OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hong, Hao; Cardiff University (2011)
Publisher: Cardiff University
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects: HB
This paper explains and evaluates the transmissions and effectiveness of monetary policy shock in a simple Cash-in-Advance (CIA) economy with financial intermediates. Lucas-Fuerst's (1992) limited participation CIA models are able to explain decreasing nominal interest rates and increasing real economic activity with monetary expansion through limited participation monetary shock and the cost channel of monetary policy. Calvo's (1983) sticky price monetary model examines the real effects of money injections through firms' price setting behaviour, but it fails to generate a negative correlation between nominal interest rates and money growth rate, which has been observed in the data. This paper employs McCandless (2008) financial intermediates CIA model to explain the transmissions and impacts of monetary shocks. The model does not request limited participation monetary shock or Keynesian type of sticky price/wage, to examine the lower nominal interest rate and increasing real economic activity with monetary expansion. By extending the model with Stockman's (1981) CIA constraint, it is able to account for both positive response of consumption subject to monetary innovations, which has been found in Leeper et al. (1996) and the positive correlation between output and consumption which has been observed in the data.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Cagan, P., (1972) “The Channels of Monetary E¤ects on Interest Rates”, Columbia University Press, New York
    • [2] Christiano, L.J., (1991) “Modelling the liquidity e¤ect of a money shock”, Quarterly review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 15, 3-34
    • [3] Christiano, L.J., Eichenbaum, M., (1995) “Liquidity e¤ects, monetary policy and the business cycle”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27, 1113-36
    • [4] Christiano, L.J., Eichenbaum, M., Evans, C.L., (1997) “Sticky prices and limited participation models: a comparison”, European Economic Review 41, 1201-49
    • [5] Thomas F Cooley and Gary D Hansen (1995) “Money and Business Cycle,” in Frontiers of Business Cycle Research (T. F. Cooley, Ed.), 175-221 Princeton University Press
    • [6] Fuerst, Timothy S (1992) “Liquidity, loanable funds and real activity”, Journal of Monetary Economics 29, 3-24
    • [7] Friedman, Milton (1968) “The role of monetary policy”, American Economic Review, 58:1, 1-19
    • [8] Lucas, Robert E (1990) “Liquidity and interest rate”, Journal of Economic Theory 50, 237-264
    • [9] George McCandless (2008) “The ABDs of RBCs: An Introduction to Dynamic Macroeconomic Models”, Harvard University Press
    • [10] Alan C. Stockman (1981) “Anticipated in‡ation and the capital stock in a cash in advance economy”, Journal of Monetary Economics 8, 387-93
    • [11] James, Tobin (1947-1948) “Liquidity preference and monetary policy,”Review of Economics and Statistics 29:2, 124-31; 30:4, 314-17
    • [12] Tobin, J (1965) “Money and economic growth,” Econometrica, 33(4)(Part2), 671-684
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok