financial sector. In addition, empirical literature has argued that a stable 

financial sector is an important requisite for the effectiveness of monetary policy in the economy (Albanesi, 2007; 

Ghoussoub & Reed, 2016). This finding supports the results of Mbutor and Uba (2013), Akinsola and Odhiambo 

(2017) and Ekpeno, Godwin and Chuku (2017) 

Table 3: Forecast Error Variance Decomposition of the Monetary Policy 

Source: Author’s Computation  

Note: Financial Development indicators – M2/GDP, CPS/GDP, MKTCAP/GDP, DEBTSTOCK/GDP, 

SVT/GDP, FINLIB, Monetary Policy – INTR, Income Inequality - GINI 

(II) Variance Decomposition of Financial Development Indicators 

The financial development indicators employed are broad money supply to GDP ratio (M2/GDP), credit to the 

private sector to GDP ratio (CPS/GDP), stock market capitalization to GDP ratio (MKTCAP/GDP), debt stock to 

GDP ratio (DEBTSTOCK/GDP), stock value traded to GDP ratio (SVT/GDP), and financial liberalization 

(FINLIB). Table 4 shows that monetary policy and income inequality did not account for the variations in 

M2/GDP in the first period. In the second, third, and fourth periods, monetary policy and income inequality 

accounted for an average of 0.58% and 0.28% of the variations in M2/GDP, respectively. The contributions of 

monetary policy and income inequality to the variations in M2/GDP rose in the fifth, sixth, and seventh periods 

to an average of approximately 0.66% and 1%, respectively. In the last three periods, their contribution to 

Period S.E. M2/GDP CPS/GDP 
MKTCAP/

GDP 

DEBTSTOCK/

GDP 
SVT/GDP FINLIB INTR GINI 

 1  11.70639  6.573067  1.930964  0.396516  0.215274  0.113808  0.001054  90.76932  0.0000

00 
 2  11.93757  8.912592  2.312237  0.515035  0.208926  0.282000  0.217114  87.30105 

 0.2510

49 

 3  12.12615  8.639032  3.268517  0.530446  0.675671  1.647580  0.217795  84.67998 
 0.3409

79 

 4  12.24333  8.503906  3.474516  1.008579  1.081580  2.267418  0.227171  83.09745 
 0.3393

78 

 5  12.33925  8.461387  3.504488  1.708080  1.448786  2.432919  0.240835  81.86479 
 0.3387

19 

 6  12.41188  8.416821  3.464538  2.332620  1.787924  2.439959  0.254119  80.95577 
 0.3482

46 

 7  12.46781  8.406752  3.461415  2.731058  2.091897  2.418875  0.262820  80.26639 
 0.3607

91 

 8  12.51078  8.416883  3.512320  2.903011  2.371307  2.402828  0.268551  79.74556 
 0.3795

39 

 9  12.54395  8.435925  3.592884  2.937329  2.622728  2.390205  0.273645  79.34233 
 0.4049

58 

 10  12.57111  8.456714  3.670648  2.925859  2.839159  2.381264  0.279225  79.01007 
 0.4370

61 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

99 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

variations in M2/GDP rose to 0.86% and 1.23%, respectively. This implies that monetary policy shocks 

contributed more to variations in M2/GDP in the short run whereas income inequality shocks contributed more 

in the medium and long run. 

In the case of CPS/GDP in the first period (Table 5), monetary policy and income inequality did not account for 

any of its variations in the first period, but their contributions on average were 0.48% and 0.55% in the second, 

third and fourth periods, respectively. By the fifth, sixth, and seventh periods, the contributions of monetary policy 

and income inequality to variations in CPS/GDP rose to approximately 0.74% and 2.50%, respectively and it 

further rose to an average of 1.1% and 3.8% in the last three periods. For MKTCAP/GDP (Table 6), monetary 

policy and income inequality did not account for the variations in MKTCAP/GDP in the first period. In the second, 

third and fourth periods, monetary policy and income inequality accounted for an average of 0.22% and 0.007% 

of the variations in MKTCAP/GDP respectively. The contributions of monetary policy and income inequality to 

the variations in MKTCAP/GDP rose in the fifth, sixth, and seventh periods to an average of approximately 0.12% 

and 0.14%, respectively. In the last three periods, their contribution to variations in monetary policy rose to 0.09% 

and 0.33%, respectively.  

In the case of DEBTSTOCK/GDP in the first period (Table 7), monetary policy and income inequality did not 

account for the variations in DEBTSTOCK/GDP in the first period, but their average contributions were 0.14% 

and 0.31% in the second, third, and fourth periods respectively. By the fifth, sixth and seventh periods, the 

contributions of monetary policy and income inequality to variations in DEBTSTOCK/GDP rose to 

approximately 0.32% and 1.2%, respectively and it further rose to an average of 0.64% and 1.51% in the last three 

periods. Furthermore, variations in SVT/GDP were not explained by monetary policy and income inequality in 

the first period (Table 8). In the second, third, and fourth periods, monetary policy and income inequality 

accounted for an average of 0.22% and 0.05% of the variations in SVT/GDP, respectively. The contributions of 

monetary policy and income inequality to the variations in SVT/GDP rose in the fifth, sixth, and seventh periods 

to an average of approximately 0.20% and 0.06%, respectively. In the last three periods, their contribution to 

variations in monetary policy rose to 0.15% and 0.06%, respectively.  

Finally, in the case of FINLIB in the first period (Table 9), monetary policy and income inequality did not account 

for its variations in the first period, but their contributions increased to an average of 0.06% and 4.75% in the 

second, third, and fourth periods, respectively. By the fifth, sixth, and seventh periods, the contributions of 

monetary policy and income inequality to variations in FINLIB rose to about 0.44% and 19.3%, respectively and 

it further rose to an average of 0.90% and 30.92% in the last three periods, indicating that income inequality 

shocks exerted a greater influence on financial liberalization, both in the short and long run. 

Thus, it is generally observed that for all financial development indicators except the value of stocks traded to 

GDP ratio, income inequality accounted for the largest share of their variations, while the influence of monetary 

policy on financial development indicators was quite low. This supports the a priori theoretical link of a positive 

relationship between financial development and income inequality because financial development indicators 

responded majorly to shocks from income inequality in Nigeria. One possible explanation for this is that the rich 

contribute more to the activities of the financial sector, while the poor contribute less in Nigeria, thereby 

weakening the efficiency of the financial sector in Nigeria, unlike in developed countries where all classes of 

people are financial market participants (since income inequality is quite low in these countries). This means that 

shocks to income inequality in the short and long run had a greater influence on financial development in Nigeria, 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

100 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

during the study period, and this supports the findings of Shahbaz et al., (2015), as well as Younsi & Bechtini 

(2018), while it is contrary to the findings of Tita & Aziakpono (2016) and Azleen & Mansur (2017).  

Table 5.4:    Variance Decomposition of M2/GDP 

Period M2/GDP MPR GINI 

1 100 0.000000 0.000000 

2 95.81592 0.005627 0.044103 

3 82.96106 0.574819 0.253912 

4 70.34288 0.574625 0.5605 

5 60.86288 0.600802 0.809971 

6 54.35102 0.66225 1.018999 

7 50.01313 0.727478 1.162322 

8 47.08606 0.796283 1.234192 

9 45.07546 0.856707 1.240498 

10 43.66243 0.900466 1.198009 

 Source: Author’s Computation  

Financial development indicator: M2/GDP 

Table 5:  Variance Decomposition of the CPS/GDP 

Period CPS/GDP MPR GINI 

1 9.67169 0.000000 0.000000 

2 11.11484 0.018616 0.040647 

3 7.429666 0.461025 0.459717 

4 6.349322 0.529792 1.165325 

5 7.495412 0.628815 1.868307 

6 9.514507 0.745888 2.524256 

7 11.62662 0.865938 3.084353 

8 13.50887 0.991034 3.528628 

9 15.05483 1.106992 3.844011 

10 16.26597 1.203232 4.026082 

Source: Author’s Computation, Financial Development indicator: CPS/GDP 

 

Table 6:  Variance Decomposition of the MKTCAP/GDP 

Period MKTCAP/GDP MPR GINI 

1 42.23311 0.000000 0.000000 

2 51.77386 0.304504 0.010337 

3 52.95246 0.196173 0.007346 

4 50.21857 0.163339 0.00638 

5 46.82295 0.13921 0.005063 

6 43.60321 0.119383 0.00794 

7 40.84426 0.106377 0.031288 

8 38.56604 0.098695 0.106615 

9 36.68883 0.093856 0.277754 

10 35.10485 0.089733 0.594424 

Source: Author’s Computation, Financial Development indicator: MKTCAP/GDP 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

101 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

  

Table 7: Variance Decomposition of DEBTSTOCK/GDP 

Period DEBTSTOCK/GDP MPR GINI 

1 5.513758 0.000000 0.000000 

2 4.017457 0.010823 0.041636 

3 2.846959 0.134176 0.26536 

4 2.202038 0.142451 0.622067 

5 1.837484 0.210087 0.938951 

6 1.657798 0.311662 1.200792 

7 1.601869 0.421611 1.385616 

8 1.629813 0.536975 1.493761 

9 1.716105 0.643447 1.531431 

10 1.839502 0.730258 1.511799 

Source: Author’s Computation, Financial Development indicator: DEBTSTOCK/GDP 

Table 8: Variance Decomposition of the SVT/GDP 

Period SVT/GDP MPR GINI 

1 29.98924 0.000000 0.000000 

2 27.72148 0.083491 0.057536 

3 22.04641 0.330853 0.047113 

4 20.47555 0.264666 0.041835 

5 21.67119 0.225076 0.043653 

6 23.18695 0.191476 0.054886 

7 24.14697 0.166016 0.064008 

8 24.52491 0.150942 0.06393 

9 24.50127 0.145577 0.059169 

10 24.24266 0.145684 0.06918 

Source: Author’s Computation, Financial Development indicator: SVT/GDP  

 

Table 9:  Variance Decomposition of the FINLIB 

Period FINLIB MPR GINI 

1 98.73069 0.000000 0.000000  

2 96.85375 0.02639 0.96 5952 

3 91.9537 0.03108 4.239097 

4 85.03506 0.122435 9.039542 

5 77.31427 0.270571 14.34966 

6 69.68853 0.444402 19.4604 

7 62.6614 0.615312 24.01349 

8 56.42739 0.76929 27.893 

9 51.00646 0.901598 31.11567 

10 46.33854 1.011672 33.75326 

Source: Author’s Computation, Financial Development indicator: FINLIB 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

102 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

(III)   Variance Decomposition of Income Inequality 

Table 10 reveals that in the first period, monetary policy and financial development indicators accounted for 

0.53% and 4.47% of the variations in income inequality in Nigeria, respectively. In the second period, monetary 

policy accounted for only 1.19% of the variations in income inequality whereas financial development indicators 

accounted for approximately 7.5% of the variations. The contributions of monetary policy and financial 

development increased further in the third period as they accounted for approximately 1.77% and 10.5% of the 

variations in income inequality, respectively. This trend continued until the fifth, sixth and seventh periods as 

monetary policy accounted for 2.12%, 2.31% and 2.41% of the variations in income inequality, respectively; 

while financial development accounted for approximately 16.2%, 19.4% and, 20.3% of the variations in these 

periods.   

In the eighth, ninth and tenth periods, monetary policy was responsible for 2.60%, 2.70% and 2.80% of the 

variations in income inequality, while financial development accounted for an average of approximately 22% of 

the variations in income inequality during these periods. The implication of the foregoing is that financial 

development accounted for a larger share of the variations in income inequality whereas monetary policy 

accounted for a smaller portion of the variations in income inequality during the study period. Thus, in the short 

run (first, second and third period), middle periods (fifth, sixth and seventh periods) and the long run (eighth, 

ninth and tenth periods), the contributions of financial development to variations in income inequality are more 

pronounced than those of monetary policy in Nigeria. We can then say that income inequality responded more to 

shocks from financial development than to monetary policy shocks during the study period. 

This supports the a priori theoretical link of a positive relationship between financial development and income 

inequality since income inequality responded majorly to shocks from financial development in Nigeria. This 

means that shocks to financial development in the short and long run had a greater influence on income inequality 

in Nigeria, during the study period. The implication of this is that a stable financial sector is required for income 

inequality to be curtailed in Nigeria. This explains why the growing level of income inequality in Nigeria over 

the years is traceable to the unsatisfactory nature of the Nigerian financial system, which is still relatively 

underdeveloped when compared to the financial system of advanced countries. This finding is in line with the 

results of Brei et al. (2018), Michael et al.,  (2018), and Rahman et al., (2019) but is contrary to the findings of 

Dinler (2015) and Denk & Cournede (2015).      

Table 10: Variance Decomposition of Income Inequality 

 Source: Author’s Computation 

Period S.E. MS/GDP CPS/GDP MKT/CAP_GDP DEBTSTOCK/GDP SVT/GDP FINLIB MPR GINI 

1 0.655495 0.551428 0.049835 0.018667 1.201959 0.320776 1.467403 0.52413 95.8658 

2 0.82578 0.866146 0.388971 0.017224 0.758456 1.031746 4.045577 1.192888 91.69899 

3 0.977903 1.068826 1.17501 0.021994 0.625251 2.403528 5.71782 1.768738 87.21883 

4 1.102277 1.519944 1.704008 0.048061 0.72624 3.422416 6.689081 1.931748 83.9585 

5 1.206398 2.166855 1.997137 0.103863 0.990481 3.920944 7.087068 2.128469 81.60519 

6 1.292995 2.911444 2.071402 0.183671 1.356119 4.043344 7.131734 2.308561 79.99373 

7 1.36473 3.744375 2.000834 0.263727 1.775378 3.960988 6.96955 2.468195 78.81695 

8 1.424155 4.623913 1.871806 0.320658 2.218919 3.797983 6.701766 2.601148 77.86381 

9 1.473271 5.505826 1.749507 0.345947 2.661329 3.621717 6.399545 2.698978 77.01715 

10 1.513676 6.350735 1.66958 0.345485 3.079118 3.462071 6.109142 2.762674 76.2212 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

103 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

Note: Financial Development indicators – M2/GDP, CPS/GDP, MKTCAP/GDP, DEBTSTOCK/GDP, 

SVT/GDP, FINLIB,    

     Monetary Policy – MPR, Income Inequality - GINI 

4.4 Forecast Error Impulse Response Results 

The basic purpose of the variance decomposition analysis carried out earlier, is to provide information on the 

percentage of variations in one variable that is explained by the other variables in the system. However, variance 

decomposition does not tell us whether the impact of the shock is positive or negative, and the persistence of the 

shock to the system in the short run and long run. The impulse response analysis, on the other hand, caters to the 

identified issues in the variance decomposition analysis stated above. This means that the impulse response 

provides information and analyzes the behavior of a variable to a random innovation or shock to other variables, 

and how this shock permeates the entire VAR system. 

(I) Forecast Error Impulse Response of Monetary Policy 

The impulse response function estimated over ten quarters is presented in figure 1, which is essentially an 8x8 

matrix of a panel of 64 impulse response functions. The extreme top left corner is impulse 1,1, which is the 

response of M2/GDP to a shock from itself, while impulse 8,8 is the response of income inequality to a standard 

deviation shock from itself. The result showed that a standard deviation shock originating from monetary policy 

positively influenced itself (impulse 7,7) in the first, second, and fourth periods, but was negative in the third 

period. This means that in the short run, monetary policy responded positively to shocks emanating from itself. 

However, between the fifth and seventh periods, monetary policy responded negatively to shocks emanating from 

itself, and this was also the case in the eighth, ninth, and tenth periods. This means that monetary policy negatively 

influenced itself, thereby reducing its effectiveness in the medium and long run, during the study period. 

In terms of the response of monetary policy to a standard deviation shock from financial development indicators, 

the result showed that monetary policy responded negatively to shocks from M2/GDP (impulse 7,1) both in the 

short run and eventually, except for the first period when it was positive. Similarly, monetary policy responded 

negatively to shocks from the MKTCAP/GDP ratio (impulse 7,3) and the DEBTSTOCK/GDP ratio (impulse 7,4) 

both in the short and long run. This means that the response of monetary policy to shocks from the 

DEBTSTOCK/GDP ratio and the MKTCAP/GDP ratio was negative between the second and tenth periods. 

However, monetary policy responded positively to a one standard deviation shock from CPS/GDP (impulse 7,2) 

between the seventh and tenth periods while its response was negative between the second and sixth periods.  

This implies that the response of monetary policy to the CPS/GDP ratio was positive in the short run but negative 

in the long run. Furthermore, monetary policy responded negatively to shocks from the SVT/GDP ratio (impulse 

7,5) between the second and tenth period, but was positive in the eighth and ninth periods, while a one standard 

deviation shock to financial liberalization negatively influenced monetary policy between the fourth and tenth 

periods, but was positive in the second and third periods (impulse 7,6).  

Thus, we can say that monetary policy’s response to shocks from financial development indicators in Nigeria was 

mostly negative during the study period (as shown in impulses 7,1; 7,3; 7,4; 7,5; and 7,6). We can then conclude 

that shocks to financial development negatively influenced monetary policy effectiveness in Nigeria, during the 

study period. This implies that instabilities and uncertainty in the Nigerian financial sector in terms of poor 

financial intermediation, poor credit facilities and exchange rate and stock market fluctuations hindered the 

effectiveness of monetary policy in the economy. This supports the theoretical argument that an effective financial 

system is a necessary prerequisite for the efficacy of monetary policy actions in the economy.  



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

104 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

In the case of income inequality (impulse 7,8), the response of monetary policy to a one standard deviation shock 

from income inequality was positive in the first two periods, but became negative in the subsequent periods i.e., 

between the third and tenth periods. This means that monetary policy responded positively to shocks from income 

inequality in the short run, but the response was negative between the medium and long run in Nigeria, during 

the study period.  This implies that monetary policy effectiveness is not hindered by income inequality in the 

economy in the short run, but it becomes adversely affected by growing income inequality over time, which is 

evident in the medium and long run periods in Nigeria. This finding also provides an explanation for the weak 

implementation and efficiency of monetary policy in Nigeria, since the Economy over time is bedeviled by 

poverty, poor infrastructure and high unemployment, which has aided the growing level of income inequality in 

the country over time. 

(II)     Forecast Error Impulse Response of Financial Development Indicators 

Figure 5.2 reveals that M2/GDP (impulse 1,7) and CPS/GDP (impulse 2,7) responded negatively to a one standard 

deviation shock from monetary policy between the first and tenth periods, which implies that the responses of 

M2/GDP and CPS/GDP to monetary policy shocks were negative both in the short and long run. Similarly, both 

indicators (impulse 1,8 and impulse 2,8) responded negatively to a one standard deviation shock to income 

inequality between the first and tenth periods. Similarly, DEBTSTOCK/GDP responded negatively to a one 

standard deviation shock from monetary policy (impulse 4,7) and income inequality (impulse 4,8) between the 

second and tenth periods, indicating that the response was negative both in the short and long run. This implies 

that the responses of M2/GDP, CPS/GDP, and DEBTSTOCK/GDP to a one standard deviation shock from 

monetary policy and income inequality as well, were negative both in the short and long run. 

However, MKTCAP/GDP responded positively to a standard deviation shock to monetary policy (impulse 3,7) 

between the first and sixth periods (short and medium run) but became negative between the seventh and tenth 

periods (long run). The response of MKTCAP/GDP to income inequality, on the other hand, was positive in all 

ten periods, indicating that its response remained positive in the short run and long run in Nigeria (impulse 3,8). 

In the case of SVT/GDP (impulse 5,7), a standard deviation shock to monetary policy induced a negative response 

from SVT/GDP in the second, and third period as well as the last three periods, indicating that the negative 

response persisted in both the short and long run.  

With regards to the response of SVT/GDP to a standard deviation shock from income inequality, it was revealed 

that its response was positive in the first three periods, negative between the fourth and eighth periods, and positive 

in the last two periods (impulse 5,8). This means that the response of SVT/GDP to a standard deviation shock 

from income inequality was positive in the short run, negative in the middle periods, and became positive in the 

long run. Finally, in the case of financial liberalization, its response to a standard deviation shock to monetary 

policy was positive in all ten periods, indicating that its response remained positive in the short and long run in 

Nigeria (impulse 6,7). Also, financial liberalization responded positively in all the periods to a standard deviation 

shock from income inequality, indicating that its response was positive both in the short run and long run in 

Nigeria (impulse 6,8). 

Thus, the study found that three of the financial development indicators namely, M2/GDP. CPS/GDP, and 

DEBTSTOCK/GDP, responded negatively to shocks from monetary policy and income inequality in Nigeria, 

while financial liberalization responded positively to a one standard deviation shock from monetary policy and 

income inequality. Furthermore, the response of the two other indicators, namely MKTCAP/GDP and SVT/GDP, 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

105 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

produced mixed results in the short and long run, in terms of their responses to shocks from monetary policy and 

income inequality in Nigeria. 

(III)    Forecast Error Impulse Response to Income Inequality 

The impulse response function estimated over ten quarters is presented in Figure 5.2. The result showed that a 

standard deviation shock originating from income inequality positively influenced itself in the periods observed 

(impulse 8,8). This means that in the short and long run, income inequality responded positively to shocks 

emanating from itself. Similarly, income inequality responded positively to shocks emanating from monetary 

policy in the ten periods observed, which implies that the response of income inequality to monetary policy shocks 

was positive both in the short and long run (impulse 8,7). This implies that the monetary policy actions of the 

CBN reduced income inequality in Nigeria during the study period. This indicates that monetary authorities can 

adopt monetary policy as an effective tool to combat the growing level of income inequality, as opposed to the 

presumption that only fiscal policy is effective in lowering income inequality, as argued by some studies. 

In terms of the response of income inequality to a standard deviation shock from financial development indicators, 

the results showed that income inequality responded positively to a shock to M2/GDP both in the short and long 

run (impulse 8,1).  

Also, the scenario was similar for CPS/GDP, whose shock also spurred a positive response from income 

inequality, indicating that the response of income inequality to a standard deviation shock from CPS/GDP was 

positive in all the periods except for the first and last period which was negative (impulse 8,2). Furthermore, 

income inequality responded positively to a standard deviation shock to MKTCAP/GDP, SVT/GDP, and FINLIB 

in periods, indicating that the response of income inequality was positive to shocks from these indicators both in 

the short and long run (impulses 8,3; 8,5 and 8,6) 

However, income inequality responded negatively to a standard deviation shock from DEBTSTOCK/GDP in the 

first two periods, but the response became positive in the subsequent periods i.e., between the third and tenth 

periods (impulse 8,4). Generally, we can infer that shocks from monetary policy and financial development 

indicators positively drive income inequality in Nigeria. This means that sudden and unanticipated improvements, 

efficiency and stability of the financial sector in Nigeria will immensely contribute towards the reduction of 

income inequality during the study period. Thus, to combat the growing level of income inequality, the 

government and monetary authorities should pay more attention to increasing the effectiveness of monetary policy 

actions, banking sector efficiency, and the stock market in Nigeria.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

106 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

Figure 1: VAR Impulse response functions 

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M 2/GDP to  M S/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M 2/GDP to  CPS/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M 2/GDP to  M KT/CAP_GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pon s e  o f M 2/GDP to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M 2/GDP to  SVT/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e o f M 2/GDP to  FINL IB

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M 2/GDP to  M PR

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M 2/GDP to  GINI

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  M 2/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  CPS/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  M KTCAP/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  SVT/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  FINL IBOPEN

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  M PR

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f CPS/GDP to  GINI

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  M S_GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  CPS/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  M KTCAP/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  SVT/GDP

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 10

Res po ns e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  FINL IBOPEN

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  M PR

-8

-4

0

4

8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M KTCAP/GDP to  GINI

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  M S/GDP

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  CPS/GDP

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 10

Res pon s e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  M KTCAP/GDP

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 1 0

Re s p ons e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  SVT/GDP

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  FINL IBOPEN

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  M PR

-4

-2

0

2

4

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f DEBTSTOCK/GDP to  GINI

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  M S_GDP

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  CPS/GDP

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  M KTCAP/GDP

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  SVT/GDP

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  FINL IBOPEN

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  M PR

-0 .5

0 . 0

0 . 5

1 . 0

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f SVT/GDP to  GINI

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f FIN_L IB_OPEN to  M S_GDP

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f FINL IBOPEN to  CPS/GDP

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f FINL IB/OPEN to  M KTCAP/GDP

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f FINL IBOPEN to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f FINL IBOPEN to  SVT/GDP

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 10

Res pon s e  o f FINL IBOPEN to  FINL IBOPEN

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pon s e  o f FINL IBOPEN to  M PR

-.2

. 0

. 2

. 4

. 6

2 4 6 8 1 0

Re s pons e  o f FINL IB/OPEN to  GINI

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M PR to  M 2/GDP

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M PR to  CPS/GDP

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M PR to  M KTCAP/GDP

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M PR to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 10

Res pon s e  o f M PR to  SVT/GDP

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f M PR to  FINL IBOPEN

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f M PR to  M PR

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res p ons e  o f M PR to  GINI

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f GINIGR to  M S_GDP

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f GINI to  CPS/GDP

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f GINI to  M KTCAP/GDP

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f GINI to  DEBTSTOCK/GDP

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f GINI to  SVT/GDP

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 10

Res pons e  o f GINI to  FINL IBOPEN

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f GINI to  M PR

-.4

. 0

. 4

. 8

2 4 6 8 1 0

Res pons e  o f GINI to  GINI

Response to Cholesky One S.D. Innovations ± 2 S.E.

Source: Author’s Computation 

Note: Financial Development indicators – M2/GDP, CPS/GDP, MKTCAP/GDP, DEBTSTOCK/GDP, SVT/GDP, FINLIB; 

Monetary Policy – MPR, Income Inequality – GINI 

5.0 CONCLUSION 

This study examined the dynamic relationship among monetary policy, financial development, and income 

inequality in Nigeria. The variance decomposition and impulse response functions of the vector autoregression 

technique were adopted. The results showed that for the variance decomposition analysis, monetary policy is 

more affected by shocks to financial development. In addition, financial development is more affected by income 

inequality shocks and income inequality is more affected by shocks to financial development in Nigeria. 

 For the impulse response analysis, the results revealed that the response of monetary policy to income inequality 

shocks was positive in the short run but negative in the long run. However, the response of monetary policy to 

M2/GDP, DEBTSTOCK/GDP, and MKTCAP/GDP was negative in the short and long run but positive for 

CPS/GDP and FINLIB shocks. In addition, financial development indicators such as M2/GDP, CPS/GDP, and 

DEBTSTOCK/GDP responded negatively to monetary policy and income inequality shocks both in the short and 

long run, while FINLIB responded positively to both variables in the short and long run. Finally, income 

inequality responded positively to monetary policy shocks both in the short and long run. It also responded 

positively to shocks from all financial development indicators employed in the study. 

References 

Akinsola, F., & Odhiambo, N. (2017). The Impact of Financial Liberalization on Economic Growth in sub-

Saharan Africa. Cogent Economics & Finance, 5(1), 1338851. 

Albanesi, S. (2007). “Inflation and inequality.” Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, 54(4), 1088–1114. 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

107 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

Anthanasius, F., & Meshach, J. (2016). “Financial Development and Income Inequality in Africa: A Panel 

Heterogeneous Approach.” ERSA Working Paper, 124(2), 614. 

Areosa, W., & Areosa, M. (2016). “The Inequality Channel of Monetary Transmission.” Journal of 

Macroeconomics, 48, 214-230. 

Auclert, A. (2019). “Monetary Policy and the Redistribution Channel.” American Economic Review, 109 (6): 

2333–67. 

Aye, G., Clance, M., & Gupta, R. (2019). “The Effectiveness of Monetary and Fiscal Policy Shocks on US 

Inequality: The Role of Uncertainty.” Quality & Quantity, 53(1), 283-295. 

Azleen, R., & Mansur, M. (2017). “What is the Link between Financial Development and Income Inequality? 

Evidence from Malaysia.” MPRA Paper 79416, University Library of Munich, Germany. 

Babu, M., Bhaskaran, V., & Venkatesh, M. (2016). “Does Inequality Hamper Long Run Growth: Evidence from 

Emerging Economies.” Economic Analysis and Policy, 52, 99-113. 

Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Zhang, R. (2015). “On the Impact of Financial Development on Income Distribution: 

time-series evidence.” Applied Economics, 47(12), 1248-1271. 

Baiardi, D., & Morana, C. (2018). “Financial Development and Income Distribution Inequality in the Euro Area.” 

Economic Modelling, 70, 40-55. 

Banerjee, A., & Newman, A. (1993). “Occupational Choice and the Process of Development.” Journal of Political 

Economy, 101(2), 274-298. 

Batabyal, S., & Chowdhury, A. (2015). “Curbing Corruption, Financial Development and Income Inequality.” 

Progress in Development Studies, 15(1), 49-72. 

Bauer, M., & Taylor, E. (2022). “A Reassessment of Monetary Policy Surprises and High-Frequency 

Identification.” NBER Working Paper 29939. 

Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Levine, R. (2007). “Finance, Inequality and the Poor.” Journal of Economic 

Growth, 12(1), 27-49. 

Billi, R., & Vredin, A. (2014). “Monetary Policy and Financial Stability: A Simple Story.” Sveriges Riksbank 

Economic Review 2, pp. 7-22. 

Brei, M., Ferri, G., & Gambacorta, L. (2018). “Financial Structure and Income Inequality.” Brookings Institution 

Working Paper, No. 756. 

Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., Kueng, L., & Silvia, J. (2012). “Innocent Bystanders? Monetary Policy and 

Inequality in the U.S,” NBER Working Paper, 181(70). 



Olaniran, O. D (Ph. D) and Prof. Olomola, P. A. (2024) 
 

108 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE 
 

Denk, O., & Cournède, B. (2015). “Finance and Economic Growth in OECD and G20 Countries.” Available at 

SSRN 2649935. 

Davytan, K. (2017). “The Distributive Effect of Monetary Policy: The Top One Percent Makes the Difference.” 

Journal of Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pp. 106-118. 


