No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
One of the most widely investigated relationships in economics is the role that money plays in the determination of and income, and by now it is fairly well accepted that there is a close statistical relationship between money and the other two variables (see, e.g. [15]). For the United States, the major empirical evidence on the issue remains the Friedman and Schwartz monetary history volume, where it is concluded for the period 1867-1960 that Changes in the behavior of the money stock have been closely associated with changes in economic activity, money, income, and prices [10, p. 676]. Based on their evidence, the authors proceed to make a stronger statement concerning the causal structure of the relationship, namely that it can be characterized as one of Mutual interaction, but with money rather clearly the senior partner in longer run movements and in major cyclical movements . . . [10, p. 695]. This second proposition also appears to have been absorbed into the literature as evidenced by the fact that studies testing the relationship have treated money as either exogenous or policy determined. testing strategy has to a large extent been based on the approach taken in [9]. Precise testing, however, of the causal nature of the relationship between money, prices, and incomel has only recently come into vogue, and the results have yielded conflicting evidence. For example, Sims concludes that The main empirical finding is that the hypothesis that causality is unidirectional from money to income agrees with the postwar U . S . data, . . . [20, p. 540] . On the other hand, using a somewhat different test procedure, Feige and Pearce [6] argue for the postwar
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.