Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T21:21:16.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MONETARY NEUTRALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2017

Apostolos Serletis  and
Zisimos Koustas
Apostolos Serletis*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Zisimos Koustas
Affiliation:
Brock University
*
Address correspondence to: Apostolos Serletis, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada; e-mail: Serletis@ucalgary.ca.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We test the long-run neutrality of money proposition for the United States paying attention to the integration and cointegration properties of the variables. We use quarterly data (over the period from 1967:1 to 2014:1) and the new Center for Financial Stability Divisia monetary aggregates. We make a comparison among the narrower monetary aggregates, M1, M2M, MZM, M2, and ALL, and the broad monetary aggregates, M4+, M4-, and M3, and show that there is no statistically significant evidence against long-run monetary neutrality, consistent with both monetarist and Keynesian macroeconomic theory.

Keywords

Monetary PolicyMoney ShocksDivisia Monetary Aggregates

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 23 , Issue 6 , September 2019 , pp. 2133 - 2149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

References

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. A. (1980) Economic monetary aggregates: An application of aggregation and index number theory. Journal of Econometrics 14, 11–48.10.1016/0304-4076(80)90070-6Google Scholar
Barnett, W. A. and Chauvet, M. (2009) International financial aggregation and index number theory: A chronological half-century empirical overview. Open Economies Review 20, 1–37.10.1007/s11079-008-9099-zGoogle Scholar
Barnett, W. A., Liu, J., Mattson, R. S., and van den Noort, J. (2013) The new CFS Divisia monetary aggregates: Design, construction, and data sources. Open Economies Review 24, 101–124.10.1007/s11079-012-9257-1Google Scholar
Dickey, D. A. and Fuller, W. A. (1981) Likelihood ratio tests for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49, 1057–1072.10.2307/1912517Google Scholar
Engle, R. F. and Granger, C. W. (1987) Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 55, 251–276.10.2307/1913236Google Scholar
Fisher, M. and Seater, J. (1993) Long-run neutrality and superneutrality in an ARIMA framework. American Economic Review 83, 402–415.Google Scholar
Goodfriend, M. (1987) Interest rate smoothing and price level trend-stationarity. Journal of Monetary Economics 19, 335–348.10.1016/0304-3932(87)90002-XGoogle Scholar
King, R. and Watson, M. (1997) Testing long-run neutrality. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Economic Quarterly 83, 69–101.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., and Shin, Y. (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics 54, 159–178.10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-YGoogle Scholar
Lucas, R. E. Jr. (1972) Expectations and the neutrality of money. Journal of Economic Theory 4, 103–124.10.1016/0022-0531(72)90142-1Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E. Jr. (1996) Nobel lecture: Monetary neutrality. Journal of Political Economy 104, 661–682.10.1086/262037Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E. Jr. (2000) Inflation and welfare. Econometrica 68, 247–274.10.1111/1468-0262.00109Google Scholar
Phillips, P. C. B. and Perron, P. (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrica 65, 335–346.10.1093/biomet/75.2.335Google Scholar
Serletis, A. and Koustas, Z. (1998) International evidence on the neutrality of money. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 30, 1–25.10.2307/2601265Google Scholar
Serletis, A. and Koustas, Z. (2001) Monetary aggregation and the neutrality of money. Economic Inquiry 39, 124–138.10.1093/ei/39.1.124Google Scholar