Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T18:41:01.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MONEY AND LIMITED ENFORCEMENT IN MULTILATERAL EXCHANGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2018

Nicola Amendola and
Leo Ferraris
Nicola Amendola
Affiliation:
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Leo Ferraris*
Affiliation:
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
*
Address correspondence to: Leo Ferraris, Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”, via Columbia 2, Roma, Italy; e-mail: leo.ferraris@uniroma2.it. Phone: +390672595726.
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 propose a model in which money performs an essential role in the process of exchange, despite the presence of a multilateral clearing house that collects resources from and distributes them to anonymous agents. Money improves the functioning of the clearing house, simultaneously keeping the incentives to contribute and guaranteeing the fine-tuning of allocations.

Keywords

MoneyEssentialityMultilateral Exchange

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 24 , Issue 5 , July 2020, pp. 1222 - 1239
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018

Footnotes

The paper was presented under the title “A quasi-Walrasian model of money” at several departmental seminars and conferences, including the 2013 Chicago Fed Summer Workshop on Money, Banking, Payments and Finance, and the IV Workshop on Institutions, Individual Behavior and Economic Outcomes, Alghero, Sardinia. We thank Randall Wright for suggesting the interpretation of limited enforcement as finite memory and seminar participants for comments. We also thank an associate editor and two anonymous referees for their comments. Leo Ferraris gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Montalcini program for young researchers of the Italian Ministry of the University.

References

Aliprantis, C., Camera, G. and Puzzello, D. (2007a) Contagion equilibria in a monetary model. Econometrica 75, 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aliprantis, C., Camera, G. and Puzzello, D. (2007b) Anonymous markets and monetary trading. Journal of Monetary Economics 54, 1905–1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andolfatto, D. (2010) Essential interest-bearing money. Journal of Economic Theory 145, 1495–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araujo, L., Camargo, B., Minetti, R. and Puzzello, D. (2012) The essentiality of money in environments with centralized trade. Journal of Monetary Economics 59, 612–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awaya, Y. and Fukai, H. (2017) A note on “Money is Memory”: A counterexample. Macroeconomic Dynamics 21, 545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavalcanti, R. and Wallace, N. (1999) Inside and outside money as alternative media of exchange. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 31, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. and Kocherlakota, N. (2005) Finite memory and imperfect monitoring. Games and Economic Behavior 53, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, E. J. and Zhou, R. (2005) Money as a mechanism in a Beweley economy. International Economic Review 46, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, T., Kennan, J. and Wallace, N. (2009) Coalition-proof trade and the Friedman rule in the Lagos-Wright model. Journal of Political Economy 117, 116–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiyotaki, N. and Wright, R. (1989) On money as a medium of exchange. Journal of Political Economy 97, 927–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocherlakota, N. (1998) Money is memory. Journal of Economic Theory 81, 232–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocherlakota, N. and Wallace, N. (1998) Incomplete record-keeping and optimal payments arrangements. Journal of Economic Theory 81, 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagos, R. and Wright, R. (2005) A unified framework for monetary theory and policy analysis. Journal of Political Economy 113, 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, D. K. (1991) Asset trading mechanisms and expansionary policy. Journal of Economic Theory 54, 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. and Rocheteau, G. (2011) On the threat of counterfeating. Macroeconomic Dynamics 15, 10–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magill, M. and Quinzii, M. (1996) Theory of Incomplete Markets. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nosal, E., Waller, C. J. and Wright, R. (2011) Introduction to the macroeconomic dynamics special issue on money, credit and liquidity. Macroeconomic Dynamics 15, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostroy, J. M. and Starr, R. (1974) Money and the decentralization of exchange. Econometrica 42, 1093–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostroy, J. M. and Starr, R. (1990) The transaction role of money. In: Friedman, B., and Hahn, F. (eds.), Handbook of Monetary Economics, Vol. 1, pp. 3–62. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, H. (2011) Money, markets and dynamic credit. Macroeconomic Dynamics 15, 10–41, 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, R. M. (1980) Models of money with spatially separated agents. In: Kareken, J. H., and Wallace, N. (eds.), Models of Monetary Economies, pp. 265–303. Minneapolis: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Wallace, N. (2014) Optimal money-creation in “Pure-Currency” economies: A conjecture. Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Amendola and Ferraris supplementary material

Appendix

Download Amendola and Ferraris supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 216.7 KB