The Common Monetary Area (CMA) agreement has effectively granted the South African government sole discretion over monetary policy and implementation in the region. The effectiveness of this arrangement has long been under discussion given the heterogeneity of member countries. This paper uses a structural vector autoregressive (SVAR) to examine the efficacy of the interest rate channel in the CMA. Specifically, our analysis uses data from 2000M1-2018M12 to examine how economic output, inflation, money supply, domestic credit, and lending rate spread for each member country respond to shocks in the South African repo rate. The main findings indicate that a positive shock to the South African repo rate has a statistically significant negative impact on economic output and a positive effect on inflation at the 10 percent level for all countries in the CMA. The results also show that money supply, domestic credit, and lending rate spread respond asymmetrically across members countries.
Citation: Bonang N. Seoela. 2022: Efficacy of monetary policy in a currency union? Evidence from Southern Africa's Common Monetary Area, Quantitative Finance and Economics, 6(1): 35-53. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022002
[1] | Aliya Naaz Siddiqui, Meraj Ali Khan, Amira Ishan . Contact CR δ-invariant: an optimal estimate for Sasakian statistical manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 29220-29234. doi: 10.3934/math.20241416 |
[2] | Haiming Liu, Xiawei Chen, Jianyun Guan, Peifu Zu . Lorentzian approximations for a Lorentzian α-Sasakian manifold and Gauss-Bonnet theorems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 501-528. doi: 10.3934/math.2023024 |
[3] | Muslum Aykut Akgun . Frenet curves in 3-dimensional δ-Lorentzian trans Sasakian manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 199-211. doi: 10.3934/math.2022012 |
[4] | Rongsheng Ma, Donghe Pei . ∗-Ricci tensor on (κ,μ)-contact manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 11519-11528. doi: 10.3934/math.2022642 |
[5] | Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Mohammad Shuaib, Sharief Deshmukh, Tanveer Fatima . ϕ-pluriharmonicity in quasi bi-slant conformal ξ⊥-submersions: a comprehensive study. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21746-21768. doi: 10.3934/math.20231109 |
[6] | Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan . Ricci curvature of contact CR-warped product submanifolds in generalized Sasakian space forms admitting nearly Sasakian structure. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2132-2151. doi: 10.3934/math.2021130 |
[7] | Mohammad Aamir Qayyoom, Rawan Bossly, Mobin Ahmad . On CR-lightlike submanifolds in a golden semi-Riemannian manifold. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 13043-13057. doi: 10.3934/math.2024636 |
[8] | Cagri Karaman . Statistical connections on decomposable Riemann manifold. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4722-4733. doi: 10.3934/math.2020302 |
[9] | Muqeem Ahmad, Mobin Ahmad, Fatemah Mofarreh . Bi-slant lightlike submanifolds of golden semi-Riemannian manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 19526-19545. doi: 10.3934/math.2023996 |
[10] | Aliya Naaz Siddiqui, Mohammad Hasan Shahid, Jae Won Lee . On Ricci curvature of submanifolds in statistical manifolds of constant (quasi-constant) curvature. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3495-3509. doi: 10.3934/math.2020227 |
The Common Monetary Area (CMA) agreement has effectively granted the South African government sole discretion over monetary policy and implementation in the region. The effectiveness of this arrangement has long been under discussion given the heterogeneity of member countries. This paper uses a structural vector autoregressive (SVAR) to examine the efficacy of the interest rate channel in the CMA. Specifically, our analysis uses data from 2000M1-2018M12 to examine how economic output, inflation, money supply, domestic credit, and lending rate spread for each member country respond to shocks in the South African repo rate. The main findings indicate that a positive shock to the South African repo rate has a statistically significant negative impact on economic output and a positive effect on inflation at the 10 percent level for all countries in the CMA. The results also show that money supply, domestic credit, and lending rate spread respond asymmetrically across members countries.
Neural networks is useful for solving numerous complex optimization problems in electromagnetic theory. Applied physicist B. Bartlett presented unsupervised machine learning model for computing approximate electromagnetic field solutions [7]. In April 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) collaboration released the first image of the shadow of a black hole with the help of deep learning algorithms. This image provides direct evidence for the existence of black holes and general theory of relativity and indirect evidence for the existence of lightlike geometry in the universe [19]. A statistical manifold is emerging branch of mathematics that generalizes the Riemannian manifold and is used to model the information; and also uses tools of differential geometry to study statistical inference, information loss and estimation [9]. Statistical manifolds are applicable to many areas such as neural networks, machine learning and artificial intelligence. On the other hand, the study of lightlike manifolds is one of the most important research areas in differential geometry with many applications in physics and mathematics, such as general relativity, electromagnetism and black hole theory (Please see [7,8,10,11,19]).
There exist qualified papers dealing with statistical manifolds and their submanifolds admitting various differentiable structures. In 1975, Efron [14] was the first researcher who emphasized the role of differential geometry in statistics and was further studied with the help of differential geometrical tools by Amari [1,2]. In 1989, Vos [30] obtained fundamental equations for submanifolds of statistical manifolds. Takano define a Sasaki-like statistical manifold and he study Sasaki-like statistical submersion with the property that the curvature tensor with respect to the affine connection of the total space satisfies the condition [28]. In [29], the authors define the concept of quaternionic Kahler-like statistical manifold and derive the main properties of quaternionic Kahler-like statistical submersions, extending in a new setting some previous results obtained by Takano concerning statistical manifolds endowed with almost complex and almost contact structures. The geometry of hypersurfaces of statistical manifolds was presented by Furuhata in [15,16]. Statistical manifolds admitting contact structures or complex structures and submanifolds of these kinds of manifolds were investigated in [18,24]. In degenerate case, lightlike hypersurfaces of statistical manifolds were introduced by the Bahadir and Tripathi [6]. Also, statistical lightlike hypersurfaces were studied by Jain, Singh and Kumar in [20]. In addition, many studies have been conducted in relation to these concepts [3,4,5,21,22,25,26].
Motivated by these developments, we dedicate the present study to introduce the lightlike geometry of an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold. In Section 2, we present basic definitions and results about statistical manifolds and lightlike hypersurfaces. In Section 3, we show that the induced connections on a lightlike hypersurface of a statistical manifold need not be dual and a lightlike hypersurface need not be a statistical manifold. Moreover, we show that the second fundamental forms are not degenerate. We conclude the section with an example. In Section 4, we defined indefinite Sasakian statistical manifolds and obtain the characterization theorem for indefinite Sasakian statistical manifolds. This section is concluded with two examples. In Section 5, we consider lightlike hypersurfaces of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifolds. We characterize the parallelness, totaly geodeticity and integrability of some distributions. In this section we also give two examples. In Section 6, we prove that an invariant lightlike submanifold of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold is an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold.
Let (˜M,˜g) be an (m+2)-dimensional semi-Riemannian manifold with index(˜g)=q≥1 and (M,g) be a hypersurface of (˜M,˜g) with the induced metric g from ˜g. If the induced metric g on M is degenerate, then M is called a lightlike (null or degenerate) hypersurface.
For a lightlike hypersurface (M,g) of (˜M,˜g), there exists a non-zero vector field ξ on M such that
g(ξ,X)=0,X∈Γ(TM), | (2.1) |
Here the vector field ξ is called a null vector ([11,12,13]). The radical or the null space RadTxM at each point x∈M is defined as
RadTxM={ξ∈TxM:gx(ξ,X)=0,∀X∈Γ(TM)}. | (2.2) |
The dimension of RadTxM is called the nullity degree of g. We recall that the nullity degree of g for a lightlike hypersurface is equal to 1. Since g is degenerate and any null vector being orthogonal to itself, the normal space TxM⊥ is a null subspace. Also, we have
RadTxM=TxM⊥. | (2.3) |
The complementary vector bundle S(TM) of RadTM in TM is called the screen bundle of M. We note that any screen bundle is non-degenerate. Therefore we can write the following decomposition:
TM=RadTM⊥S(TM). | (2.4) |
Here ⊥ denotes the orthogonal-direct sum. The complementary vector bundle S(TM)⊥ of S(TM) in T˜M is called the screen transversal bundle. Since RadTM is a lightlike subbundle of S(TM)⊥, there exists a unique local section N of S(TM)⊥ such that we have
˜g(N,N)=0,˜g(ξ,N)=1. | (2.5) |
Note that N is transversal to M and {ξ,N} is a local frame field of S(TM)⊥ and there exists a line subbundle ltr(TM) of T˜M. This set is called the lightlike transversal bundle, locally spanned by N. Hence we have the following decomposition:
T˜M=TM⊕ltr(TM)=S(TM)⊥RadTM⊕ltr(TM), | (2.6) |
where ⊕ is the direct sum but not orthogonal ([11,12]).
For details of lightlike submanifolds, we may refer to [8,11,12,13].
Definition 1. [28] A statistical manifold is a triple (˜M, ˜g, ˜D) formed of a semi-Riemannian manifold and a torsion free connection ˜D subject to the following identity
(˜DX˜g)(Y,Z)=(˜DY˜g)(X,Z), for all X,Y,Z∈Γ(T˜M).
Given statistical manifold (˜M, ˜g, ˜D) the ˜g− dual of ˜D, ˜D∗ is defined by the following identity
˜g(X,˜D∗ZY)=Z˜g(X,Y)−˜g(˜DZX,Y). | (2.7) |
It is easy to check that ˜D∗ is torsion free and (˜M,˜g,˜D∗) is a statistical manifold. Also, an equivalent of Definition 1 according to definition D∗ is as follows:
Definition 2. A statistical manifold is a quadruple (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗) formed of a semi-Riemannian manifold (˜M,˜g) and a pair of torsion free connection (˜D,˜D∗) subject the following identity
Z˜g(X,Y)=˜g(X,˜D∗ZY)+˜g(˜DZX,Y), for all X,Y,Z∈Γ(T˜M).
A statistical manifold will be represented by (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗).
If ˜D0 is Levi-Civita connection of ˜g, then we have
˜D0=12(˜D+˜D∗). | (2.8) |
If we choose ˜D∗=˜D in the Eq (2.8), then Levi-Civita connection is obtained.
Lemma 2.1. For statistical manifold (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗), if we set
¯K=˜D−˜D0. | (2.9) |
Then we have
¯K(X,Y)=¯K(Y,X),˜g(¯K(X,Y),Z)=˜g(¯K(X,Z),Y), | (2.10) |
for any X,Y,Z∈Γ(TM).
Conversely, for a Riemannian metric g, if ¯K satisfies (2.10), the pair (˜D=˜∇+¯K,˜g) is a statistical structure on ˜M [18].
Let (M,g) be a lightlike hypersurface of a statistical manifold (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗). Then, Gauss and Weingarten formulas with respect to dual connections are given as follows:
˜DXY=DXY+B(X,Y)N, | (3.1) |
˜DXN=−ANX+τ(X)N | (3.2) |
˜D∗XY=D∗XY+B∗(X,Y)N, | (3.3) |
˜D∗XN=−A∗NX+τ∗(X)N, | (3.4) |
for all X,Y∈Γ(TM),N∈Γ(ltrTM), where DXY, D∗XY, ANX, A∗NX∈Γ(TM) and
B(X,Y)=˜g(˜DXY,ξ),τ(X)=˜g(˜DXN,ξ), |
B∗(X,Y)=˜g(˜D∗XY,ξ),τ∗(X)=˜g(˜D∗XN,ξ). |
Here, D, D∗, B, B∗, AN and A∗N are called the induced connections on M, the second fundamental forms and the Weingarten mappings with respect to ˜D and ˜D∗, respectively ([6,15]). Using Gauss formulas and the Eq (2.8), we obtain
Xg(Y,Z)=g(˜DXY,Z)+g(Y,˜D∗XZ), =g(DXY,Z)+g(Y,D∗XZ)+B(X,Y)η(Z)+B∗(X,Z)η(Y). | (3.5) |
From the Eq (3.5), we have the following result.
Theorem 3.1. [6] Let (M,g) be a lightlike hypersurface of a statistical manifold (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗) . Then we have the following expressions:
(i) Induced connections D and D∗ need not be dual.
(ii) A lightlike hypersurface of a statistical manifold need not be a statistical manifold with respect to the dual connections.
Using Gauss and Weingarten formulas in (3.5), we get
(DXg)(Y,Z)+(D∗Xg)(Y,Z)=B(X,Y)η(Z)+B(X,Z)η(Y)+B∗(X,Y)η(Z)+B∗(X,Z)η(Y). | (3.6) |
Proposition 3.2. [6] Let (M,g) be a lightlike hypersurface of a statistical manifold (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗) . Then the following assertions are true:
(i) Induced connections D and D∗ are symmetric connection.
(ii) The second fundamental forms B and B∗ are symmetric.
Let P denote the projection morphism of Γ(TM) on Γ(S(TM)) with respect to the decomposition (2.4). For all X,Y∈Γ(TM) and ξ∈Γ(RadTM), we have
DXPY=∇XPY+¯h(X,PY), | (3.7) |
DXξ=−¯AξX+¯∇tXξ, | (3.8) |
where ∇XPY and ¯AξX belong to Γ(S(TM)). Also we can say that ∇ and ¯∇t are linear connections on Γ(S(TM)) and Γ(RadTM), respectively. Here, ¯h and ¯A are called screen second fundamental form and screen shape operator of S(TM), respectively. If we define
C(X,PY)=g(¯h(X,PY),N), | (3.9) |
ε(X)=g(¯∇tXξ,N),∀X,Y∈Γ(TM). | (3.10) |
One can show that
ε(X)=−τ(X). |
Therefore, we have
DXPY=∇XPY+C(X,PY)ξ, | (3.11) |
DXξ=−¯AξX−τ(X)ξ,∀X,Y∈Γ(TM). | (3.12) |
Here C(X,PY) is called the local screen fundamental form of S(TM).
Similarly, the relations of induced dual objects on S(TM) are given by
D∗XPY=∇∗XPY+C∗(X,PY)ξ, | (3.13) |
D∗Xξ=−¯A∗ξX−τ∗(X)ξ,∀X,Y∈Γ(TM). | (3.14) |
Using (3.5), (3.11), (3.13) and Gauss-Weingarten formulas, the relationship between induced geometric objects are given by
B(X,ξ)+B∗(X,ξ)=0,g(ANX+A∗NX,N)=0, | (3.15) |
C(X,PY)=g(A∗NX,PY),C∗(X,PY)=g(ANX,PY). | (3.16) |
Now, using the Eq (3.15), we can state the following result.
Proposition 3.3. [6] Let (M,g) be a lightlike hypersurface of a statistical manifold (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗) . Then second fundamental forms B and B∗ are not degenerate.
Additionally, due to ˜D and ˜D∗ are dual connections, we obtain
B(X,Y)=g(¯A∗ξX,Y)+B∗(X,ξ)η(Y), | (3.17) |
B∗(X,Y)=g(¯AξX,Y)+B(X,ξ)η(Y). | (3.18) |
Using (3.17) and (3.18) we get
¯A∗ξξ+¯Aξξ=0. |
Example 1. Let (R42,˜g) be a 4-dimensional semi-Euclidean space with signature (−,−,+,+) of the canonical basis (∂0,…,∂3). Consider a hypersurface M of R42 given by
x0=x1+√2√x22+x23. |
For simplicity, we set f=√x22+x23. It is easy to check that M is a lightlike hypersurface whose radical distribution RadTM is spanned by
ξ=f(∂0−∂1)+√2(x2∂2+x3∂3). |
Then the lightlike transversal vector bundle is given by
ltr(TM)=Span{N=14f2{f(−∂0+∂1)+√2(x2∂2+x3∂3)}}. |
It follows that the corresponding screen distribution S(TM) is spanned by
{W1=∂0+∂1,W2=−x3∂2+x2∂3}. |
Then, by direct calculations we obtain
˜∇XW1=˜∇W1X=0, |
˜∇W2W2=−x2∂2−x3∂3, |
˜∇ξξ=√2ξ,˜∇W2ξ=˜∇ξW2=√2W2, |
for any X∈Γ(TM) (see [13], Example 2, pp. 48–49).
We define an affine connection ˜D as follows:
˜DXW1=˜DW1X=0,˜DW2W2=−2x2∂2˜Dξξ=√2ξ,˜DW2ξ=˜DξW2=√2W2. | (3.19) |
Then we obtain
˜D∗XW1=˜D∗W1X=0,˜D∗W2W2=−2x3∂3,˜D∗ξξ=√2ξ,˜D∗W2ξ=˜D∗ξW2=√2W2. | (3.20) |
Then ˜D and ˜D∗ are dual connections. Here, one can easily see that T˜D=0 and ˜D˜g=0. Thus, we can easily see that (R42,˜g,˜D,˜D∗) is a statistical manifold.
In order to call a differentiable semi-Riemannian manifold (˜M,˜g) of dimension n=2m+1 as practically contact metric one, a (1,1) tensor field ˜φ, a contravariant vector field ν, a 1− form η and a Riemannian metric ˜g should be admitted, which satisfy
˜φν=0,η(˜φX)=0,η(ν)=ϵ, | (4.1) |
˜φ2(X)=−X+η(X)ν,˜g(X,ν)=ϵη(X), | (4.2) |
˜g(˜φX,˜φY)=˜g(X,Y)−ϵη(X)η(Y),ϵ=∓1, | (4.3) |
for all the vector fields X, Y on ˜M. When a practically contact metric manifold performs
(˜∇X˜φ)Y=˜g(X,Y)ν−ϵη(Y)X, | (4.4) |
˜∇Xν=−˜φX, | (4.5) |
˜M is regarded as an indefinite Sasakian manifold. In this study, we assume that the vector field ν is spacelike.
Definition 3. Let (˜g,˜φ,ν) be an indefinite Sasakian structure on ˜M. A quadruplet (˜D=˜∇+¯K,˜g,˜φ,ν) is called a indefinite Sasakian statistical structure on ˜M if (˜D,˜g) is a statistical structure on ˜M and the formula
¯K(X,˜φY)=−˜φ¯K(X,Y) | (4.6) |
holds for any X,Y∈Γ(T˜M). Then (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν) is said to an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold.
An indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold will be represented by (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). We remark that if (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν) is an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold, so is (˜M,˜D∗,˜g,φ,ν) [17,18].
Theorem 4.1. Let (˜M,˜D,˜g) be a statistical manifold and (˜g,˜φ,ν) an almost contact metric structure on ˜M. (˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν) is an indefinite Sasakian statistical struture if and only if the following conditions hold:
˜DXφY−˜φ˜D∗XY=˜g(Y,X)ν−˜g(Y,ν)X, | (4.7) |
˜DXν=−˜φX+g(˜DXν,ν)ν, | (4.8) |
for all the vector fields X, Y on ˜M.
Proof. Using (2.9) we get
˜DX˜φY−˜φ˜D∗XY=(˜∇X˜φ)Y+¯K(X,˜φY)+˜φ¯K(X,Y), | (4.9) |
for all the vector fields X, Y on ˜M. If we consider Definition 3 and the Eq (4.4), we have the formula (4.7). If we write ˜D∗ instead of ˜D in (4.7), we have
˜D∗X˜φY−˜φ˜DXY=˜g(Y,X)ν−˜g(Y,ν)X, | (4.10) |
Substituting ν for Y in (4.10), we have the Eq (4.8).
Conversely using (4.7), we obtain
˜φ{˜DX˜φ2Y−˜φ˜D∗X˜φY}=0. |
Assume (4.2) and (4.8) as well, we get
0=−˜φ˜DXY+˜g(Y,ν)X−˜g(X,ν)˜g(Y,ν)ν+˜D∗X˜φY−˜g(˜φX,˜φY)ν, |
From (4.3), we have the Eq (4.10).
Now, using (4.7) and (4.10), respectively, we have the following equations:
(˜∇X˜φ)Y−˜g(Y,X)ν+˜g(Y,ν)X=¯K(X,˜φY)+˜φ¯K(X,Y), |
and
(˜∇X˜φ)Y−˜g(Y,X)ν+˜g(Y,ν)X=−¯K(X,˜φY)−˜φ¯K(X,Y). |
This last two equations verifies (4.4) and (4.6).
Example 2. Let ˜M=(R52,˜g) be a semi-Euclidean space, where ˜g is of the signature (−,+,−,+,+) with respect to canonical basis {∂∂x1,∂∂x2,∂∂y1,∂∂y2,∂∂z}. Defining
η=dz,ν=∂∂z,˜φ(∂∂xi)=−∂∂yi,˜φ(∂∂yi)=∂∂xi,˜φ(∂∂z)=0, |
where i=1,2. It can easily see that (˜φ,ν,η,˜g) is an indefinite Sasakian structure on R52. If we choose ¯K(X,Y)=˜g(Y,ν)˜g(X,ν)ν, then (˜D=˜∇+¯K,˜g,˜φ,ν) is an indefinite Sasakian statistical structure on ˜M.
Example 3. In a 5− dimensional real number space ˜M=R5, let {xi,yi,z}1≤i≤2 be cartesian coordinates on ˜M and {∂∂xi,∂∂yi,∂∂z}1≤i≤2 be the natural field of frames. If we define 1− form η, a vector field ν and a tensor field ˜φ as follows:
η=dz−y1dx1−x1dy1,ν=∂∂z,˜φ(∂∂x1)=−∂∂x2,˜φ(∂∂x2)=∂∂x1+y1∂∂z,˜φ(∂∂y1)=−∂∂y2,˜φ(∂∂y2)=∂∂y1+x1∂∂z,˜φ(∂∂z)=0. |
It is easy to check (4.1) and (4.2). Then, (˜φ,ν,η) is an almost contact structure on R5. Now, we define metric ˜g on R5 by
˜g=(y21−1)dx21−dx22+(x21+1)dy21+dy22+dz2−y1dx1⊗dz−y1dz⊗dx1+x1y1dx1⊗dy1+x1y1dy1⊗dx1−x1dy1⊗dz−x1dz⊗dy1, |
with respect to the natural field of frames. Then we can easily see that (˜φ,ν,η,˜g) is an indefinite Sasakian structure on R5. We set the difference tensor field ¯K as
¯K(X,Y)=λ˜g(Y,ν)˜g(X,ν)ν, |
where λ∈C∞(˜M). Then, (˜D=˜∇+¯K,˜g,˜φ,ν) is an indefinite Sasakian statistical structure on ˜M.
Definition 4. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). The quadruplet (M,g,D,D∗) is called lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν) if the induced metric g is degenerate.
Let (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν) be a (2m+1)− dimensional Sasakian statistical manifold and (M,g) be a lightlike hypersurface of ˜M, such that the structure vector field ν is tangent to M. For any ξ∈Γ(RadTM) and N∈Γ(ltrTM), in view of (4.1)–(4.3), we have
˜g(ξ,ν)=0,˜g(N,ν)=0, | (5.1) |
˜φ2ξ=−ξ,˜φ2N=−N. | (5.2) |
Also using (3.1) and (4.8) we obtain
B(ξ,ν)=0,B(ν,ν)=0, | (5.3) |
B∗(ξ,ν)=0,B∗(ν,ν)=0. | (5.4) |
Proposition 5.1. Let (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν) be a (2m+1)− dimensional Sasakian statistical manifold and (M,g,D,D∗) be its lightlike hypersurface such that the structure vector field ν is tangent to M. Then we have
g(˜φξ,ξ)=0, | (5.5) |
g(˜φξ,N)=−g(ξ,˜φN)=−g(A∗Nξ,ν), | (5.6) |
g(˜φξ,˜φN)=1, | (5.7) |
where ξ is a local section of RadTM and N is a local section of ltrTM.
Proof. Using (4.8) and (3.1), we have
g(˜φξ,ξ)=g(−˜Dξν+g(˜Dξν,ν)ν,ξ)=g(−Dξν−B(ξ,ν)N,ξ),=0 |
and
g(˜φξ,N)=g(−˜Dξν+g(˜Dξν,ν)ν,N)=g(ν,˜D∗ξN),=−g(A∗Nξ,ν). |
From (4.3) and (5.1), we have (5.7).
Proposition 5.1 makes it possible to make the following decompositions:
S(TM)={˜φRadTM⊕˜φltr(TM)}⊥L0⊥⟨ν⟩, | (5.8) |
where L0 is non-degenerate and ˜φ− invariant distribution of rank 2m−4 on M. If we denote the following distributions on M
L=RadTM⊥˜φRadTM⊥L0,L′=˜φltr(TM), | (5.9) |
then L is invariant and L′ is anti-invariant distributions under ˜φ. Also we have
TM=L⊕L′⊥⟨ν⟩. | (5.10) |
Now, we consider two null vector field U and W and their 1− forms u and w as follows:
U=−˜φN,u(X)=˜g(X,W), | (5.11) |
W=−˜φξ,w(X)=˜g(X,U). | (5.12) |
Then, for any X∈Γ(T˜M), we have
X=SX+u(X)U, | (5.13) |
where S projection morphism of T˜M on the distribution L. Applying ˜φ to last equation, we obtain
˜φX=˜φSX+u(X)˜φU,˜φX=φX+u(X)N, | (5.14) |
where φ is a tensor field of type (1,1) defined on M by φX=˜φSX.
Again, we apply ˜φ to (5.14) and using (4.1)–(4.3) we have
˜φ2X=˜φφX+u(X)˜φN,−X+g(X,ν)ν=φ2X−u(X)U. |
which means that
φ2X=−X+g(X,ν)ν+u(X)U. | (5.15) |
Now applying φ to the Eq (5.15) and since φU=0, we have φ3+φ=0 which gives that φ is an f–structure.
Definition 5. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). The quadruplet (M,g,D,D∗) is called screen semi-invariant lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν) if
˜φ(ltrTM)⊂S(TM),˜φ(RadTM)⊂S(TM). |
We remark that a hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold is screen semi-invariant lightlike hypersurface.
Example 4. Let us recall the Example 2. Suppose that M is a hypersurface of R52 defined by
x1=y2, |
Then RadTM and ltr(TM) are spanned by ξ=∂∂x1+∂∂y2 and N=12{−∂∂x1+∂∂y2}, respectively. Applying ˜φ to this vector fields, we have
˜φξ=∂∂x2−∂∂y1,˜φN=12{∂∂x2+∂∂y1}. |
Thus M is a screen semi-invariant lightlike hyperfurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold R52.
Example 5. Let M be a hypersurface of (˜φ,ν,η,˜g) on ˜M=R5 in Example 3. Suppose that M is a hypersurface of R52 defined by
x2=y2, |
Then the tangent space TM is spanned by {Ui}1≤i≤4, where U1=∂∂x1, U2=∂∂x2+∂∂y2, U3=∂∂y1, U4=ν. RadTM and ltr(TM) are spanned by ξ=U2 and N=12{−∂∂x2+∂∂y2}, respectively. Applying ˜φ to this vector fields, we have
˜φξ=U1+U3+(x1+y1)U4,˜φN=12{−U1+U3+(x1−y1)U4}. |
Thus M is a screen semi-invariant lightlike hyperfurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold ˜M.
In view of (5.11) and (5.12), we have
˜g(U,W)=1. |
Thus ⟨U⟩⊕⟨W⟩ is non-degenerate vector budle of S(TM) with rank 2. If we consider (5.8) and (5.9), we get
S(TM)={U⊕W}⊥L0⊥⟨ν⟩, | (5.16) |
and
L=RadTM⊥⟨W⟩⊥L0,L′=⟨U⟩. | (5.17) |
Thus, for any X∈Γ(TM), we can write
X=PX+QX+g(X,ν)ν, | (5.18) |
where P and Q are projections of TM into L and L′. Thus, we can write QX=u(X)U. Using (4.1)–(4.3), (5.14) and (5.18), we have
φ2X=−X+g(X,ν)ν+u(X)U, |
where ˜φPX=φX. We can easily see that
g(φX,φY)=g(X,Y)−g(X,ν)g(Y,ν)−u(X)w(Y)−u(Y)w(X), | (5.19) |
for any X,Y∈Γ(TM). Also we have the following identities:
g(φX,Y)=g(X,φY)−u(X)η(Y)−u(Y)η(X), | (5.20) |
φν=0,g(φX,ν)=0. | (5.21) |
Thus, we have the following proposition.
Proposition 5.2. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). Then φ need not be an almost contact structure.
Lemma 5.3. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). For any X,Y∈Γ(TM), we have the following identities:
DXφY−φD∗XY=u(Y)ANX−B∗(X,Y)U+g(X,Y)ν−g(ν,Y)X, | (5.22) |
DX(u(Y))−u(D∗XY)=−B(X,φY)−u(Y)τ(X) | (5.23) |
Proof. Using Gauss and Weingarten formulas in (4.7) we obtain
DXφY+B(X,˜φY)+DX(u(Y))N−u(Y)ANX+u(Y)τ(X)N−φ∇∗XY+B∗(X,Y)U=g(X,Y)ν−g(ν,Y)X. | (5.24) |
If we take tangential and transversal parts of this last equation, we have (5.22) and (5.23).
Similarly, we have the following lemma.
Lemma 5.4. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). For any X,Y∈Γ(TM), we have the following identities:
D∗XφY−φDXY=u(Y)A∗NX−B(X,Y)U+g(X,Y)ν−g(ν,Y)X, | (5.25) |
D∗X(u(Y))−u(DXY)=−B∗(X,φY)−u(Y)τ∗(X). | (5.26) |
Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.4 are give us the following theorem.
Theorem 5.5. A lightlike hypersurface M of an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold ˜M need not be a statistical manifold.
Proposition 5.6. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). For any X,Y∈Γ(TM), we have the following expressions:
(i) If the vector field U is parallel with respect to ∇∗, then we have
ANX=u(ANX)U+τ(ANX)ν.τ(X)=0. | (5.27) |
(ii) If the vector field U is parallel with respect to ∇, then we have
A∗NX=u(A∗NX)U+τ(A∗NX)ν.τ∗(X)=0. | (5.28) |
Proof. Replacing Y in (5.22) by U, we obtain
−φD∗XY=ANX−B∗(X,U)U+g(X,U)ν. |
Applying φ to this equation and using (5.15), we get
D∗XU−g(D∗XU,ν)ν−u(D∗XU)U=φANX. |
If U is parallel with respect to ∇∗ then φANX=0. From (5.14), we have ˜φ(ANX)=u(ANX)N. If ˜φ is applied to the last equation and using (4.2), we obtain ANX=u(ANX)U+τ(ANX)ν. Also, if we write U instead of Y in the Eq (5.23), we have τ(X)=0.
We can easily obtain the Eq (5.28) with a similar method.
Proposition 5.7. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). For any X,Y∈Γ(TM), we have the following expressions:
(i) If the vector field W is parallel with respect to ∇∗, then we have
¯A∗ξX=g(¯A∗ξX,ν)ν+u(¯A∗ξX)U,τ∗(X)=0. | (5.29) |
(ii) If the vector field W is parallel with respect to ∇, then we have
¯AξX=g(¯AξX,ν)ν+u(¯AξX)U,τ(X)=0. | (5.30) |
Proof. If we write ξ instead of Y in the Eq (5.22), we obtain
DXφξ−φD∗Xξ=−B∗(X,ξ)U. |
If W is parallel with respect to D, using (3.14) and (5.12) in this equation, we obtain
φ¯A∗ξX−τ∗(X)W=−B∗(X,ξ)U. |
Applying ˜φ this and using (5.15) we have
−¯A∗ξX+g(¯A∗ξX,ν)ν+u(¯A∗ξX)U=τ∗(X)ξ. |
If we take screen and radical parts of this last equation, we have (5.29).
Similarly, we can easily obtain the Eq (5.30).
Definition 6. ([17,23]) Let (M,g) be a hypersurface of a statistical manifold (˜M,˜g,˜D,˜D∗).
(i) M is called totally geodesic with respect to ˜D if B=0.
(ii) M is called totally geodesic with respect to ˜D∗ if B∗=0.
Theorem 5.8. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a lightlike hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν).
(i) M is totally geodesic with respect to ˜D if and only if
DXφY−φD∗XY=g(X,Y)ν,∀X∈Γ(TM),Y∈Γ(L), | (5.31) |
ANX=−φD∗XU−g(X,U)ν,∀X∈Γ(TM). | (5.32) |
(ii) M is totally geodesic with respect to ˜D∗ if and only if
D∗XφY−φDXY=g(X,Y)ν,∀X∈Γ(TM),Y∈Γ(L), | (5.33) |
A∗NX=−φDXU−g(X,U)ν,∀X∈Γ(TM). | (5.34) |
Proof. For any Y∈Γ(L) we know that u(Y)=0. Then the Eqs (5.22) and (5.25) are reduced to the equations, respectively
DXφY−φD∗XY=−B∗(X,Y)U+g(X,Y)ν, | (5.35) |
D∗XφY−φDXY=−B(X,Y)U+g(X,Y)ν. | (5.36) |
On the other hand, replacing Y by U in (5.22) and (5.25), respectively, we also have
ANX=−φD∗XU+B∗(X,U)U−g(X,U)ν, | (5.37) |
A∗NX=−φDXU+B(X,U)U−g(X,U)ν. | (5.38) |
If taking into account (5.35)–(5.38), we can easily obtain our assertion.
The following two theorems give a characterization of the integrability of distributions L⊥⟨ν⟩ and L′⊥⟨ν⟩, respectively.
Theorem 5.9. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a screen semi-invariant hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) The distribution L⊥⟨ν⟩ is integrable.
(ii) B∗(X,φY)=B∗(φX,Y), for all X,Y∈Γ(L⊥⟨ν⟩),
(iii) B(X,φY)=B(φX,Y), for all X,Y∈Γ(L⊥⟨ν⟩).
Proof. We know that X∈Γ(L⊥⟨ν⟩) if and only if u(X)=˜g(X,W)=0. For any X,Y∈Γ(L⊥⟨ν⟩), using (3.1) and (5.14), we obtain
u[X,Y]=−u(DXY)+u(DYX). |
From (5.23), we have
u[X,Y]=B∗(Y,φX)−B∗(φY,X). |
This gives the equivalence between (i) and (ii). Similarly we can easily see that the relation (i) and (iii).
Theorem 5.10. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a screen semi-invariant hypersurface of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) The distribution L′⊥⟨ν⟩ is integrable.
(ii) A∗˜φXY−A∗˜φYX=g(X,ν)Y−g(Y,ν)X, for all X,Y∈Γ(L′⊥⟨ν⟩).
(ii)A˜φXY−A˜φYX=g(X,ν)Y−g(Y,ν)X, for all X,Y∈Γ(L′⊥⟨ν⟩).
Proof. X∈Γ(L′⊥⟨ν⟩) if and only if φX=0. For any X,Y∈Γ(L⊥⟨ν⟩), using (3.2), (3.3) and (5.14) in (4.7), we have
φD∗XY=−g(X,Y)ν+˜g(Y,ν)X−A˜φYX+B∗(X,Y)U. |
Therefore, we can get
φ[X,Y]=−A˜φYX+A˜φXY+˜g(Y,ν)X−˜g(X,ν)Y. |
This gives the equivalence between (i) and (ii). Similarly, the relationship between (i) and (iii) is easily seen.
Let (M,g,D,D∗) be a lightlike submanifold of an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). if M is tangent to the structure vector field ν, then ν belongs to S(TM) (see [13]). Using this, we say that M is an invariant lightlike submanifold of ˜M if M is tangent to the structure vector field ν and
˜φ(S(TM))=S(TM),˜φ(RadTM)=RadTM. | (6.1) |
Proposition 6.1. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be an invariant lightlike submanifold of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). For any X,Y∈Γ(TM), we have the following identities:
DXφY−φD∗XY=g(X,Y)ν−g(ν,Y)X, | (6.2) |
h(X,˜φY)=˜φh∗(X,Y), | (6.3) |
where h and h∗ are second fundemental forms for affine dual connections ˜D and ˜D∗, respectively.
Proof. Using (5.14) and Gauss formula in (4.7), we obtain
DXφY+h(X,˜φY)−φD∗XY−˜φh∗(X,Y)=g(X,Y)ν−g(ν,Y)X. |
If we take tangential and transversal parts of this last equation, our claim is proven.
Similarly to the above proposition, the following proposition is given for dual connection D∗.
Proposition 6.2. Let (M,g,D,D∗) be an invariant lightlike submanifold of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold (˜M,˜D,˜g,˜φ,ν). For any X,Y∈Γ(TM), we have the following identities:
D∗XφY−φDXY=g(X,Y)ν−g(ν,Y)X, | (6.4) |
h∗(X,˜φY)=˜φh(X,Y), | (6.5) |
where h and h∗ are second fundemental forms for affine dual connections ˜D and ˜D∗, respectively.
From the Eqs (6.3) and (6.5), we have
h(X,ν)=0,h∗(X,ν)=0. | (6.6) |
A lightlike submanifold may not be an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold. The following theorem gives a situation where this can happen.
Theorem 6.3. An invariant lightlike submanifold of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold is an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold.
Proof. In a invariant lightlike submanifold, u(X)=0, for any X∈Γ(TM). Then from (5.14) we have
φ2X=−X+g(X,ν)ν. |
Since ˜φX=φX, using (4.1)–(4.3), we obtain
φν=0,η(φX)=0, | (6.7) |
˜g(φX,φY)=g(X,Y)−η(X)η(Y). | (6.8) |
Then (g,φ,ν) is an almost contact metric structure.
Using (3.5), we get
Xg(φY,φZ)=g(DXφY,φZ)+g(φY,D∗XφZ). | (6.9) |
This equation says that D and D∗ are dual connections. Moreover torsion tensor of the connection D is equal zero. Then, the Eqs (3.5) and (3.6) tell us that (D,g) is a statistical structure.
If we consider Gauss formula and (4.8) we obtain
DXν=−φX+g(DXν,ν)ν. | (6.10) |
If we consider (6.2) and (6.10) in the theorem 4.1, our assertion are proven.
Example 6. Let ˜M=(R72,˜g,˜ϕ,ν) be the manifold endowed with the usual Sasakian structure (see, for example, [[13], p. 321] for such a structure), in which ˜g has signature (−,+,+,−,+,+,+), with respect to the canonical basis {∂x1,∂x2,∂x3,∂y1,∂y2,∂y3,∂z}. By choosing the difference tensor ¯K(X,Y)=˜g(Y,ν)˜g(X,ν)ν, we can easily see that (˜D=˜∇+¯K,˜g,˜φ,ν) is an indefinite Sasakian statistical structure on ˜M. Now, we recall the example in [27] as follows:
Suppose that M is a submanifold of ˜M given by
x1=v1coshθ,y1=v2coshθ,x2=v1sinhθ−v2,y2=v1+v2sinhθ,x3=sinv3sinhv4,y3=cosv3coshv4,z=v5. |
It is easy to see that the vector fields ξ1,ξ2,ν,Z1,Z2, and given by
ξ1=coshθ∂x1+sinhθ∂x2+∂y2+(y1coshθ+y2sinhθ)∂z,ξ2=−∂x2+coshθ∂y1+sinhθ∂y2−y2∂z,ν=2∂z,Z1=cosv3sinh4∂x3−sinv3coshv4∂y3+y3cosv3sinhv4∂z,Z2=sinv3coshv4∂x3+cosv3sinhv4∂y3+y3sinv3coshv4∂z, |
spans TM. Moreover, one can see that RadTM=Span{ξ1,ξ2} and S(TM)= Span {Z1,Z2,ν}. Furthermore, we note that ˜ϕξ2=ξ1 and ˜ϕZ2=Z1. It follows that RadTM and S(TM) are invariant under ˜ϕ. On the other hand, ltr(TM) is spanned by N1 and N2, where
N1=2{−coshθ∂x1−sinhθ∂x2+∂y2−(y1coshθ+y2sinhθ)∂z}N2=2{−∂x2−coshθ∂y1−sinhθ∂y2−y2∂z} |
Note that ˜ϕN2=N1; hence, llr(TM) is invariant under ˜ϕ. Therefore, M is a five-dimensional invariant lightlike submanifold of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold ˜M and M is an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold.
In this paper, we expanded the Sasakian statistical manifold concept to indefinite Sasakian statistical manifolds and introduced lightlike hypersurfaces of an indefinite Sasakian statistical manifold. Some relations among induced geometrical objects with respect to dual connections in a lightlike hypersurface of an indefinite statistical manifold are obtained. We also give some original examples in this context.. We hope that, this introductory study will bring a new perspective for researchers and researchers will further work on it focusing on new results not available so far on lightlike geometry
The author declares that there is no competing interest.
[1] |
Ajilore T, Ikhide S (2013) Monetary policy shocks, output and prices in South Africa: a test of policy irrelevance proposition. J Dev Areas 47: 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2013.0039 doi: 10.1353/jda.2013.0039
![]() |
[2] | Arestis P, Sawyer M (2003) Can Monetary Policy Affect The Real Economy? Levy Economics Institute https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.335620 |
[3] |
Aron J, Muellbauer J (2007) Review of Monetary Policy in South Africa since 1994. J Afr Econ 16: 705–744. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejm013 doi: 10.1093/jae/ejm013
![]() |
[4] | Aslanidi, O (2007) The Optimal Monetary Policy and the Channels of Monetary Transmission Mech511 anism in CIS-7 Countries: The Case of Georgia. Available from: https://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wbrf_papers/O_Aslanidi_WBRF_Paper.pdf. |
[5] |
Bernanke B, Gertler M (1995) Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission. J Econ Perspect 9: 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.27 doi: 10.1257/jep.9.4.27
![]() |
[6] |
Bernanke BS (1986) Alternative explanations of the money-income correlation. Carnegie-Rochester Confer Series on Public Policy 25: 49–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2231(86)90037-0 doi: 10.1016/0167-2231(86)90037-0
![]() |
[7] | Blanchard O, Watson M (1984) Are Business Cycles All Alike? Nat Bur Econ Res. https://doi.org/10.3386/w1392 |
[8] |
Bonga-Bonga L (2010) Monetary Policy And Long-Term Interest Rates In South Africa. Int Bus Econ Res J 9: 43–54. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v9i10.638 doi: 10.19030/iber.v9i10.638
![]() |
[9] | Bonga-Bonga L, Kabundi A (2015) Monetary Policy Instrument and Inflation in South Africa: Structural Vector Error Correction Model Approach. Available from: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/63731/. |
[10] | Buigut S (2009) Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism: Implications for the Proposed East African. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.410.6867&rep=rep1&type=pdf. |
[11] |
Can U, Bocuoglu ME, Can ZG (2020) How does the monetary transmission mechanism work? Evidence from Turkey. Borsa Istanb Rev 20: 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2020.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.bir.2020.05.004
![]() |
[12] |
Cheng KC (2006) A VAR Analysis of Kenya's Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism: How Does the Central Bank's REPO Rate Affect the Economy? IMF Working Paper 2006: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451865608.001 doi: 10.5089/9781451865608.001
![]() |
[13] |
Chow GC, Lin AL (1971) Best Linear Unbiased Interpolation, Distribution, and Extrapolation of Time Series by Related Series. Rev Econ Stat 53: 372–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/1928739 doi: 10.2307/1928739
![]() |
[14] | Corden WM (1972) Monetary Integration, Essays in International Finance. Princeton University. |
[15] | Davoodi HR, Dixit S, Pinter G (2013) Monetary Transmission Mechanism in the East African Community: An Empirical Investigation. Available from: https://www.imf.org/en/publications. |
[16] |
Denton FT (1971) Adjustment of Monthly or Quarterly Series to Annual Totals: An Approach Based on Quadratic Minimization. J Am Stat Assoc 66: 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1971.10482227 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1971.10482227
![]() |
[17] | Dlamini B, Skosana S (2017) Relationship and Causality between Interest Rates and Macroeconomic Variables in Swaziland. Central Bank of Swaziland Research Bulletin 1: 4–25. |
[18] |
Dodge D (2002) The interaction between monetary and fiscal policies. Can Public Pol 28: 187–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/3552324 doi: 10.2307/3552324
![]() |
[19] | Gumata N, Kabundi A, Ndou E (2013) Important channels of transmission monetary policy shock in South Africa. Econ Res Southern Africa. Available from: https://www.econrsa.org/system/files/publications. |
[20] | Herrera AM, Pesavento E (2013) Unit Roots, Cointegration and Pre-Testing in VAR Models. Adv Econom 32: 81–115. |
[21] | Ikhide S, Uanguta E (2010) Impact of South Africa's Monetary Policy on the LNS Economies. J Econ Integr 25: 324–352. |
[22] |
Iwata S, Wu S (2006) Estimating monetary policy effects when interest rates are close to zero. J Monetary Econ 53: 1395–1408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.05.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.05.009
![]() |
[23] |
Kabundi A, Ngwenya N (2011) Assessing monetary policy in South Africa in a data-rich environment. South Afr J Econ 79: 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2011.01265.x doi: 10.1111/j.1813-6982.2011.01265.x
![]() |
[24] | Karan A (2013) Quarterly Output Indicator Series for Fiji. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloaddoi=10.1.1.1049.3224&rep=rep1&type=pdf. |
[25] |
Kim S, Roubini N (2000) Exchange rate anomalies in the industrial countries: A solution with a structural VAR approach. J Monetary Econ 45: 561–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(00)00010-6 doi: 10.1016/S0304-3932(00)00010-6
![]() |
[26] |
Kunroo MH (2016) Theory of Optimum Currency Areas: A Literature Survey. Rev Mark Integr 7: 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974929216631381 doi: 10.1177/0974929216631381
![]() |
[27] |
Leeper EM, Sims CA, Zha T (1996) What Does Monetary Policy Do? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1996: 1–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534619 doi: 10.2307/2534619
![]() |
[28] |
Litterman RB (1983) A Random Walk, Markov Model for the Distribution of Time Series. J Bus Econ Stat 1: 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974929216631381 doi: 10.1177/0974929216631381
![]() |
[29] | Loayza N, Schmidt-Hebbel K (2002) Monetary Policy Functions and Transmission Mechanisms: An Overview. Monetary policy: Rules and transmission mechanisms 1: 1–20. |
[30] | Lütkepohl H, Krätzig M (2004) Applied time series econometrics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606885 |
[31] | Maturu B, Ndirangu L (2010) Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism in Kenya: A Bayesian Vector Auto-regression (BVAR) Approach. Available from: https://www.centralbank.go.ke/images/docs/Research/Discussion-Papers/monetarypolicytransmissionmechanismkenya.pdf. |
[32] | Meyer D, De Jongh J, Van Wyngaard D (2018) An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy in South Africa. Acta Univ Danubius: Oeconomica 14: 281–295. https://doaj.org/article/37362829786d407bbf336c541d5fcb62 |
[33] |
Mishkin F (1995) Symposium on the Monetary Transmission Mechanism. J Econ Perspect 9: 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.3 doi: 10.1257/jep.9.4.3
![]() |
[34] | Mkhonta SF (2018) Discount Rate Differential Monetary Policy Decisions in the CMA and Portfolio Investment Assets: The Efficacy of Namibia and Swaziland Monetary Policy. Central Bank of Swaziland Research Bulletin 2: 16–23. |
[35] | Mosikari TJ, Eita JH(2018) Estimating threshold level of inflation in Swaziland: inflation and growth. MPRA. Available from: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/88728/. |
[36] | Mundell RA (1973) Uncommon Arguments for Common Currencies. In Johnson H, Swoboda A, The economics of common currencies (collected works of harry johnson), 1 Eds., London: Routledge, 114–132. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203427477 |
[37] | Mundell RA (1961) The Theory of Optimum Currency Areas. Am Econ Rev 51: 657–665. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1812792 |
[38] | Ncube M, Ndou E(2013) Effects of Monetary Policy on Output. In Ncube M, Ndou E, In the Monetary policy and the economy of South Africa, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137334152 |
[39] | Peersman G, Smets F (2001) The monetary transmission mechanism in the euro area: more 564 evidence from VAR analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.356269 |
[40] |
Rafiq MS, Mallick SK (2008) The effect of monetary policy on output in EMU3: A sign restriction approach. J Macroecon 30: 1756–1791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2007.12.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2007.12.003
![]() |
[41] |
Sax C, Steiner P (2013) Temporal Disaggregation of Time Series. R J 5: 80–87. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2013-028 doi: 10.32614/RJ-2013-028
![]() |
[42] | Seleteng M (2016) Effects of South African Monetary Policy Implementation on the CMA: A Panel Vector Autoregression Approach. Economic Research Southern Africa, 1–30. |
[43] | Seleteng M (2005) Inflation and Economic Growth: An estimate of an optimal level of inflation in Lesotho. Central Bank of Lesotho. |
[44] |
Sheefeni JPS, Ocran MK (2012) Monetary policy transmission in Namibia: A review of the interest rate channel. J Stud in Econ Econom 36: 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10800379.2012.12097243 doi: 10.1080/10800379.2012.12097243
![]() |
[45] |
Smets F, Wouters R (2003) An Estimated Stochastic Dynamic General Equilibrium Model of the Euro Area. J Eur Econ Assoc 1: 1123–1175. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603770383415 doi: 10.1162/154247603770383415
![]() |
[46] |
Tavlas GS (2009) The benefits and costs of monetary union in Southern Africa: A critical survey of the literature. J Econ Surv 23: 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2008.00555.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2008.00555.x
![]() |
[47] |
Taylor JB (1995) The Monetary Transmission Mechanism: An Empirical Framework. J Econ Perspect 9: 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.11 doi: 10.1257/jep.9.4.11
![]() |
[48] | Wang JY, Masha I, Shirono K, et al. (2007) The Common Monetary Area in Southern Africa: Shocks, Adjustment, and Policy Challenges. Available from: https://www.imf.org/en/publications. |
![]() |
![]() |
1. | Adina-Elena Segneanu, Gabriela Vlase, Catalin Nicolae Marin, Titus Vlase, Crina Sicoe, Daniel Dumitru Herea, Maria Viorica Ciocîlteu, Ludovic-Everard Bejenaru, Anca Emanuela Minuti, Camelia-Mihaela Zară, Vlad Socoliuc, Cristina Stavila, Cornelia Bejenaru, Wild grown Portulaca oleracea as a novel magnetite based carrier with in vitro antioxidant and cytotoxicity potential, 2025, 15, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-025-92495-7 |