{"title":"Monetary economics after the global financial crisis: what has happened to the endogenous money theory?","authors":"G. Fontana, R. Realfonzo, M. Passarella","doi":"10.4337/ejeep.2020.0056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2010s have witnessed a new shift in central banking and, partially at least, in monetary economics and macroeconomic modelling. It is a fact that the endogenous money theory has been gradually clawing back popularity at the expense of the classical theory of interest rates, the financial intermediation view of banks, the money-multiplier story and the quantity theory of money. However, the loanable funds theory and the view of banks as pure financial intermediaries (sometimes coupled with the money-multiplier story) are still sometimes invoked. In addition, the dynamic process of creation, circulation and destruction of money is usually neglected. The point is that money endogeneity is still regarded by many mainstream economists as a mere empirical fact, not a key feature of capitalist market-based economies to be properly explained by a logically consistent theory. By contrast, dissenting economists have further advanced the endogenous money view through: (a) a generalised theory of the endogenous process of money creation; (b) the increasing popularity of modern monetary theory in the public debate; and (c) the development of aggregative stock–flow consistent models and agent-based stock–flow consistent models as an alternative to dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models.","PeriodicalId":44368,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies-Intervention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies-Intervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ejeep.2020.0056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
Abstract
The 2010s have witnessed a new shift in central banking and, partially at least, in monetary economics and macroeconomic modelling. It is a fact that the endogenous money theory has been gradually clawing back popularity at the expense of the classical theory of interest rates, the financial intermediation view of banks, the money-multiplier story and the quantity theory of money. However, the loanable funds theory and the view of banks as pure financial intermediaries (sometimes coupled with the money-multiplier story) are still sometimes invoked. In addition, the dynamic process of creation, circulation and destruction of money is usually neglected. The point is that money endogeneity is still regarded by many mainstream economists as a mere empirical fact, not a key feature of capitalist market-based economies to be properly explained by a logically consistent theory. By contrast, dissenting economists have further advanced the endogenous money view through: (a) a generalised theory of the endogenous process of money creation; (b) the increasing popularity of modern monetary theory in the public debate; and (c) the development of aggregative stock–flow consistent models and agent-based stock–flow consistent models as an alternative to dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (EJEEP) is a peer-reviewed journal which serves as a forum for studies in macroeconomic theory, economic institutions and economic policies. The managing editors aim for productive debates involving one or more variants of heterodox economics, and invite contributions acknowledging the pluralism of research approaches. The submission of both theoretical and empirical work is encouraged. The managing editors contend that a wide variety of institutional and social factors shape economic life and economic processes. Only a careful study and integration of such factors into economics will lead to theoretical progress and to competent economic policy recommendations. This was clearly demonstrated by the inadequacy of orthodox economics, based on neoclassical foundations, to provide suitable explanations and responses to recent financial and economic crises.