中国通货膨胀福利成本研究
|
摘要
通货膨胀有福利成本吗?什么意义上的成本才被称之为通货膨胀的福利成本?通货膨胀福利成本研究的逻辑起点或研究视角如何?其理论上的计算方式如何确定?其计量方法又如何实现?基于中国的经验证据的中国通货膨胀的福利成本又怎样定量?对这些问题的回答,就是本文要研究的全部内容。通货膨胀的福利成本就是指面对通货膨胀,经济个体被迫改变持有货币的经济行为所造成的效率损失。因此,要解决通货膨胀的福利成本问题,就必需首先要回答诸如人们为什么会喜欢持有货币,货币为什么会具有价值,特别是法定货币——由政府发行的、边际生产成本为零、本身毫无价值的货币符号为什么具有价值,货币价值又是如何体现出来的这一系列货币现象的基本问题。这样就必然要对货币需求理论中的货币功能观,尤其是货币功能观的演进进行梳理与评析。
通过对传统货币需求理论中的货币与具有微观基础的现代货币理论中的货币,从宏观到微观的梳理,就可以确定一条货币功能观的演进路径,沿着这条路径,可以建立从传统货币需求理论对通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡估计,到具有微观基础的现代货币理论对通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计的理论框架与计量方法,这就是本文研究通货膨胀福利成本的逻辑主线,再根据中国的现实约束条件,就可以展开对中国通货膨胀福利成本问题的实证研究了。
实证研究中,本文采用季度数据,分析时期从1992年第一季度至2006年第四季度,样本数据长度为60。根据本文的估计,在一般标准模型估计下,平均而言,得到中国的通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的5.5%。在两个主要的中国现实约束条件下,得到以下两个结论:①考虑了存款性货币因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的18.7%;②考虑经济个体非同质化后的中国通货膨胀福利成本和没有考虑非同质化的通货膨胀福利成本,这二者之间几乎是没有什么差别的。相应的,本文也考察了通货膨胀福利成本的反面——降低通货膨胀的代价,得出通货膨胀率每降低1%,每年的产出损失率约为GDP的0.31%。
根据本文的研究逻辑主线,全文共分十章。
第一章绪论,介绍本文的研究背景、研究逻辑思路、研究目的、研究方法和研究创新与不足。
第二章对通货膨胀福利成本研究现状的文献综述。根据通货膨胀福利成本的定义,结合传统货币需求理论和具有微观基础的现代货币需求理论,分别列出了通货膨胀福利成本理论上的测度定义。围绕这一理论上的测度定义,在传统货币需求理论下,综述了Bailey(1956)、Marty(1967)、Barro(1972)、Mussa(1977)、Tower(1971)等学者对通货膨胀福利成本局部均衡估计的计量研究。随着货币理论研究从宏观转向微观,通货膨胀福利成本的估计也转向到具有微观基础的现代货币理论下的一般均衡估计,结合不同的货币微观模型,综述了Leach(1983)、Cooley & Hansen(1989)、Dotsey & Ireland(1994)、Eckstein & Leiderman(1992)、Luca(s1994,2000)、Chadha & Haldane & Janssen(1998)、Wolman(1997)、Bakhshi & Martin & Yates(2002)、Lagos & Wright(2005)、Craig & Rocheteau(2006)等学者的计量研究。最后,也对国内在通货膨胀福利成本的一些研究作了总结。
第三章对传统货币需求理论和具有微观基础的现代货币理论中的货币进行梳理与评述。传统货币需求理论围绕货币具有交易媒介、价值贮藏和计量单位这三种功能,研究了人们的货币需求和货币的价值所在。在古典货币数量论看来,货币的功能仅仅是便利交易的媒介,是依附于实际经济的“一层面纱”。但在凯恩斯及凯恩斯主义看来,货币不仅具有与交易动机相关的媒介功能,而且货币本身就是一种资产,故具有反映在投机动机之中的价值贮藏功能。就现代货币数量论而言,佛里德曼依然把货币看作是“购买力的暂时栖息所”,具有价值贮藏的资产功能。传统货币需求理论都承认货币的出现便利了交易,人们使用和需要这种交易手段是自动选择的结果,货币的价值可以从“间接选择性耦合”取代“双向直接耦合”带来的交易费用降低获得很好的解释。然而,法定货币——由政府发行的、边际生产成本为零、本身并没有内在价值、理论价格为零的货币符号为什么又会具有“正价值”呢?作为资产的货币的价值又是如何体现出来的呢?这就引发了著名的“哈恩难题”(Hahn’s Problem)。为解决这一难题,就又要再次对什么是货币、货币的性质、货币的正价值等问题进行深入的再研究,具有微观基础的现代货币理论就从一个新的视角给出适当的解释。
面对“哈恩难题”,经济学界就如何将货币作用引入一般均衡模型进行了长期的探索,其中世代交替模型(Overlapping Generation Model,OG),货币效用模型(Money-In-The-Utility Function Model,MIU),现金约束模型(Cash-In-Advance Model,CIA)和交易成本模型(Transaction Costs Model,TC)这四类模型受到了广泛的重视。世代交替模型从货币的价值贮藏功能出发,论证了货币存在的微观基础,但它并没有揭示出货币作为交易媒介的特性,因此货币在世代交替模型中的存在并非必要条件。随后的货币效用模型和现金约束模型都能够通过假设巧妙地将货币纳入到一般均衡体系中,并且能得出正的货币需求,有很强的实用性,但在描述实际经济中显得较为主观。寻介模型中的货币效用是从实际交易过程中抽象得到,有很强的现实性,但由于现实世界的纷繁复杂,也决定了这种方法在现阶段缺乏实际应用的价值。
虽然交易时间模型在确定消费时间方面也有较强的主观性,但相比之下,它有很好的微观基础,也具有很强的现实性,因此,在对中国通货膨胀福利成本的分析中,将重点以交易时间模型展开分析和估计。
具有微观基础的现代货币理论,围绕人们为什么会喜欢持有货币,货币为什么会具有正价值,将货币纳入一般均衡体系,从个体效用最优化出发来推演总量现象,从微观的崭新视角对货币现象的基本问题给出了更加符合逻辑的回答。
沿着已梳理好的货币需求理论,就可以分别从传统货币需求理论和具有微观基础的现代货币理论出发,从各自对货币的理解来解决通货膨胀福利成本方面的有关问题了。
第四章分别从传统的宏观货币理论和具有微观基础的现代货币理论,确定研究通货膨胀福利成本的理论框架与计量模型。
在传统的宏观货币理论中,根据通货膨胀福利成本的定义,Bailey等人对货币需求运用消费者剩余分析,认为通货膨胀就像是对货币征税,那么通货膨胀的福利成本就是位于货币需求曲线下方、生产货币的社会成本曲线上方之间的面积,只不过生产货币的社会成本为零而已,因此,在传统的宏观货币理论中,通货膨胀的福利成本就是货币需求曲线下方区域的面积。
由于传统的宏观货币理论缺乏微观基础,这样就使得运用消费者剩余分析出的通货膨胀福利成本也仅仅是一个笼统的总量概念,它在衡量个体效用损失与总体福利成本之间缺乏内在的逻辑联系。而具有微观基础的现代货币理论,特别是货币效用模型,假设货币能直接带来效用,直观地把由于较高通货膨胀率所引致的货币持有额下降与个体福利成本紧密地联系起来,这完全符合经济学理论关于理性经济个体最大化选择行为的假定。因此,结合具有微观基础的货币模型,Lucas(1994,2000)提出“补偿改变理论”(Compensating Variation):经济个体为了生活在一个有更低(或者更高)的持续通货膨胀环境下,人们愿意失去多少收入损失(或者得到多少收入补偿),这种对收入改变的测度就是对通货膨胀福利成本的测度。
由此可见,不论是传统的宏观货币理论,还是具有微观基础的现代货币理论,对通货膨胀福利成本的计量,其中心思想都可以表述为是对经济个体失去的效用的一种实际货币的补偿成本。
由于通货膨胀的程度通常采用通货膨胀率来衡量,那么,又是否存在一个最优的通货膨胀率,能使经济个体在均衡时的通货膨胀福利成本达到最小,从而实现福利最大化呢?Bailey(1956)和Friedman(1969)提出,社会制造货币的边际成本与私人持有货币的边际成本相等时,就会实现社会资源的“帕累托最优”与社会福利的最大化,即私人持有货币的边际成本等于零,也就说要让名义利率为零,这就是著名的弗里德曼法则(Friedman Rule),所以,最优通货膨胀率事实上就是一个通货紧缩率,大致等于资本的真实利率。第五章解决了考察中国通货膨胀福利成本所要涉及到的诸如数据时期的选择、数据类型的选取、变量的选取与数据处理等问题,为下面章节借用这些数据进行计量研究打下基础。
根据通货膨胀福利成本的理论模型,结合本文要重点研究的在传统货币需求理论下中国通货膨胀福利成本局部均衡估计模型,以及结合货币效用模型、交易时间模型和考虑中国现实约束条件后要采用到的广义交易时间模型的中国通货膨胀福利成本一般均衡估计模型,根据中国的经济数据的特点,本文选择的分析时期为1992年第一季度至2006年第四季度,数据类型采用季度型数据,样本数据长度为60,变量有名义利率r、名义货币余额M1和M2、名义GDP、以1985年为不变价的实际GDP、季度同比CPI、以1985为100的定基季度CPI等等,变量的季节波动由最新的X-12进行季度调整。
第六章根据已确立的通货膨胀福利成本的理论框架,结合传统货币需求理论,考察了局部均衡下的中国通货膨胀福利成本。根据第五章确定的中国经济数据,采用了Bailey等的消费者剩余分析,首先考察了在Lucas货币需求图表下的中国通货膨胀福利成本,在受到Lucas货币需求图表的启发后,重点分析了中国货币需求与利率的长期协整关系,并进而得出了在中国货币需求关系下中国通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡估计,约为GDP的5.4%。
第七章结合具有微观基础的现代货币理论,考察了一般均衡下的中国通货膨胀福利成本。重点结合两个微观货币模型——货币效用模型和交易时间模型,利用补偿改变理论,得出利用货币效用模型的中国通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计为6.2%,比局部均衡的估计要略为高一些,而利用交易时间模型得出的中国通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计为5%,比用货币效用模型的一般均衡估计和局部均衡估计都要低一些。
第八章在用描述统计分析出中国的现实约束条件后,针对中国存款性货币在货币总量中的比重较大和城乡经济个体非同质化这两个主要的现实约束条件,对交易时间模型进行适当扩展,使之成为多货币类型、多经济个体的广义交易时间模型,并进一步讨论了在约束条件下的中国通货膨胀福利成本一般均衡估计的理论分析框架和计量模型,得到以下两个结论:①考虑了存款性货币因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的18.7%;②考虑经济个体非同质化后的中国通货膨胀福利成本和没有考虑非同质化的通货膨胀福利成本,这二者之间几乎是没有什么差别的。
第九章根据逻辑的惯性,从中国近期的历史数据本身出发,研究了通货膨胀福利成本的反面——降低通货膨胀的代价,即中国产出损失率问题,得出每降低一个百分点通货膨胀率,每年的产出损失率就约为GDP的0.31%。
第十章,总结与展望。分别对中国通货膨胀福利成本和降低通货膨胀的代价作了总结,并与其它国家的研究结果作了相应的横向比较,以便对中国通货膨胀福利成本问题有一个完整全面的认识。本文从效率损失,即福利成本的角度对通货膨胀问题进行理论分析与计量研究,这在国内以往的研究中是极少见的,并得到与其他国家横向比较,中国的通货膨胀福利成本不算太高,处于中等偏下水平,和通过适度从紧的经济政策来降低通货膨胀,从中获得的通货膨胀福利收益将会远大于产出损失,降低通货膨胀是得大于失的有关结论,这在实践上,为目前经济冷或热、通胀好还是通缩好的理论讨论中,补充给出一个在通货膨胀福利成本方面的衡量标准。最后,也展望了通货膨胀福利成本三个今后需要进一步研究的方向。
本文的主要创新点表现在:
1、据所能查到的文献资料显示,国内以往对通货膨胀的研究大都是从财富再分配的角度来展开的,极少从效率损失,即福利成本的角度来研究通货膨胀问题,特别是对其的定量研究更是鲜见,而且现有的极少定量研究也多是从单一的模型入手,不全面也不成体系,也未能提出一种研究的脉络。本文则尝试提出这样一种研究视角:根据货币需求理论对货币从宏观到微观的认识,沿着货币功能观的演进路径,建立研究通货膨胀福利成本的逻辑主线,并沿着这条主线,进行通货膨胀福利成本理论框架与计量方法的研究。在这样的研究视角下,本文也建立了从在传统货币需求理论下对通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡估计模型,到在具有微观基础的现代货币理论下对通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计模型,再到在约束条件下通货膨胀福利成本估计模型,对中国通货膨胀福利成本问题进行了比较全面系统的研究。
2、尝试得出了在研究中国通货膨胀福利成本方面必须要考虑的两个现实约束条件——中国存款性货币在货币总量中的比重和城乡经济个体的非同质化,得出了它们对中国通货膨胀福利成本的约束特征:考虑存款性货币因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的18.7%;考虑经济个体非同质化因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本则和没有考虑非同质化因素时几乎没有什么差别。对中国通货膨胀福利成本约束条件的研究,这在目前的研究文献中还鲜见到。
3、在对中国通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡和一般均衡的实证分析上,进一步根据中国的现实约束条件,建立了适合中国通货膨胀福利成本研究的理论框架以及进行了基于中国经济数据的实证研究,并得到以下两个结论:与其他国家的通货膨胀福利成本横向相比较,中国的通货膨胀福利成本不算太高,处于中等偏下水平;通过适度从紧的经济政策来降低通货膨胀,从中获得的通货膨胀福利收益将会远大于产出损失,降低通货膨胀是得大于失的。这就总结了我国改革开放以来,通货膨胀的福利成本与收益,横向分析了我国通货膨胀福利成本水平,也为目前经济冷或热、通胀好还是通缩好的理论讨论中,补充给出一个在通货膨胀福利成本方面的衡量标准。
Does inflation have the welfare cost? What kind of cost can be called the welfare cost of inflation? How to do the research of the welfare cost of inflation from its logic start point and research view point? In economics, How to decide its theoretic calculation, econometric calculation, and the welfare cost of inflation of China, based on its nation’s past economic activities? To answer these questions is the whole content of this paper.
The welfare cost of inflation means the economic efficiency loss caused by the actions of economy individuals having to change its holding monetary during the inflation. As Inflation is a basic monetary phenomenon, in order to solve the problem of the welfare cost of inflation, some related questions have to be answered. First, why people like to hold money on hand? Then, it focus on why money, especially the fiat money issued by the government, with no marginal cost of creating money and has no value itself has value? Last, how does the value of money form? To bridge these questions, we need to comb and analyze money demand, especially the evolvement money function idea.
By combing money through macro-monetary theory—a traditional money demand and micro-monetary theory—a money demand theory based on micro foundation, a clue can be determined to do the research on the welfare cost of inflation. Through this clue, the theory framework and metric calculation can be built up, from the partial equilibrium assessment on the welfare cost of inflation by traditional money demand theory, to the general equilibrium assessment and calculation method of the welfare cost of inflation, based on micro-based contemporary monetary theory. This is the main logic of this research on the welfare cost of inflation. And based on the nation’s realistic constraints, a research of the welfare costs of inflation in China can be outspread.
When doing the practical research, the paper uses quarterly data, analyzing the period from the first quarter of 1992 to the forth quarter of 2006, totally 60 sample data. Based on the estimate of this paper, under a general standard model, the welfare costs of inflation in China is 5.5% of its GDP. Under the two main realistic constraints, also two conclusions are drawn, 1. Considering the factor of interest bearing deposits, the welfare costs of inflation is 18.7% of its GDP; 2. There is nearly no difference on the welfare costs of inflation considering intra-household model or not. Logically, the paper also did the investigation on the opposite of the welfare costs of inflation—the cost of disinflation, the conclusion is that the sacrifice ratio of output is 0.31%, with disinflation rate on each percent. According to the logic clue, this paper has ten chapters.
Chapter one is the preface, which introduces the research background, logic clue, purpose, method, innovation and drawbacks.
Chapter two is a narration of current research on the welfare cost of inflation.
It gives the measurable definition of the welfare cost of inflation, according to the definition of the welfare cost of inflation, and the money demand theory based on both traditional monetary theory and micro-based contemporary monetary theory. Focus on the theoretical measurable definition, according to traditional monetary theory, it describes the econometric researches of the partial equilibrium assessment on the welfare cost of inflation, such as, Bailey(1956)、Marty(1967)、Barro(1972)、Mussa(1977)、Tower(1971)and etc. With the focus of monetary theoretical research changing from macro to micro, the estimation of the welfare cost of inflation moved on to the general equilibrium assessment based on micro based contemporary monetary theory. According to some different micro-based monetary models, it describes the econometric researches of the scholars, such as, Leach(1983)、Cooley & Hansen(1989)、Dotsey & Ireland(1994)、Eckstein & Leiderman(1992)、Luca(s1994,2000)、Chadha & Haldane & Janssen(1998)、Wolman(1997)、Bakhshi & Martin & Yates(2002)、Lagos & Wright(2005)、Craig & Rocheteau(2006), and etc. At last, it gives the conclusion on the researches of native scholars on the welfare cost of inflation.
Chapter three combs and analyzes the money demand theory of traditional money and the money of micro–based contemporary monetary theory. The traditional money demand theory studies people’s demand on money and the value of money, according to the three functions of monetary—media of exchange, store value, and unit of account. From the point of view of Classical Quantity Theory of Money, money is treated just as a medium of exchange, and it is just as a layer of veil of real economy. Whereas in the view of Keynes and Keynesian, money has medium function (has relation with exchange), and it is an asset itself. So it has store value (reflecting in the purpose of speculating). In New Quantity Theory of Money, Friedman still treats money as“the temporary residence of purchase power”with function of store value of asset. The traditional money demand theory believes the emerging of money facilitates exchange, and it is the evolvement outcome of people’s using and the need for money. The value of money can be explained well from reducing transaction costs by using indirect-matching-of-wants in lieu of double-coincidence-of-wants. But, fiat money issued by the government with zero marginal creating cost and no values itself, theoretically, its price is zero, but how can it have positive value? As an asset, how does the value of money exist? This triggers the famous Hahn’s problem. To solve this problem, it is necessary to do a further research on questions such as what is money, its characteristics, positive values, etc, to search for a proper explanation, a new point of view of money theory with micro-foundation is needed.
In economics studies, facing Hahn’s problem, there is a long research on inducing general equilibrium models to illustrate the function of money. Among these studies, there are four models have wide recognition: Overlapping Generation Model (OG), Money-In-The-Utility Function Model (MIU), Cash-In-Advance Model (CIA),and Transaction Costs Model (TC). OG starts from the function of the store value of money, and demonstrated micro-foundation of money existence, as it defines money function as store value, not reveal any characteristics as a medium of exchange, so, the existence of money in OG is not a necessity. The following models MIU and CIA bring money into general equilibrium models through assumptions, and obtain positive money demand, although they have high practicality, their subjectivity are the drawbacks in the real business world. The money effective of Search Model is got from the practical exchange abstractly, it is very practical. But with the complex of real business world, currently, this method lacks the value of practical application. Although Shopping-Time Model is bit subjectivity on assuring shopping time, compare to the former, it has a very good micro knowledge base, and it is very practical, so when analysis the inflation welfare cost of China, Shopping-Time Model will be used mainly to expanding the analysis and estimations.
Monetary theory with micro-foundation encircles the questions, such as, why people like to hold money on hand. Why does money have positive value? Puts money into the general equilibrium model, starts from the optimal household utility to calculate the whole utility amount, and uses a micro brand new point of view to give answers more logically.
In this way, by the combed money demand theory, this paper uses traditional money demand theory and micro-foundation based contemporary money theory, and their definitions of money to solve the problems of the welfare cost of inflation.
Chapter four sets up the theoretical framework and computation model from both traditional macro monetary theory and micro-based contemporary monetary theory.
In the traditional macro monetary theory, Bailey application of the consumer’surplus idea to the demand of money believed that inflation is just as the excising tax on money, according to this, the welfare loss from tax on money is the area bounded on the bottom by the social cost of producing money ,which is zero, and bounded on the top by the demand curve, the only difference is the social cost of creating money is zero, so, in the traditional macro monetary theory, the welfare cost of inflation is the area under the money demand function.
Lacking of micro-foundation, macro monetary economics has a large constraint, so, the application of consumer surplus idea which analyzing the welfare cost of inflation is just a rough utility amount. The idea lacks internal logical relationship when measuring household utility and whole utility amount of welfare costs. Whereas monetary theory with micro-foundation, especially MIU, which assumes money can bring utility, intuitively create a tight relation between a high inflation rate leading to a low quantity of money holdings and loss of household welfare, it is thoroughly accorded with optimal option assumption of rationalizing household of economic theory. Therefore, monetary model with micro-foundation, Lucas(1994,2000)posed Compensating Variation, household in order to live in a lower (higher) continuous inflation environment, people are willing to lose how much income loss (or obtain how much income compensation), this kind of income change is the measurement of the welfare cost of inflation.
From the above, we can tell, either traditional macro monetary theory, or micro-based contemporary monetary theory, their definitions of the welfare cost of inflation can be described as the real cost of compensating a consumer for losing utility.
Because the degree of inflation often is described by inflation rate, is there an optimal inflation rate which can make economy body realize maximum welfare when in its equilibrium? Bailey(1956)and Friedman(1969)posed, when marginal cost of social creating money is equal to the marginal cost of individual money holdings, social resources reach the Pareto Optimality and social welfares reach the maximum. In other words, the marginal cost of individual money holdings is zero, which means the generalized interest rate is zero. This is the famous Friedman Rule. So, in fact, optimal welfare inflation is a deflation rate, which approximately equal to the real asset rate.
Chapter five solves the questions of the selection of data period, selection of data types, selection of varieties, and data process, etc, when discuss the welfare cost of inflation in China. And it provides the data for the following chapters when doing econometric research.
According to the theoretical model of the welfare cost of inflation, the partial equilibrium estimate model of China under traditional monetary demand theory stated by this article, and the MIU, Shopping-Time Model, and generalize Shopping-Time Model with the consideration of the constraints of China’s practical situation, the general equilibrium of the welfare cost of inflation in China is applied, and according to the characters of the economy data of China, the paper uses quarterly data, analyzing the period from the first quarter of 1992 to the forth quarter of 2006, totally 60 sample data, variety nominal rate r, monetary nominal balance M1 and M2, nominal GDP, considering the real GDP of the year 1985 as unchanged price, quarter rate CPI, considering the year of 1985 as the basic quarter CPI of 100, etc. the quarterly change of variety is adjusted by the updated X-12.
Based on established theory framework of the welfare cost of inflation, Chapter six uses traditional money demand theory to determine the framework and econometric model of the welfare cost of inflation. According to the economy data of China decided in Chapter Five, also use Baily‘s consumer surplus idea, this chapter discusses the welfare cost of inflation under Lucas’s monetary demand chart, then, with the help of Lucas’s chart, this chapter focuses on analysis of long term cointegration relationship between money demand and interest rate in China, then it obtains the welfare costs of inflation in China, which is about 5.4% of GDP.
Chapter seven investigates the welfare cost of inflation in China under general equilibrium, according to the micro based contemporary monetary theory. It mainly uses these two micro monetary model—MIU and Shopping-Time Model, with the help of Compensating Variation Theory, comes to the conclusion, that the general equilibrium of the welfare cost of inflation in China is 6.2% of GDP by using MIU, which is a little bit higher than the partial equilibrium estimation; while the general equilibrium of the welfare cost of inflation in China is 5% by using Shopping-Time Model, which is a little bit lower than the partial equilibrium estimate and the general equilibrium estimate by using MIU.
After describing statistical analysis of the reality constraints of China, focuses on the two main reality constraints of the too large interest bearing deposits and intra-household of urban and rural area, it properly develops the Shopping-Time Model, makes it become the generalize Shopping-Time Model with a wider definition of multi-money type and multi-economy-individual. And it also does the further discussion of the theoretical analysis framework and quantity model under the general equilibrium estimate of welfare cost of inflation in China, and comes to these two conclusions:①The welfare cost of inflation in China is about 18.7% of GDP after considering the interest bearing deposits;②When considering intra-household of urban and rural area, there is no difference between the welfare cost of inflation in China without considering it.
According to the logical line, from the recent historical data of China, Chapter nine does the research on the other side of the welfare cost of inflation—the cost of disinflation, that is the question of output loss rate of China, it comes to the conclusion, the sacrifice ratio of output would be 0.31% of GDP, with disinflation rate on each percent.
Chapter ten is the conclusion and expectation. It draws the conclusion on the welfare cost of inflation in China and the cost of disinflation, and it also makes the comparison of the research results of other countries, so as to give a complete recognition on inflation welfare cost of China. It starts from the economic efficiency loss, or we can say, and it makes the theoretical analysis and quantity research on inflation, from the welfare cost point of view, which is very rare among the researches in China. By comparing with other countries, the welfare cost of inflation in China is not too high, it lies on the middle-lower level, and by moderately tight economic policy, the inflation can be decreased, and the welfare gain of inflation would bigger than output loss, and the gain from disinflation is far bigger than the loss from it. It gives a standard level of welfare cost of inflation when whether the economy is good or bad, and whether inflation is good or disinflation practically. Finally, it gives the expectation on the three research directions of the welfare cost of inflation.
The main innovation is as followed:
1. In domestic, according to documents we collected, most of the studies on the inflation being discussed from the point of view of the redistribution of fortune, it is very rare to do from the economic efficiency loss that is from the welfare cost point of view, and it is especially rear to see the quantity research on it. Plus, the present econometric research starts from single model, they are not complete and not systematic, and they can’t provide a research line. This article tries to provide such kind of research point of view: according to the reorganization of money demand theory of both macro and micro, along with the evolution of the function of money, it sets up the logic line of researching on the welfare cost of inflation. With the help of this logic line, the research on theoretical framework and quantity method of inflation welfare cost is carried out. Under this kind of research point of view, this paper sets up the partial equilibrium estimate model of the welfare cost of inflation under traditional money demand theory, the general equilibrium estimate model of the welfare cost of inflation under micro based contemporary monetary theory, and the general equilibrium estimate model of the welfare cost of inflation under constraints, this paper does a complete and systematic research on the welfare cost of inflation in China.
2. It finds out two real constraints and their characteristics in doing research of the welfare cost of inflation in China—too large interest bearing deposits and intra-household of urban and rural area, it comes to the conclusion of the constraints character of the welfare cost of inflation in China: The welfare cost of inflation in China is about 18.7% of GDP after considering the interest bearing deposits; when considering intra-household of urban and rural area, there is no difference between the welfare cost of inflation in China without considering it. The research on constraints situation of China’s inflation welfare cost is very rare to find in present research papers.
3. According to real constraints of China, managing the analysis of mainstream standards, it establishes the theory framework which suits for the welfare cost of inflation in China and makes a demonstration based on economy data of China, and it comes to these two conclusions: By comparing with other countries, the welfare cost of inflation in China is not too high, it lies on the middle-lower level, and by moderately tight economic policy, the inflation can be decreased, and the welfare gain of inflation would bigger than output loss, and the gain from disinflation is far bigger than the loss from it. It gives a standard level of welfare cost of inflation when whether the economy is good or bad, and whether inflation is good or disinflation practically.
通过对传统货币需求理论中的货币与具有微观基础的现代货币理论中的货币,从宏观到微观的梳理,就可以确定一条货币功能观的演进路径,沿着这条路径,可以建立从传统货币需求理论对通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡估计,到具有微观基础的现代货币理论对通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计的理论框架与计量方法,这就是本文研究通货膨胀福利成本的逻辑主线,再根据中国的现实约束条件,就可以展开对中国通货膨胀福利成本问题的实证研究了。
实证研究中,本文采用季度数据,分析时期从1992年第一季度至2006年第四季度,样本数据长度为60。根据本文的估计,在一般标准模型估计下,平均而言,得到中国的通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的5.5%。在两个主要的中国现实约束条件下,得到以下两个结论:①考虑了存款性货币因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的18.7%;②考虑经济个体非同质化后的中国通货膨胀福利成本和没有考虑非同质化的通货膨胀福利成本,这二者之间几乎是没有什么差别的。相应的,本文也考察了通货膨胀福利成本的反面——降低通货膨胀的代价,得出通货膨胀率每降低1%,每年的产出损失率约为GDP的0.31%。
根据本文的研究逻辑主线,全文共分十章。
第一章绪论,介绍本文的研究背景、研究逻辑思路、研究目的、研究方法和研究创新与不足。
第二章对通货膨胀福利成本研究现状的文献综述。根据通货膨胀福利成本的定义,结合传统货币需求理论和具有微观基础的现代货币需求理论,分别列出了通货膨胀福利成本理论上的测度定义。围绕这一理论上的测度定义,在传统货币需求理论下,综述了Bailey(1956)、Marty(1967)、Barro(1972)、Mussa(1977)、Tower(1971)等学者对通货膨胀福利成本局部均衡估计的计量研究。随着货币理论研究从宏观转向微观,通货膨胀福利成本的估计也转向到具有微观基础的现代货币理论下的一般均衡估计,结合不同的货币微观模型,综述了Leach(1983)、Cooley & Hansen(1989)、Dotsey & Ireland(1994)、Eckstein & Leiderman(1992)、Luca(s1994,2000)、Chadha & Haldane & Janssen(1998)、Wolman(1997)、Bakhshi & Martin & Yates(2002)、Lagos & Wright(2005)、Craig & Rocheteau(2006)等学者的计量研究。最后,也对国内在通货膨胀福利成本的一些研究作了总结。
第三章对传统货币需求理论和具有微观基础的现代货币理论中的货币进行梳理与评述。传统货币需求理论围绕货币具有交易媒介、价值贮藏和计量单位这三种功能,研究了人们的货币需求和货币的价值所在。在古典货币数量论看来,货币的功能仅仅是便利交易的媒介,是依附于实际经济的“一层面纱”。但在凯恩斯及凯恩斯主义看来,货币不仅具有与交易动机相关的媒介功能,而且货币本身就是一种资产,故具有反映在投机动机之中的价值贮藏功能。就现代货币数量论而言,佛里德曼依然把货币看作是“购买力的暂时栖息所”,具有价值贮藏的资产功能。传统货币需求理论都承认货币的出现便利了交易,人们使用和需要这种交易手段是自动选择的结果,货币的价值可以从“间接选择性耦合”取代“双向直接耦合”带来的交易费用降低获得很好的解释。然而,法定货币——由政府发行的、边际生产成本为零、本身并没有内在价值、理论价格为零的货币符号为什么又会具有“正价值”呢?作为资产的货币的价值又是如何体现出来的呢?这就引发了著名的“哈恩难题”(Hahn’s Problem)。为解决这一难题,就又要再次对什么是货币、货币的性质、货币的正价值等问题进行深入的再研究,具有微观基础的现代货币理论就从一个新的视角给出适当的解释。
面对“哈恩难题”,经济学界就如何将货币作用引入一般均衡模型进行了长期的探索,其中世代交替模型(Overlapping Generation Model,OG),货币效用模型(Money-In-The-Utility Function Model,MIU),现金约束模型(Cash-In-Advance Model,CIA)和交易成本模型(Transaction Costs Model,TC)这四类模型受到了广泛的重视。世代交替模型从货币的价值贮藏功能出发,论证了货币存在的微观基础,但它并没有揭示出货币作为交易媒介的特性,因此货币在世代交替模型中的存在并非必要条件。随后的货币效用模型和现金约束模型都能够通过假设巧妙地将货币纳入到一般均衡体系中,并且能得出正的货币需求,有很强的实用性,但在描述实际经济中显得较为主观。寻介模型中的货币效用是从实际交易过程中抽象得到,有很强的现实性,但由于现实世界的纷繁复杂,也决定了这种方法在现阶段缺乏实际应用的价值。
虽然交易时间模型在确定消费时间方面也有较强的主观性,但相比之下,它有很好的微观基础,也具有很强的现实性,因此,在对中国通货膨胀福利成本的分析中,将重点以交易时间模型展开分析和估计。
具有微观基础的现代货币理论,围绕人们为什么会喜欢持有货币,货币为什么会具有正价值,将货币纳入一般均衡体系,从个体效用最优化出发来推演总量现象,从微观的崭新视角对货币现象的基本问题给出了更加符合逻辑的回答。
沿着已梳理好的货币需求理论,就可以分别从传统货币需求理论和具有微观基础的现代货币理论出发,从各自对货币的理解来解决通货膨胀福利成本方面的有关问题了。
第四章分别从传统的宏观货币理论和具有微观基础的现代货币理论,确定研究通货膨胀福利成本的理论框架与计量模型。
在传统的宏观货币理论中,根据通货膨胀福利成本的定义,Bailey等人对货币需求运用消费者剩余分析,认为通货膨胀就像是对货币征税,那么通货膨胀的福利成本就是位于货币需求曲线下方、生产货币的社会成本曲线上方之间的面积,只不过生产货币的社会成本为零而已,因此,在传统的宏观货币理论中,通货膨胀的福利成本就是货币需求曲线下方区域的面积。
由于传统的宏观货币理论缺乏微观基础,这样就使得运用消费者剩余分析出的通货膨胀福利成本也仅仅是一个笼统的总量概念,它在衡量个体效用损失与总体福利成本之间缺乏内在的逻辑联系。而具有微观基础的现代货币理论,特别是货币效用模型,假设货币能直接带来效用,直观地把由于较高通货膨胀率所引致的货币持有额下降与个体福利成本紧密地联系起来,这完全符合经济学理论关于理性经济个体最大化选择行为的假定。因此,结合具有微观基础的货币模型,Lucas(1994,2000)提出“补偿改变理论”(Compensating Variation):经济个体为了生活在一个有更低(或者更高)的持续通货膨胀环境下,人们愿意失去多少收入损失(或者得到多少收入补偿),这种对收入改变的测度就是对通货膨胀福利成本的测度。
由此可见,不论是传统的宏观货币理论,还是具有微观基础的现代货币理论,对通货膨胀福利成本的计量,其中心思想都可以表述为是对经济个体失去的效用的一种实际货币的补偿成本。
由于通货膨胀的程度通常采用通货膨胀率来衡量,那么,又是否存在一个最优的通货膨胀率,能使经济个体在均衡时的通货膨胀福利成本达到最小,从而实现福利最大化呢?Bailey(1956)和Friedman(1969)提出,社会制造货币的边际成本与私人持有货币的边际成本相等时,就会实现社会资源的“帕累托最优”与社会福利的最大化,即私人持有货币的边际成本等于零,也就说要让名义利率为零,这就是著名的弗里德曼法则(Friedman Rule),所以,最优通货膨胀率事实上就是一个通货紧缩率,大致等于资本的真实利率。第五章解决了考察中国通货膨胀福利成本所要涉及到的诸如数据时期的选择、数据类型的选取、变量的选取与数据处理等问题,为下面章节借用这些数据进行计量研究打下基础。
根据通货膨胀福利成本的理论模型,结合本文要重点研究的在传统货币需求理论下中国通货膨胀福利成本局部均衡估计模型,以及结合货币效用模型、交易时间模型和考虑中国现实约束条件后要采用到的广义交易时间模型的中国通货膨胀福利成本一般均衡估计模型,根据中国的经济数据的特点,本文选择的分析时期为1992年第一季度至2006年第四季度,数据类型采用季度型数据,样本数据长度为60,变量有名义利率r、名义货币余额M1和M2、名义GDP、以1985年为不变价的实际GDP、季度同比CPI、以1985为100的定基季度CPI等等,变量的季节波动由最新的X-12进行季度调整。
第六章根据已确立的通货膨胀福利成本的理论框架,结合传统货币需求理论,考察了局部均衡下的中国通货膨胀福利成本。根据第五章确定的中国经济数据,采用了Bailey等的消费者剩余分析,首先考察了在Lucas货币需求图表下的中国通货膨胀福利成本,在受到Lucas货币需求图表的启发后,重点分析了中国货币需求与利率的长期协整关系,并进而得出了在中国货币需求关系下中国通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡估计,约为GDP的5.4%。
第七章结合具有微观基础的现代货币理论,考察了一般均衡下的中国通货膨胀福利成本。重点结合两个微观货币模型——货币效用模型和交易时间模型,利用补偿改变理论,得出利用货币效用模型的中国通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计为6.2%,比局部均衡的估计要略为高一些,而利用交易时间模型得出的中国通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计为5%,比用货币效用模型的一般均衡估计和局部均衡估计都要低一些。
第八章在用描述统计分析出中国的现实约束条件后,针对中国存款性货币在货币总量中的比重较大和城乡经济个体非同质化这两个主要的现实约束条件,对交易时间模型进行适当扩展,使之成为多货币类型、多经济个体的广义交易时间模型,并进一步讨论了在约束条件下的中国通货膨胀福利成本一般均衡估计的理论分析框架和计量模型,得到以下两个结论:①考虑了存款性货币因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的18.7%;②考虑经济个体非同质化后的中国通货膨胀福利成本和没有考虑非同质化的通货膨胀福利成本,这二者之间几乎是没有什么差别的。
第九章根据逻辑的惯性,从中国近期的历史数据本身出发,研究了通货膨胀福利成本的反面——降低通货膨胀的代价,即中国产出损失率问题,得出每降低一个百分点通货膨胀率,每年的产出损失率就约为GDP的0.31%。
第十章,总结与展望。分别对中国通货膨胀福利成本和降低通货膨胀的代价作了总结,并与其它国家的研究结果作了相应的横向比较,以便对中国通货膨胀福利成本问题有一个完整全面的认识。本文从效率损失,即福利成本的角度对通货膨胀问题进行理论分析与计量研究,这在国内以往的研究中是极少见的,并得到与其他国家横向比较,中国的通货膨胀福利成本不算太高,处于中等偏下水平,和通过适度从紧的经济政策来降低通货膨胀,从中获得的通货膨胀福利收益将会远大于产出损失,降低通货膨胀是得大于失的有关结论,这在实践上,为目前经济冷或热、通胀好还是通缩好的理论讨论中,补充给出一个在通货膨胀福利成本方面的衡量标准。最后,也展望了通货膨胀福利成本三个今后需要进一步研究的方向。
本文的主要创新点表现在:
1、据所能查到的文献资料显示,国内以往对通货膨胀的研究大都是从财富再分配的角度来展开的,极少从效率损失,即福利成本的角度来研究通货膨胀问题,特别是对其的定量研究更是鲜见,而且现有的极少定量研究也多是从单一的模型入手,不全面也不成体系,也未能提出一种研究的脉络。本文则尝试提出这样一种研究视角:根据货币需求理论对货币从宏观到微观的认识,沿着货币功能观的演进路径,建立研究通货膨胀福利成本的逻辑主线,并沿着这条主线,进行通货膨胀福利成本理论框架与计量方法的研究。在这样的研究视角下,本文也建立了从在传统货币需求理论下对通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡估计模型,到在具有微观基础的现代货币理论下对通货膨胀福利成本的一般均衡估计模型,再到在约束条件下通货膨胀福利成本估计模型,对中国通货膨胀福利成本问题进行了比较全面系统的研究。
2、尝试得出了在研究中国通货膨胀福利成本方面必须要考虑的两个现实约束条件——中国存款性货币在货币总量中的比重和城乡经济个体的非同质化,得出了它们对中国通货膨胀福利成本的约束特征:考虑存款性货币因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本约为GDP的18.7%;考虑经济个体非同质化因素后的中国通货膨胀福利成本则和没有考虑非同质化因素时几乎没有什么差别。对中国通货膨胀福利成本约束条件的研究,这在目前的研究文献中还鲜见到。
3、在对中国通货膨胀福利成本的局部均衡和一般均衡的实证分析上,进一步根据中国的现实约束条件,建立了适合中国通货膨胀福利成本研究的理论框架以及进行了基于中国经济数据的实证研究,并得到以下两个结论:与其他国家的通货膨胀福利成本横向相比较,中国的通货膨胀福利成本不算太高,处于中等偏下水平;通过适度从紧的经济政策来降低通货膨胀,从中获得的通货膨胀福利收益将会远大于产出损失,降低通货膨胀是得大于失的。这就总结了我国改革开放以来,通货膨胀的福利成本与收益,横向分析了我国通货膨胀福利成本水平,也为目前经济冷或热、通胀好还是通缩好的理论讨论中,补充给出一个在通货膨胀福利成本方面的衡量标准。
Does inflation have the welfare cost? What kind of cost can be called the welfare cost of inflation? How to do the research of the welfare cost of inflation from its logic start point and research view point? In economics, How to decide its theoretic calculation, econometric calculation, and the welfare cost of inflation of China, based on its nation’s past economic activities? To answer these questions is the whole content of this paper.
The welfare cost of inflation means the economic efficiency loss caused by the actions of economy individuals having to change its holding monetary during the inflation. As Inflation is a basic monetary phenomenon, in order to solve the problem of the welfare cost of inflation, some related questions have to be answered. First, why people like to hold money on hand? Then, it focus on why money, especially the fiat money issued by the government, with no marginal cost of creating money and has no value itself has value? Last, how does the value of money form? To bridge these questions, we need to comb and analyze money demand, especially the evolvement money function idea.
By combing money through macro-monetary theory—a traditional money demand and micro-monetary theory—a money demand theory based on micro foundation, a clue can be determined to do the research on the welfare cost of inflation. Through this clue, the theory framework and metric calculation can be built up, from the partial equilibrium assessment on the welfare cost of inflation by traditional money demand theory, to the general equilibrium assessment and calculation method of the welfare cost of inflation, based on micro-based contemporary monetary theory. This is the main logic of this research on the welfare cost of inflation. And based on the nation’s realistic constraints, a research of the welfare costs of inflation in China can be outspread.
When doing the practical research, the paper uses quarterly data, analyzing the period from the first quarter of 1992 to the forth quarter of 2006, totally 60 sample data. Based on the estimate of this paper, under a general standard model, the welfare costs of inflation in China is 5.5% of its GDP. Under the two main realistic constraints, also two conclusions are drawn, 1. Considering the factor of interest bearing deposits, the welfare costs of inflation is 18.7% of its GDP; 2. There is nearly no difference on the welfare costs of inflation considering intra-household model or not. Logically, the paper also did the investigation on the opposite of the welfare costs of inflation—the cost of disinflation, the conclusion is that the sacrifice ratio of output is 0.31%, with disinflation rate on each percent. According to the logic clue, this paper has ten chapters.
Chapter one is the preface, which introduces the research background, logic clue, purpose, method, innovation and drawbacks.
Chapter two is a narration of current research on the welfare cost of inflation.
It gives the measurable definition of the welfare cost of inflation, according to the definition of the welfare cost of inflation, and the money demand theory based on both traditional monetary theory and micro-based contemporary monetary theory. Focus on the theoretical measurable definition, according to traditional monetary theory, it describes the econometric researches of the partial equilibrium assessment on the welfare cost of inflation, such as, Bailey(1956)、Marty(1967)、Barro(1972)、Mussa(1977)、Tower(1971)and etc. With the focus of monetary theoretical research changing from macro to micro, the estimation of the welfare cost of inflation moved on to the general equilibrium assessment based on micro based contemporary monetary theory. According to some different micro-based monetary models, it describes the econometric researches of the scholars, such as, Leach(1983)、Cooley & Hansen(1989)、Dotsey & Ireland(1994)、Eckstein & Leiderman(1992)、Luca(s1994,2000)、Chadha & Haldane & Janssen(1998)、Wolman(1997)、Bakhshi & Martin & Yates(2002)、Lagos & Wright(2005)、Craig & Rocheteau(2006), and etc. At last, it gives the conclusion on the researches of native scholars on the welfare cost of inflation.
Chapter three combs and analyzes the money demand theory of traditional money and the money of micro–based contemporary monetary theory. The traditional money demand theory studies people’s demand on money and the value of money, according to the three functions of monetary—media of exchange, store value, and unit of account. From the point of view of Classical Quantity Theory of Money, money is treated just as a medium of exchange, and it is just as a layer of veil of real economy. Whereas in the view of Keynes and Keynesian, money has medium function (has relation with exchange), and it is an asset itself. So it has store value (reflecting in the purpose of speculating). In New Quantity Theory of Money, Friedman still treats money as“the temporary residence of purchase power”with function of store value of asset. The traditional money demand theory believes the emerging of money facilitates exchange, and it is the evolvement outcome of people’s using and the need for money. The value of money can be explained well from reducing transaction costs by using indirect-matching-of-wants in lieu of double-coincidence-of-wants. But, fiat money issued by the government with zero marginal creating cost and no values itself, theoretically, its price is zero, but how can it have positive value? As an asset, how does the value of money exist? This triggers the famous Hahn’s problem. To solve this problem, it is necessary to do a further research on questions such as what is money, its characteristics, positive values, etc, to search for a proper explanation, a new point of view of money theory with micro-foundation is needed.
In economics studies, facing Hahn’s problem, there is a long research on inducing general equilibrium models to illustrate the function of money. Among these studies, there are four models have wide recognition: Overlapping Generation Model (OG), Money-In-The-Utility Function Model (MIU), Cash-In-Advance Model (CIA),and Transaction Costs Model (TC). OG starts from the function of the store value of money, and demonstrated micro-foundation of money existence, as it defines money function as store value, not reveal any characteristics as a medium of exchange, so, the existence of money in OG is not a necessity. The following models MIU and CIA bring money into general equilibrium models through assumptions, and obtain positive money demand, although they have high practicality, their subjectivity are the drawbacks in the real business world. The money effective of Search Model is got from the practical exchange abstractly, it is very practical. But with the complex of real business world, currently, this method lacks the value of practical application. Although Shopping-Time Model is bit subjectivity on assuring shopping time, compare to the former, it has a very good micro knowledge base, and it is very practical, so when analysis the inflation welfare cost of China, Shopping-Time Model will be used mainly to expanding the analysis and estimations.
Monetary theory with micro-foundation encircles the questions, such as, why people like to hold money on hand. Why does money have positive value? Puts money into the general equilibrium model, starts from the optimal household utility to calculate the whole utility amount, and uses a micro brand new point of view to give answers more logically.
In this way, by the combed money demand theory, this paper uses traditional money demand theory and micro-foundation based contemporary money theory, and their definitions of money to solve the problems of the welfare cost of inflation.
Chapter four sets up the theoretical framework and computation model from both traditional macro monetary theory and micro-based contemporary monetary theory.
In the traditional macro monetary theory, Bailey application of the consumer’surplus idea to the demand of money believed that inflation is just as the excising tax on money, according to this, the welfare loss from tax on money is the area bounded on the bottom by the social cost of producing money ,which is zero, and bounded on the top by the demand curve, the only difference is the social cost of creating money is zero, so, in the traditional macro monetary theory, the welfare cost of inflation is the area under the money demand function.
Lacking of micro-foundation, macro monetary economics has a large constraint, so, the application of consumer surplus idea which analyzing the welfare cost of inflation is just a rough utility amount. The idea lacks internal logical relationship when measuring household utility and whole utility amount of welfare costs. Whereas monetary theory with micro-foundation, especially MIU, which assumes money can bring utility, intuitively create a tight relation between a high inflation rate leading to a low quantity of money holdings and loss of household welfare, it is thoroughly accorded with optimal option assumption of rationalizing household of economic theory. Therefore, monetary model with micro-foundation, Lucas(1994,2000)posed Compensating Variation, household in order to live in a lower (higher) continuous inflation environment, people are willing to lose how much income loss (or obtain how much income compensation), this kind of income change is the measurement of the welfare cost of inflation.
From the above, we can tell, either traditional macro monetary theory, or micro-based contemporary monetary theory, their definitions of the welfare cost of inflation can be described as the real cost of compensating a consumer for losing utility.
Because the degree of inflation often is described by inflation rate, is there an optimal inflation rate which can make economy body realize maximum welfare when in its equilibrium? Bailey(1956)and Friedman(1969)posed, when marginal cost of social creating money is equal to the marginal cost of individual money holdings, social resources reach the Pareto Optimality and social welfares reach the maximum. In other words, the marginal cost of individual money holdings is zero, which means the generalized interest rate is zero. This is the famous Friedman Rule. So, in fact, optimal welfare inflation is a deflation rate, which approximately equal to the real asset rate.
Chapter five solves the questions of the selection of data period, selection of data types, selection of varieties, and data process, etc, when discuss the welfare cost of inflation in China. And it provides the data for the following chapters when doing econometric research.
According to the theoretical model of the welfare cost of inflation, the partial equilibrium estimate model of China under traditional monetary demand theory stated by this article, and the MIU, Shopping-Time Model, and generalize Shopping-Time Model with the consideration of the constraints of China’s practical situation, the general equilibrium of the welfare cost of inflation in China is applied, and according to the characters of the economy data of China, the paper uses quarterly data, analyzing the period from the first quarter of 1992 to the forth quarter of 2006, totally 60 sample data, variety nominal rate r, monetary nominal balance M1 and M2, nominal GDP, considering the real GDP of the year 1985 as unchanged price, quarter rate CPI, considering the year of 1985 as the basic quarter CPI of 100, etc. the quarterly change of variety is adjusted by the updated X-12.
Based on established theory framework of the welfare cost of inflation, Chapter six uses traditional money demand theory to determine the framework and econometric model of the welfare cost of inflation. According to the economy data of China decided in Chapter Five, also use Baily‘s consumer surplus idea, this chapter discusses the welfare cost of inflation under Lucas’s monetary demand chart, then, with the help of Lucas’s chart, this chapter focuses on analysis of long term cointegration relationship between money demand and interest rate in China, then it obtains the welfare costs of inflation in China, which is about 5.4% of GDP.
Chapter seven investigates the welfare cost of inflation in China under general equilibrium, according to the micro based contemporary monetary theory. It mainly uses these two micro monetary model—MIU and Shopping-Time Model, with the help of Compensating Variation Theory, comes to the conclusion, that the general equilibrium of the welfare cost of inflation in China is 6.2% of GDP by using MIU, which is a little bit higher than the partial equilibrium estimation; while the general equilibrium of the welfare cost of inflation in China is 5% by using Shopping-Time Model, which is a little bit lower than the partial equilibrium estimate and the general equilibrium estimate by using MIU.
After describing statistical analysis of the reality constraints of China, focuses on the two main reality constraints of the too large interest bearing deposits and intra-household of urban and rural area, it properly develops the Shopping-Time Model, makes it become the generalize Shopping-Time Model with a wider definition of multi-money type and multi-economy-individual. And it also does the further discussion of the theoretical analysis framework and quantity model under the general equilibrium estimate of welfare cost of inflation in China, and comes to these two conclusions:①The welfare cost of inflation in China is about 18.7% of GDP after considering the interest bearing deposits;②When considering intra-household of urban and rural area, there is no difference between the welfare cost of inflation in China without considering it.
According to the logical line, from the recent historical data of China, Chapter nine does the research on the other side of the welfare cost of inflation—the cost of disinflation, that is the question of output loss rate of China, it comes to the conclusion, the sacrifice ratio of output would be 0.31% of GDP, with disinflation rate on each percent.
Chapter ten is the conclusion and expectation. It draws the conclusion on the welfare cost of inflation in China and the cost of disinflation, and it also makes the comparison of the research results of other countries, so as to give a complete recognition on inflation welfare cost of China. It starts from the economic efficiency loss, or we can say, and it makes the theoretical analysis and quantity research on inflation, from the welfare cost point of view, which is very rare among the researches in China. By comparing with other countries, the welfare cost of inflation in China is not too high, it lies on the middle-lower level, and by moderately tight economic policy, the inflation can be decreased, and the welfare gain of inflation would bigger than output loss, and the gain from disinflation is far bigger than the loss from it. It gives a standard level of welfare cost of inflation when whether the economy is good or bad, and whether inflation is good or disinflation practically. Finally, it gives the expectation on the three research directions of the welfare cost of inflation.
The main innovation is as followed:
1. In domestic, according to documents we collected, most of the studies on the inflation being discussed from the point of view of the redistribution of fortune, it is very rare to do from the economic efficiency loss that is from the welfare cost point of view, and it is especially rear to see the quantity research on it. Plus, the present econometric research starts from single model, they are not complete and not systematic, and they can’t provide a research line. This article tries to provide such kind of research point of view: according to the reorganization of money demand theory of both macro and micro, along with the evolution of the function of money, it sets up the logic line of researching on the welfare cost of inflation. With the help of this logic line, the research on theoretical framework and quantity method of inflation welfare cost is carried out. Under this kind of research point of view, this paper sets up the partial equilibrium estimate model of the welfare cost of inflation under traditional money demand theory, the general equilibrium estimate model of the welfare cost of inflation under micro based contemporary monetary theory, and the general equilibrium estimate model of the welfare cost of inflation under constraints, this paper does a complete and systematic research on the welfare cost of inflation in China.
2. It finds out two real constraints and their characteristics in doing research of the welfare cost of inflation in China—too large interest bearing deposits and intra-household of urban and rural area, it comes to the conclusion of the constraints character of the welfare cost of inflation in China: The welfare cost of inflation in China is about 18.7% of GDP after considering the interest bearing deposits; when considering intra-household of urban and rural area, there is no difference between the welfare cost of inflation in China without considering it. The research on constraints situation of China’s inflation welfare cost is very rare to find in present research papers.
3. According to real constraints of China, managing the analysis of mainstream standards, it establishes the theory framework which suits for the welfare cost of inflation in China and makes a demonstration based on economy data of China, and it comes to these two conclusions: By comparing with other countries, the welfare cost of inflation in China is not too high, it lies on the middle-lower level, and by moderately tight economic policy, the inflation can be decreased, and the welfare gain of inflation would bigger than output loss, and the gain from disinflation is far bigger than the loss from it. It gives a standard level of welfare cost of inflation when whether the economy is good or bad, and whether inflation is good or disinflation practically.
引文
1 World Economic Outlook Database for April 2007 from the IMF。
1 Pigou,A.C. , The value of money, Quarterly Journal of Economics 32, Nov.1917, 38-56。
1 Dondmsch, R., and J.A.Frenkel, Inflation and Growth Alternative Approaches, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 5, 1973, 141-156。
1尹龙,《货币性质的再认识与货币供给理论的发展》,《金融研究》总第261期,2002(1),P.55-62。
1 Phillip Cagan, The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation, a paper delivered at the Washington meeting of the Econometric Society, Dec. 1953, the abstract of which appeared in Econometrica, Oct. 1954, 518。
1 Edward Tower, More on the Welfare Cost of Inflationary Finance: Comment, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.3, No.4, Nov. 1971, 850-860。
1 Robert E. Lucas, Jr., Inflation and Welfare, Econometrica, Vol. 68, No. 2, Mar. 2000, 247-274。
[1] Alexander L. Wolman, Zero Inflation and the Friedman Rule: a Welfare Comparison, Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Vol.83(4), Fall 1997, P.1-21.
[2] Alvin L. Marty, Growth and the Welfare Cost of Inflationary Finance, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.1, Feb.1967, P.71-76.
[3] Alvin L. Marty, The Welfare Cost of Inflation:A Critique of Lucas and Bailey, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis, Review 81, Jan./Feb.1999, P.41-46.
[4] Apostolos Serletis & Kazem Yavari, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in Canada and the United States, Economics Letters, Elsevier, Vol.84(2), Aug.2004, P.199-204.
[5] Apostolos Serletis & Kazem Yavari, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in Italy, Applied Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, Vol.12(3), Feb. 2005, P.165-168.
[6] Attanasio O. P., Guiso L. & Jappelli T, The Demand for Money, Financial Innovation and the Welfare Cost of Inflation: An Analysis with Household Data, Journal of Political Economy 110 (2), 2002, P.317-351.
[7] Ayse Imrohoroglu, The Welfare Cost of Inflation Under Imperfect Insurance, Journal of Economic, Dynamics and Control, Vol.16, 1992, P.79-91.
[8] Bailey, The Welfare Costs of Inflationary Finance, Journal of Political Economy, 64, No.2, Apr.1956, P.93-110.
[9] Baumol W.J., The Transactions Demand for Cash: an Inventary Theoretic Approach, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66, 1952, P.545-556.
[10] Ben Craig & Guillaume Rocheteau, Inflation and Welfare:a Search Approach, Policy Discussion Papers, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Jan. 2006.
[11] Ben Craig & Guillaume Rocheteau, Rethinking the Welfare Cost of Inflation,Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Mar. 2005.
[12] Brock W. A., Overlapping Generations Models with Money and Transaction Costs, In B. Friedman and F. Hahn (eds.), The Handbook of Monetary Economics, Vol 1, 1990, P.263-295, New York: North-Holland.
[13] Carlos da Costa & Getulio Vargas Foundation, On the Optimality of the Friedman Rule with Heterogeneous Agents and Non-Linear Income Taxation, NBER and UTDT, Jan. 2005.
[14] Chadha J. S., Haldane A. G. & Janssen N. G., Shoe-Leather Costs Reconsidered, Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Vol.108(447), Mar. 1998, P.363-382.
[15] Chari V. V., Christiano Lawrence J. & Kehoe Patrick J., Optimality of the Friedman Rule in Economies with Distorting Taxes, Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, Vol.37(2-3), Apr. 1996, P.203-223.
[16] Clark A. Burdick, A Transitional Analysis of The Welfare Cost of Inflation, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Working Paper 97-15, Nov. 1997.
[17] Cooley Thomas F & Hansen Gary D, The Inflation Tax in a Real Business Cycle Model, American Economic Review, American Economic Association, Vol.79(4), Sep. 1989, P.733-748.
[18] Cooley Thomas F & Hansen Gary D, The Welfare Costs of Inflations, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.23, No.3, Part 2: Price Stability, Aug.1991, P.483-503.
[19] Croushore D., Money in the Utility Function: a Functional Equivalence to a Shopping-time Model, Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol.15(1), Winter 1993, P.175-182.
[20] David Laidler & Michael Parkin, Inflation: A Survey, Royal Economic Society, The Economic Journal, Vol.85, No.340, Dec. 1975, P.741-809.
[21] David R. F. Love & Jean-Francois Wen, Inflation, Welfare, and the Time-Costs of Transacting, Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol.32(1), Feb. 1999, P.171-194.
[22] Dean Croushore, What Are the Costs of Disinflation, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, May/June 1992, P.3-16.
[23] Driffill John, Mizon Grayham E. & Ulph Alistair, Costs of inflation, Handbook of Monetary Economics, in:B. M. Friedman & F. H. Hahn (ed.),Handbook of Monetary Economics, edition 1, Vol.2, chapter 19, Elsevier, 1990, P.1013-1066.
[24] Eckstein Zvi & Leiderman Leonardo, Seigniorage and the Welfare Cost of Inflation: Evidence from an Intertemporal Model of Money and Consumption, Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, Vol.29(3), Jun. 1992, P.389-410.
[25] Edward Tower, More on the Welfare Cost of Inflationary Finance: Comment, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.3, No.4, Nov. 1971, P.850-860.
[26] Feldstein M., The Costs and Benefits of Going from Low Inflation to Price-Stability, mimeo, NBER, 1995.
[27] Finn Kydland & Espen Henriksen, Endogenous Money, Inflation and Welfare, 2005 Meeting Papers 919, Society for Economic Dynamics, Jan.2005.
[28] Fischer S. & Lawrence Summers, Should Governments Learn to Live with Inflation, The American Economic Review,Vol.79,No.2,May1989,P. 382-388.
[29] Fischer S., Towards an understanding of the costs of inflation:II, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 15, 1981, P.5-41.
[30] Francesco Lippi & Alessandro Secchi, On the Demand for Currency and the Welfare Cost of Inflation, Preliminary Draft, Nov. 2005.
[31] Frederic S Mishkin, Comment on The Optimum Quantity of Money, Ohio State University Press, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.29, No.4, Part 2: Dynamic Effects of Monetary Policy, Nov. 1997, P.716-719.
[32] Friedman M, The Optimum Quantity of Money, In his The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays, Chicago: Aldine, 1969.
[33] Gardner Ackley, The Costs of Inflation, The American Economic Review, Vol.68, No.2, May 1978, P.149-154.
[34] Goodfriend M., A Framework for the Analysis of Moderate Inflations, Journal of Monetary Economics 39(1), 1997, P.45-65.
[35] Hasan Bakhshi, Ben Martin & Tony Yates, How Uncertain are the Welfare Costs of Inflation, Bank of England working papers 152, 2002.
[36] James B.Bullard & Steven Russell, How Costly is Sustained Low Inflation for the U.S. Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, May/June 2004, P. 35-67.
[37] James Tobin, Inflation and Unemployment, The American Economic Review,Mar. 1972, P.5.
[38] Joe Akira Yoshino, A Restatement of the Welfare Costs of Inflation, the Waste of Scarce Resources in the Manufacturing,Banking and Household Sectors, Paper presented at LAMES (Latin American Econometric Meeting) and LACEA (Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association), 2001.
[39] Joe Akira Yoshino, The Argentinean Money and Banking: No more tears left to cry, Working Paper, 2005.
[40] Joe Akira Yoshino, The Brazilian Welfare Costs of Inflation, Seminar Series IPEA, 2002.
[41] John A. Tatom, The welfare cost of inflation, Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis, Nov. 1976, P.9-22.
[42] John Leach, Inflation as a Commodity Tax, Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol.16, No.3, Aug. 1983, P.508-516.
[43] Jones Barry, Gabriel Asaftei & Lian Wang, Welfare Cost of Inflation in a General Equilibrium Model with Currency and Interest-bearing Deposits, Seminar Series, Department of Economics Binghamton University, State University of New York, Oct. 2001.
[44] Kenneth Rogoff, Globalization and Global Disinflation, Paper prepared for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City conference on Monetary Policy and Uncertainty: Adapting to a Changing Economy, Jackson Hole,WY, Aug.2003.
[45] Kent P. Kimbrough, Inflation, Employment, and Welfare in the Presence of Transactions Costs, Journalof Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.18, No.2, May 1986, P.127-140.
[46] Kevin Dowd, The Costs of Inflation and Disinflation, Cato Journal, Vol.14, No.2, Fall 1994, P.305-331.
[47] Kiyotaki N. & R. Wright, A Search-Theoretic Approach to Monetary Economics, American Economic Review, 83, 1993, P.63-77.
[48] Kiyotaki N. & R. Wright, On Money as a Medium of Exchange, Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1989, P.927-954.
[49] Krugman Paul R, Persson Torsten & Svensson Lars E O, Inflation, Interest Rates, and Welfare, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, Vol.100(3), Aug. 1985, P.677-695.
[50] Krusell P. & Smith A. A., Income and Wealth Heterogeneity in theMacroeconomy, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.106(5), 1998, P.867-896.
[51] Laurence Ball, How Costly Is Disinflation? The Historical Evidence, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, Nov./Dec. 1993, P.17-28.
[52] Lucas Robert Jr., On the welfare cost of inflation, Working Papers in Applied Economic Theory 1994(07), Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 1994.
[53] Lucas Robert Jr., Inflation and Welfare, Econometrica, Vol.68, No.2, Mar.2000, P.247-274.
[54] Magnus Jonsson, The Welfare Cost of Imperfect Competition and Distortionary Taxation, Working Paper Series from Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden)No. 170, Oct. 2004.
[55] Max Gillman, Comparing Partial and General Equilibrium Estimates of the Welfare Cost of Inflation, Contemporary Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, Vol.13(4), Oct. 1995, P.60-71.
[56] Max Gillman, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in a Cash-in-advance Economy with Costly Credit, Journal of Monetary Economics, 31, 1993, P.97-115.
[57] McCallum B. T. & M. S. Goodfriend, Demand for Money: Theoretical Studies, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, London: Macmillan, 1987, P.775-781.
[58] Michael Dotsey & Peter Ireland, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in General Equilibrium, Working Paper 94-04, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, May.1994.
[59] Michael Mussa, The Welfare Cost of Inflation and the Role of Money as a Unit of Account, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.9, No.2, May 1977, P.276-286.
[60] Michael Pakko, Dynamic Shoe-leather Costs in a Shopping-time Model of Money, Working Papers 1998-007A, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, May 1998.
[61] Narayana R. Kocherlakota, Optimal Monetary Policy: What We Know and What We Don't Know, Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Oct. 2005, P.10-19.
[62] Paul Gomme, Measuring the Welfare Costs of Inflationin a Life-cycle Model, Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Aug. 2002.
[63] Paul Gomme, On the Cost of Inflation, Economic Commentary, FederalReserve Bank of Cleveland, May 2001.
[64] Pierre Ouellette & Alain Paquet, Inflation Uncertainty and the Cost of Inflation, Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, Vol. 32(1), 1999, P.195-214.
[65] Ricardo Lagos & Randall Wright, A Unified Framework for Monetary Theory and Policy Analysis, Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, Vol.113(3), Jun. 2005, P.463-484.
[66] Robert J. Barro, Inflationary Finance and the Welfare Cost of Inflation, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.80, No.5, Sep.-Oct. 1972, P.978-1001.
[67] Robert J. Shiller, Why Do People Dislike Inflation, Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers from Cowles Foundation, Yale University, No. 1115, Apr. 1996.
[68] Rósmundur Guenason, How Do We Measure Inflation, Fjármálatíeindi, The Economic Journal of the Icelandic Central Bank, Vol.51, I, 2004, P.33-54.
[69] Rubens Penha Cysne, A General-Equilibrium Closed-Form Solution to the Welfare Costs of Inflation, RBE Rio de Janeiro 59(2), Aug./Jun. 2005, P.209-214.
[70] Rubens Penha Cysne, A Note on the Non-convexity Problem in Some Shopping-time and Human-capital Models, Journal of Banking & Finance 30, 2006, P.2737-2745.
[71] Rubens Penha Cysne, An Intra-Household Approach to the Welfare Costs of Inflation, Estud. Econ., Sao Paulo, V.36, N.3, JULHO-SETEMBRO, 2006, P.593-609.
[72] S. Rao Aiyagari, R. Anton Braun & Zvi Eckstein, Transaction Services, Inflation, and Welfare, Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, Vol.106(6), Dec. 1998, P.1274-1301.
[73] Shi Shouyong, A Divisible Search Model of Fiat Money, Econometrica, Vol.65, 1997, P.75-102.
[74] Shi Shouyong, Search, Inflation and Capital Accumulation,Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol.44, 1999, P.81-103.
[75] Simonsen M. H. & R. P. Cysne, Welfare Costs of Inflation and Interest-bearing Money, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33(1), Feb.2001, P.90-100.
[76] Sinn Hans-Werner, Inflation and Welfare: Comment on Robert Lucas,NBER Working Paper No.W6979, Feb. 1999.
[77] Yosuke Takeda & Atsuko Ueda, Welfare Cost of Inflation in an Incomplete Market Model with Idiosyncratic and Aggregate Risks: Application to the Japanese Economy, RIEB Seminar, Sep. 2002.中文部分:
[1]艾洪德,范立夫,货币银行学[M],东北财经大学出版,2005.3.
[2]陈利平,通货膨胀福利成本与消费攀比[J],经济学,2003年2卷3期,P.573-590.
[3]陈龙,我国通货膨胀的成因分析[J],天津市职工现代企业管理学院学报,第4期(总第23期),2004年12月,P.45-46.
[4]段军山,交易性货币需求理论的发展演变及其启示[J],上海立信会计学院学报,第19卷第3期,2005年5月,P.51-55.
[5]高云峰,董邦国,中国货币需求稳定性的实证研究—基于1994-2005年的协整分析[J],财经问题研究,第6期总第271期,2006(6),P.83-89.
[6]龚六堂,邹恒甫和叶海云,通货膨胀与社会福利损失[J],财经问题研究,第8期(总第261期),2005年8月,P.3-10.
[7]韩筱雯,通货膨胀成本和收益的分析-对我国通货膨胀的实证检验[J],财经问题研究,第7期(总第248期),2004年7月,P.17-20.
[8]蒋瑛琨,赵振全,刘艳武,中国货币需求函数的实证分析—基于两阶段(1978-1993、1994-2004)的动态检验,中国软科学,2005(2),P.24-33.
[9]荆仰峰,弗里德曼的货币需求理论[J],中央财政金融学院学报,1996(9),P.55-59.
[10]卡尔.瓦什,货币理论与政策[M],中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[11]梁姗姗,几种度量通货膨胀方法的比较分析[J],黑龙江对外经贸,2004年12月,P.44-45.
[12]刘金全,郭整风,通货膨胀和紧缩下货币需求函数的对比分析[J],财经研究,第28卷第7期,2002年7月,P.3-7.
[13]柳琰,袁勇,最优通货膨胀率和失业率实证分析[J],统计与信息论坛,19卷6期,2004年,P.72-75.
[14]陆凯旋,甄永红,西方货币需求理论的比较分析[J],审计与经济研究,第18卷第3期,2002年5月,P.62-65.
[15]欧俊,李花,中国通货膨胀福利成本计量初探[J],商场现代化,第465期,2006年4月,P.204.
[16]欧阳志刚,货币需求函数的经验研究[J],统计与决策,2005年5月(下),P.90-92.
[17]邱崇明,现代西方货币理论与政策[M],清华大学出版社,2005.3.
[18]全林,熊丙奇,通货膨胀最优模型[J],上海交通大学学报,Vol.35(12),2001年12期,P.1892-1895.
[19]石寿永,现代货币理论模型研究[J],经济学动态,2002年第3期,P.53-61.
[20]特伦斯.C.米尔斯,金融时间序列的经济计量学模型(第二版)[M],经济科学出版社,2002.
[21]王广谦,20世纪西方货币金融理论研究的简要回顾与述评[J],中央财经大学学报,2003年第1期,P.1-7.
[22]王莉,中国货币需求函数的误差修正模型估计:1995-2004[J],上海金融,2005(10),P.24-26.
[23]王少平,李子奈,我国货币需求的协整分析及其货币政策建议[J],经济研究,2004(7),P.9-17.
[24]武康平,李军,现代货币银行学[M],首都经济贸易大学出版社,2002.8,
[25]谢赤,金融创新对货币需求与通货膨胀福利成本影响的理论分析[J],财经理论与实践,第23卷第116期,2002年3月,P.16-18.
[26]谢富胜,戴春平,中国货币需求函数的实证分析[J],金融研究,2000(1),P.24-29.
[27]许翼,货币一般均衡模型及其发展[J],经济评论,2003(1),P.95-100.
[28]易定红,吴汉洪,八十年代西方货币理论的主要发展[J],中国社会科学,1999年第6期,P.19-32.
[29]易君健,易行健,后凯恩斯货币需求理论的演变与新发展[J],江汉论坛,2004(10),P.44-47.
[30]尹敬东,凯恩斯主义货币需求理论的微观基础及其启示[J],云南财贸学院学报,2000(1),P.14-17.
[31]尹龙,货币性质的再认识与货币供给理论的发展[J],金融研究,总第261期,2002(1),P.55-62.
[32]俞静,王作春和甘仞初,关于我国存货投资和通货膨胀的协整关系分析[J],统计研究,2005年第8期,P.61-64.
[33]禹钟华,对货币职能及本质的再探讨[J],经济评论,2003年第6期,P.86-88
[34]约翰.史密森,货币经济学前沿:论争与反思[M],上海财经大学出版社,2004.5,P.154-172.
[35]张晓峒,计量经济分析(修订版)[M],经济科学出版社,2000.
1 Pigou,A.C. , The value of money, Quarterly Journal of Economics 32, Nov.1917, 38-56。
1 Dondmsch, R., and J.A.Frenkel, Inflation and Growth Alternative Approaches, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 5, 1973, 141-156。
1尹龙,《货币性质的再认识与货币供给理论的发展》,《金融研究》总第261期,2002(1),P.55-62。
1 Phillip Cagan, The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation, a paper delivered at the Washington meeting of the Econometric Society, Dec. 1953, the abstract of which appeared in Econometrica, Oct. 1954, 518。
1 Edward Tower, More on the Welfare Cost of Inflationary Finance: Comment, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.3, No.4, Nov. 1971, 850-860。
1 Robert E. Lucas, Jr., Inflation and Welfare, Econometrica, Vol. 68, No. 2, Mar. 2000, 247-274。
[1] Alexander L. Wolman, Zero Inflation and the Friedman Rule: a Welfare Comparison, Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Vol.83(4), Fall 1997, P.1-21.
[2] Alvin L. Marty, Growth and the Welfare Cost of Inflationary Finance, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.1, Feb.1967, P.71-76.
[3] Alvin L. Marty, The Welfare Cost of Inflation:A Critique of Lucas and Bailey, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis, Review 81, Jan./Feb.1999, P.41-46.
[4] Apostolos Serletis & Kazem Yavari, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in Canada and the United States, Economics Letters, Elsevier, Vol.84(2), Aug.2004, P.199-204.
[5] Apostolos Serletis & Kazem Yavari, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in Italy, Applied Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, Vol.12(3), Feb. 2005, P.165-168.
[6] Attanasio O. P., Guiso L. & Jappelli T, The Demand for Money, Financial Innovation and the Welfare Cost of Inflation: An Analysis with Household Data, Journal of Political Economy 110 (2), 2002, P.317-351.
[7] Ayse Imrohoroglu, The Welfare Cost of Inflation Under Imperfect Insurance, Journal of Economic, Dynamics and Control, Vol.16, 1992, P.79-91.
[8] Bailey, The Welfare Costs of Inflationary Finance, Journal of Political Economy, 64, No.2, Apr.1956, P.93-110.
[9] Baumol W.J., The Transactions Demand for Cash: an Inventary Theoretic Approach, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66, 1952, P.545-556.
[10] Ben Craig & Guillaume Rocheteau, Inflation and Welfare:a Search Approach, Policy Discussion Papers, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Jan. 2006.
[11] Ben Craig & Guillaume Rocheteau, Rethinking the Welfare Cost of Inflation,Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Mar. 2005.
[12] Brock W. A., Overlapping Generations Models with Money and Transaction Costs, In B. Friedman and F. Hahn (eds.), The Handbook of Monetary Economics, Vol 1, 1990, P.263-295, New York: North-Holland.
[13] Carlos da Costa & Getulio Vargas Foundation, On the Optimality of the Friedman Rule with Heterogeneous Agents and Non-Linear Income Taxation, NBER and UTDT, Jan. 2005.
[14] Chadha J. S., Haldane A. G. & Janssen N. G., Shoe-Leather Costs Reconsidered, Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Vol.108(447), Mar. 1998, P.363-382.
[15] Chari V. V., Christiano Lawrence J. & Kehoe Patrick J., Optimality of the Friedman Rule in Economies with Distorting Taxes, Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, Vol.37(2-3), Apr. 1996, P.203-223.
[16] Clark A. Burdick, A Transitional Analysis of The Welfare Cost of Inflation, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Working Paper 97-15, Nov. 1997.
[17] Cooley Thomas F & Hansen Gary D, The Inflation Tax in a Real Business Cycle Model, American Economic Review, American Economic Association, Vol.79(4), Sep. 1989, P.733-748.
[18] Cooley Thomas F & Hansen Gary D, The Welfare Costs of Inflations, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.23, No.3, Part 2: Price Stability, Aug.1991, P.483-503.
[19] Croushore D., Money in the Utility Function: a Functional Equivalence to a Shopping-time Model, Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol.15(1), Winter 1993, P.175-182.
[20] David Laidler & Michael Parkin, Inflation: A Survey, Royal Economic Society, The Economic Journal, Vol.85, No.340, Dec. 1975, P.741-809.
[21] David R. F. Love & Jean-Francois Wen, Inflation, Welfare, and the Time-Costs of Transacting, Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol.32(1), Feb. 1999, P.171-194.
[22] Dean Croushore, What Are the Costs of Disinflation, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, May/June 1992, P.3-16.
[23] Driffill John, Mizon Grayham E. & Ulph Alistair, Costs of inflation, Handbook of Monetary Economics, in:B. M. Friedman & F. H. Hahn (ed.),Handbook of Monetary Economics, edition 1, Vol.2, chapter 19, Elsevier, 1990, P.1013-1066.
[24] Eckstein Zvi & Leiderman Leonardo, Seigniorage and the Welfare Cost of Inflation: Evidence from an Intertemporal Model of Money and Consumption, Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, Vol.29(3), Jun. 1992, P.389-410.
[25] Edward Tower, More on the Welfare Cost of Inflationary Finance: Comment, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.3, No.4, Nov. 1971, P.850-860.
[26] Feldstein M., The Costs and Benefits of Going from Low Inflation to Price-Stability, mimeo, NBER, 1995.
[27] Finn Kydland & Espen Henriksen, Endogenous Money, Inflation and Welfare, 2005 Meeting Papers 919, Society for Economic Dynamics, Jan.2005.
[28] Fischer S. & Lawrence Summers, Should Governments Learn to Live with Inflation, The American Economic Review,Vol.79,No.2,May1989,P. 382-388.
[29] Fischer S., Towards an understanding of the costs of inflation:II, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 15, 1981, P.5-41.
[30] Francesco Lippi & Alessandro Secchi, On the Demand for Currency and the Welfare Cost of Inflation, Preliminary Draft, Nov. 2005.
[31] Frederic S Mishkin, Comment on The Optimum Quantity of Money, Ohio State University Press, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.29, No.4, Part 2: Dynamic Effects of Monetary Policy, Nov. 1997, P.716-719.
[32] Friedman M, The Optimum Quantity of Money, In his The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays, Chicago: Aldine, 1969.
[33] Gardner Ackley, The Costs of Inflation, The American Economic Review, Vol.68, No.2, May 1978, P.149-154.
[34] Goodfriend M., A Framework for the Analysis of Moderate Inflations, Journal of Monetary Economics 39(1), 1997, P.45-65.
[35] Hasan Bakhshi, Ben Martin & Tony Yates, How Uncertain are the Welfare Costs of Inflation, Bank of England working papers 152, 2002.
[36] James B.Bullard & Steven Russell, How Costly is Sustained Low Inflation for the U.S. Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, May/June 2004, P. 35-67.
[37] James Tobin, Inflation and Unemployment, The American Economic Review,Mar. 1972, P.5.
[38] Joe Akira Yoshino, A Restatement of the Welfare Costs of Inflation, the Waste of Scarce Resources in the Manufacturing,Banking and Household Sectors, Paper presented at LAMES (Latin American Econometric Meeting) and LACEA (Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association), 2001.
[39] Joe Akira Yoshino, The Argentinean Money and Banking: No more tears left to cry, Working Paper, 2005.
[40] Joe Akira Yoshino, The Brazilian Welfare Costs of Inflation, Seminar Series IPEA, 2002.
[41] John A. Tatom, The welfare cost of inflation, Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis, Nov. 1976, P.9-22.
[42] John Leach, Inflation as a Commodity Tax, Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol.16, No.3, Aug. 1983, P.508-516.
[43] Jones Barry, Gabriel Asaftei & Lian Wang, Welfare Cost of Inflation in a General Equilibrium Model with Currency and Interest-bearing Deposits, Seminar Series, Department of Economics Binghamton University, State University of New York, Oct. 2001.
[44] Kenneth Rogoff, Globalization and Global Disinflation, Paper prepared for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City conference on Monetary Policy and Uncertainty: Adapting to a Changing Economy, Jackson Hole,WY, Aug.2003.
[45] Kent P. Kimbrough, Inflation, Employment, and Welfare in the Presence of Transactions Costs, Journalof Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.18, No.2, May 1986, P.127-140.
[46] Kevin Dowd, The Costs of Inflation and Disinflation, Cato Journal, Vol.14, No.2, Fall 1994, P.305-331.
[47] Kiyotaki N. & R. Wright, A Search-Theoretic Approach to Monetary Economics, American Economic Review, 83, 1993, P.63-77.
[48] Kiyotaki N. & R. Wright, On Money as a Medium of Exchange, Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1989, P.927-954.
[49] Krugman Paul R, Persson Torsten & Svensson Lars E O, Inflation, Interest Rates, and Welfare, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, Vol.100(3), Aug. 1985, P.677-695.
[50] Krusell P. & Smith A. A., Income and Wealth Heterogeneity in theMacroeconomy, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.106(5), 1998, P.867-896.
[51] Laurence Ball, How Costly Is Disinflation? The Historical Evidence, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, Nov./Dec. 1993, P.17-28.
[52] Lucas Robert Jr., On the welfare cost of inflation, Working Papers in Applied Economic Theory 1994(07), Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 1994.
[53] Lucas Robert Jr., Inflation and Welfare, Econometrica, Vol.68, No.2, Mar.2000, P.247-274.
[54] Magnus Jonsson, The Welfare Cost of Imperfect Competition and Distortionary Taxation, Working Paper Series from Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden)No. 170, Oct. 2004.
[55] Max Gillman, Comparing Partial and General Equilibrium Estimates of the Welfare Cost of Inflation, Contemporary Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, Vol.13(4), Oct. 1995, P.60-71.
[56] Max Gillman, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in a Cash-in-advance Economy with Costly Credit, Journal of Monetary Economics, 31, 1993, P.97-115.
[57] McCallum B. T. & M. S. Goodfriend, Demand for Money: Theoretical Studies, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, London: Macmillan, 1987, P.775-781.
[58] Michael Dotsey & Peter Ireland, The Welfare Cost of Inflation in General Equilibrium, Working Paper 94-04, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, May.1994.
[59] Michael Mussa, The Welfare Cost of Inflation and the Role of Money as a Unit of Account, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.9, No.2, May 1977, P.276-286.
[60] Michael Pakko, Dynamic Shoe-leather Costs in a Shopping-time Model of Money, Working Papers 1998-007A, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, May 1998.
[61] Narayana R. Kocherlakota, Optimal Monetary Policy: What We Know and What We Don't Know, Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Oct. 2005, P.10-19.
[62] Paul Gomme, Measuring the Welfare Costs of Inflationin a Life-cycle Model, Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Aug. 2002.
[63] Paul Gomme, On the Cost of Inflation, Economic Commentary, FederalReserve Bank of Cleveland, May 2001.
[64] Pierre Ouellette & Alain Paquet, Inflation Uncertainty and the Cost of Inflation, Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, Vol. 32(1), 1999, P.195-214.
[65] Ricardo Lagos & Randall Wright, A Unified Framework for Monetary Theory and Policy Analysis, Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, Vol.113(3), Jun. 2005, P.463-484.
[66] Robert J. Barro, Inflationary Finance and the Welfare Cost of Inflation, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.80, No.5, Sep.-Oct. 1972, P.978-1001.
[67] Robert J. Shiller, Why Do People Dislike Inflation, Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers from Cowles Foundation, Yale University, No. 1115, Apr. 1996.
[68] Rósmundur Guenason, How Do We Measure Inflation, Fjármálatíeindi, The Economic Journal of the Icelandic Central Bank, Vol.51, I, 2004, P.33-54.
[69] Rubens Penha Cysne, A General-Equilibrium Closed-Form Solution to the Welfare Costs of Inflation, RBE Rio de Janeiro 59(2), Aug./Jun. 2005, P.209-214.
[70] Rubens Penha Cysne, A Note on the Non-convexity Problem in Some Shopping-time and Human-capital Models, Journal of Banking & Finance 30, 2006, P.2737-2745.
[71] Rubens Penha Cysne, An Intra-Household Approach to the Welfare Costs of Inflation, Estud. Econ., Sao Paulo, V.36, N.3, JULHO-SETEMBRO, 2006, P.593-609.
[72] S. Rao Aiyagari, R. Anton Braun & Zvi Eckstein, Transaction Services, Inflation, and Welfare, Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, Vol.106(6), Dec. 1998, P.1274-1301.
[73] Shi Shouyong, A Divisible Search Model of Fiat Money, Econometrica, Vol.65, 1997, P.75-102.
[74] Shi Shouyong, Search, Inflation and Capital Accumulation,Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol.44, 1999, P.81-103.
[75] Simonsen M. H. & R. P. Cysne, Welfare Costs of Inflation and Interest-bearing Money, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33(1), Feb.2001, P.90-100.
[76] Sinn Hans-Werner, Inflation and Welfare: Comment on Robert Lucas,NBER Working Paper No.W6979, Feb. 1999.
[77] Yosuke Takeda & Atsuko Ueda, Welfare Cost of Inflation in an Incomplete Market Model with Idiosyncratic and Aggregate Risks: Application to the Japanese Economy, RIEB Seminar, Sep. 2002.中文部分:
[1]艾洪德,范立夫,货币银行学[M],东北财经大学出版,2005.3.
[2]陈利平,通货膨胀福利成本与消费攀比[J],经济学,2003年2卷3期,P.573-590.
[3]陈龙,我国通货膨胀的成因分析[J],天津市职工现代企业管理学院学报,第4期(总第23期),2004年12月,P.45-46.
[4]段军山,交易性货币需求理论的发展演变及其启示[J],上海立信会计学院学报,第19卷第3期,2005年5月,P.51-55.
[5]高云峰,董邦国,中国货币需求稳定性的实证研究—基于1994-2005年的协整分析[J],财经问题研究,第6期总第271期,2006(6),P.83-89.
[6]龚六堂,邹恒甫和叶海云,通货膨胀与社会福利损失[J],财经问题研究,第8期(总第261期),2005年8月,P.3-10.
[7]韩筱雯,通货膨胀成本和收益的分析-对我国通货膨胀的实证检验[J],财经问题研究,第7期(总第248期),2004年7月,P.17-20.
[8]蒋瑛琨,赵振全,刘艳武,中国货币需求函数的实证分析—基于两阶段(1978-1993、1994-2004)的动态检验,中国软科学,2005(2),P.24-33.
[9]荆仰峰,弗里德曼的货币需求理论[J],中央财政金融学院学报,1996(9),P.55-59.
[10]卡尔.瓦什,货币理论与政策[M],中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[11]梁姗姗,几种度量通货膨胀方法的比较分析[J],黑龙江对外经贸,2004年12月,P.44-45.
[12]刘金全,郭整风,通货膨胀和紧缩下货币需求函数的对比分析[J],财经研究,第28卷第7期,2002年7月,P.3-7.
[13]柳琰,袁勇,最优通货膨胀率和失业率实证分析[J],统计与信息论坛,19卷6期,2004年,P.72-75.
[14]陆凯旋,甄永红,西方货币需求理论的比较分析[J],审计与经济研究,第18卷第3期,2002年5月,P.62-65.
[15]欧俊,李花,中国通货膨胀福利成本计量初探[J],商场现代化,第465期,2006年4月,P.204.
[16]欧阳志刚,货币需求函数的经验研究[J],统计与决策,2005年5月(下),P.90-92.
[17]邱崇明,现代西方货币理论与政策[M],清华大学出版社,2005.3.
[18]全林,熊丙奇,通货膨胀最优模型[J],上海交通大学学报,Vol.35(12),2001年12期,P.1892-1895.
[19]石寿永,现代货币理论模型研究[J],经济学动态,2002年第3期,P.53-61.
[20]特伦斯.C.米尔斯,金融时间序列的经济计量学模型(第二版)[M],经济科学出版社,2002.
[21]王广谦,20世纪西方货币金融理论研究的简要回顾与述评[J],中央财经大学学报,2003年第1期,P.1-7.
[22]王莉,中国货币需求函数的误差修正模型估计:1995-2004[J],上海金融,2005(10),P.24-26.
[23]王少平,李子奈,我国货币需求的协整分析及其货币政策建议[J],经济研究,2004(7),P.9-17.
[24]武康平,李军,现代货币银行学[M],首都经济贸易大学出版社,2002.8,
[25]谢赤,金融创新对货币需求与通货膨胀福利成本影响的理论分析[J],财经理论与实践,第23卷第116期,2002年3月,P.16-18.
[26]谢富胜,戴春平,中国货币需求函数的实证分析[J],金融研究,2000(1),P.24-29.
[27]许翼,货币一般均衡模型及其发展[J],经济评论,2003(1),P.95-100.
[28]易定红,吴汉洪,八十年代西方货币理论的主要发展[J],中国社会科学,1999年第6期,P.19-32.
[29]易君健,易行健,后凯恩斯货币需求理论的演变与新发展[J],江汉论坛,2004(10),P.44-47.
[30]尹敬东,凯恩斯主义货币需求理论的微观基础及其启示[J],云南财贸学院学报,2000(1),P.14-17.
[31]尹龙,货币性质的再认识与货币供给理论的发展[J],金融研究,总第261期,2002(1),P.55-62.
[32]俞静,王作春和甘仞初,关于我国存货投资和通货膨胀的协整关系分析[J],统计研究,2005年第8期,P.61-64.
[33]禹钟华,对货币职能及本质的再探讨[J],经济评论,2003年第6期,P.86-88
[34]约翰.史密森,货币经济学前沿:论争与反思[M],上海财经大学出版社,2004.5,P.154-172.
[35]张晓峒,计量经济分析(修订版)[M],经济科学出版社,2000.