Search Results
Journal Article
International banking facilities
Journal Article
The macroeconomic effects of deficit spending: a review
Working Paper
Money and sectoral output dynamics in the United States, quarterly 1950/III to 1982/IV
The impact of money growth and money growth surprises is investigated in a framework in which GNP is disaggregated into its major sectoral components. The evidence presented is not fully consistent with a new classical interpretation of the business cycle. In particular light is thrown on the issue of the lag effect of money surprises. It is discovered that, even when sectoral interactions are accounted for, there are effects of lagged money growth. These lags are inconsistent with an equilibrium/rational expectations approach to business cycles. It is also discovered that growth in an ...
Working Paper
Tests of price sluggishness in the U.K.
Working Paper
Money and disaggregate supply in the United States, 1950-1982
The impact of money growth and money growth surprises on real output by sector is investigated. It is shown that money provides a significant contribution to the explanation of the real output cycles in almost all sectors of the U.S. economy. Anticipated money is found to have real effects, though there is some evidence that the real impact of money surprises is larger. ; The approach adopted offers the possibility of a new macroeconomics based upon major output categories, in contrast to the traditional Keynesian approach based upon expenditure categories. The way is, thereby, opened up for ...
Working Paper
Money and activity in the U.K. 1961-1983: surprise? surprise!
This is a study of the impact of money growth and money growth surprises on U.K. real activity (GDP and unemployment). We find no support for the 'only surprises have real effects' story except in the 1960s when the fixed exchange rate regime makes exogeneity of money questionable. Some support is found for the older monetarist view that lagged actual money growth has real effects. Our most surprising result is that U.S. M1 growth outperforms both U.K. M1 and sterling M3 as a determinant of U.K. real activity in the floating exchange rate period.