我国通货膨胀与货币供给和经济增长的关系研究

基于协整检验和VAR模型选取1984～2010年的年度数据研究了通货膨胀与货币供给和经济增长之间的关系,研究表明:货币供给和经济增长都会导致通货膨胀,但通货膨胀不会引发货币超发,且一定的通货膨胀对经济增长具有正向刺激作用;货币供应量扩张对通货膨胀有促进作用,但影响程度逐步减弱,经济增长也会促使物价水平的上涨,但影响程度明显小于货币供给水平的影响;经济增长对物价水平的影响小于货币供应量对物价水平的影响,即货币供应量诱发通货膨胀,抑制通货膨胀的最好途径是解决货币供给问题;经济系统中存在"通货膨胀螺旋"效应。     

财政刺激计划、货币供应量、公众预期与通货膨胀——中国1996-2008年月度数据的实证分析

本文试图分析政府财政刺激计划、货币供应量和公众预期这三大因素,对通货膨胀的实际发生所分别产生的冲击。文中采用中国1996年1月—2008年12月的财政支出、货币供应量及居民消费物价指数月度数据,运用VEC模型进行分析的结果表明,财政支出对通货膨胀的解释力很低,货币供应量和物价自身对通货膨胀的解释力最强。而从时间效应来看,物价自身在短期内对通货膨胀起决定作用,而长期看货币供应量是影响通货膨胀的最主要因素。     

我国货币供应量变化与通货膨胀率变化的关系分析

本文选用了1990年—2009年的数据对我国货币供应量M0、M1、M2与通货膨胀(CPI)的关系进行研究,考察货币供应量与通货膨胀之间的具体关系.综合运用相关性分析、协整分析、误差修正模型以及格兰杰因果检验来考察我国货币供应量与通货膨胀的长期均衡、短期波动以及二者之间是否是相互影响的关系.结果表明货币供应量的变化是通货膨胀率变化的重要原因,应通过调整货币的供给量来控制通货膨胀.     

我国近期通货膨胀的一般原因分析——基于协整检验与VEC模型的实证研究

面对我国近期较高的通货膨胀宰,本文通过协整检验与VEC模型的数据分析,考察了经济增长,货币供给增加和原材料等成本因素与通货膨胀事的长期均衡关系和短期动态关系.分析结果显示,经济增长、货币供给增加和原材料等成本因素对物价水平有着明显的促进作用,其中成本因素对通货膨胀的作用大干经济增长、货币供给等需求拉动的作用,说明我国的通货膨胀已转向成本推动型通胀.     

中国货币供应量与货币政策目标相关性实证分析

文章通过相关性分析,得出中国货币供应量与货币政策目标之间具有高度的相关性,认为中国宜选用货币供应量作为货币政策中介指标。文章同时给出了基于货币政策目标的中国货币需求函数,认为货币的超额供给是导致当下通货膨胀的主要原因。     

货币扩张、经济增长与资本市场制度创新

由于技术条件的限制 ,持续利用扩张性政策或透资性财政政策促进经济增长 ,最终将会把经济带入高通货膨胀和低经济增长的状态 ,即滞胀状态。这是被西方经济理论和经济实践所证实的结论。然而本文通过对中国经济的实证分析发现 ,在中国经济中消费物价指数和货币指数 (狭义货币指数和广义货币指数 )之间存在长期均衡的稳定关系 ,这说明从长时段的角度看 ,货币是消费物价变动的主要影响因素。从短期看 ,货币增长率对通货膨胀的影响主要有两个阶段 :第一阶段是新增基础货币对通货膨胀的影响 ,这一阶段为期一年 ,影响程度是基础货币增长率的 3 2 % ;第二阶段是由新增基础货币所导致的新增广义货币对通货膨胀的影响 ,这一阶段为期两年四个月 ,影响程度是新增广义货币增长率的 2 5 3 %。只要能够持续资本市场制度的创新 ,那么在中国经济中还存在利用持续的货币扩张政策或透资性财政政策促进经济增长的空间 ,原因是资本市场制度的创新会大大减少通货膨胀的压力。     

我国经济增长和通货膨胀对货币供给冲击的反应研究

本文在VAR模型的基础上,运用Granger因果检验、脉冲响应函数和方差分解等方法考察了我国货币供给冲击对经济增长和通货膨胀的影响.研究表明:正向货币供给冲击对经济增长和通货膨胀均无效;负向货币供给冲击可以在不影响经济增长的情况下有效缓解通货膨胀压力;我国存在“通货膨胀螺旋”效应.     

货币供给、通货膨胀、经济增长之间关系的实证研究——基于2006～2010年数据的分析

利用我国2006年12月～2010年12的月度数据,在VAR模型的基础上,对我国货币供应、通货膨胀、经济增长之间的关系进行实证分析。研究发现,短期内通货膨胀和经济增长对货币供应量的效应相反;货币供应并不影响通货膨胀和经济增长;经济增长与通货膨胀无关,通货膨胀对经济增长具有正面效应。长期来看,通货膨胀和货币供应量之间正相关;经济增长对货币供应具有负效应,货币供给量的增加促进经济增长,证实我国存在托宾效应;经济增长和通货膨胀之间作用相反,通货膨胀损害经济增长的弗里德曼假说在我国适用。同时得出我国货币供给具有非中性和内生性特点的结论。     

关于我国货币政策促进经济增长的研究

人民银行货币政策目标是:保持人民币币值稳定并以此促进经济增长,所以搞清楚货币政策与通货膨胀、经济增长的关系就十分必要。通过计量分析可以得出:货币供应量M1的增长是推动GDP增长的主要因素,财政支出增长不是推动GDP增长的因素,但是不能否定其在反经济危机中的巨大作用;货币供应量M1的增长是推动CPI增长的主要因素;在制定货币供应量政策时,既要考虑到推动GDP增长的目的,也要受到CPI上涨的制约,需要在二者之间权衡;在制定利率政策时要研究均衡的利率,实际利率要向均衡利率靠近,并且要随着经济情况的变化及时调整,以达到最大的资本积累量,保证我国的长期经济增长。     

汇率及多种因素对通货膨胀影响的实证检验

利用亚洲十个国家的面板数据,对汇率、国际大宗商品价格、国内工业产出、M2以及利率等因素同通货膨胀的关系进行了实证分析,以验证货币升值能否在一定程度上缓解国内的通胀压力。研究发现对于包括中国的部分亚洲国家而言,货币的升值是能够有效缓解通货膨胀的,另外还发现中国的通货膨胀与汇率、工业产出、货币供应量、国际石油价格、国际非能源商品价格和利率是具有长期均衡关系的。     

股票价格、实体经济与货币政策研究——基于我国1997-2011年的经验证据

本文运用格兰杰因果关系检验和向量自回归方法分析了1997年1月至2011年6月我国股票价格、GDP、通货膨胀率和货币政策的关系,实证结果表明,在中国,股票价格对通货膨胀的效应为正向,即股市上涨能带动通货膨胀水平的上涨。股票市场对GDP的影响短期内主要表现为替代效应,长期来看,则是财富效应和投资效应占主导;同时,货币供应量和利率对股票价格均有影响,但影响均不显著。通过格兰杰因果关系检验发现,利率变动导致货币供应量和股票价格发生变化。而货币供应量的变化影响着通货膨胀,也一定程度影响利率和股票价格。通过广义脉冲响应发现,中国人民银行紧缩性的利率政策并不能抑制股票价格上涨。增加货币供给短期内能够推动股市上涨,但长期对股市仍没有效果。     

浅析如何预防未来的通货膨胀

根据国家统计局的数据显示,自2011年1月份以来,中国居民消费价格指数CPI同比上涨了5.0%。其中,3月份居民消费价格指数(CPI)同比上涨5.4%,创下了32个月来新高。通胀预期明显上升,物价上涨压力也随之明显加大,这成为影响宏观经济增长以及社会稳定的首要问题,而货币政策是治理通货膨胀的最有效方式之一。主要分析了中国改革开放以后,发生的两次严重的通货膨胀,并总结了所实施的货币政策的优缺点。同时本轮通货膨胀与前两次有很多相似之处,在对引发通货膨胀的众多因素进行实证分析之后,根据之前的经验,可以对当前抑制通货膨胀的货币政策进行优化,从而达到更好的治理效果。     

我国货币政策对稳定物价有效性的实证分析

2009年以来,面对持续走高的物价,央行采取了连续上调准备金率的政策,以求减少货币供给量,稳定物价。通过建立CPI、广义货币供给量M2和GDP之间的回归模型,对1994～2010年的数据进行回归分析,得出了我国货币政策对稳定物价有效的结论。认为治理通货膨胀要采取多样化的宏观经济政策,注意货币政策、财政政策的搭配使用。同时要加快人民币汇率体制改革,促进产业结构调整和经济发展方式的转变。     

Contemporary Monetary Policy in China: An Empirical Assessment

This paper focuses on monetary policy in China. A set of different specifications for the monetary policy reaction function are empirically evaluated using monthly data for 1998–2014. Overall, the performance of the estimated policy rules is surprisingly good. Chinese monetary policy displays countercyclical reactions to inflation and leaning‐against‐the‐wind behaviour. The paper shows a notable increase in the overall responsiveness of Chinese monetary policy over the course of the estimation period. The central bank interest rate is unresponsive to economic conditions during the earlier years of the sample, but response becomes significant in later years. This finding comports with the view that the monetary policy of the People's Bank of China has come to place greater weight on price‐based instruments. A time‐varying estimation procedure suggests that the two monetary policy objectives are generally assigned to different instruments. The money supply instrument continues to be utilized to control the price level. Since 2008, the interest rate instrument has been mainly used to achieve the targeted output growth.     

货币供应与通货膨胀的动态关系研究

本文通过实证研究发现,货币供应量的冲击无法有效解释我国通货膨胀现象,超额的货币供应并不是影响我国通胀的重要原因,而居民对物价水平的预期却能解释未来通货膨胀的变化。因此,从通货膨胀治理的角度来说,调整货币供应抑制通货膨胀的作用非常有限,而通货膨胀预期管理也许更能起到平抑通货膨胀的作用。     

Monetary policy and asset prices

The purpose of this paper is study the effect of monetary policy on asset prices. We study the properties of a monetary model in which a real asset is valued for its rate of return and for its liquidity. We show that money is essential if and only if real assets are scarce, in the precise sense that their supply is not sufficient to satisfy the demand for liquidity. Our model generates a clear connection between asset prices and monetary policy. When money grows at a higher rate, inflation is higher and the return on money decreases. In equilibrium, no arbitrage amounts to equating the real return of both objects. Therefore, the price of the asset increases in order to lower its real return. This negative relationship between inflation and asset returns is in the spirit of research in finance initiated in the early 1980s.     

紧缩性货币政策应对当前通货膨胀的低效性

近期我国出现了居民消费物价指数快速上涨的现象,通货膨胀压力逐步显现,货币当局采取了一系列紧缩性货币政策。然而当前通货膨胀的重要特征是结构性价格调整,其深层次原因是扭曲的要素价格体系的调整和经济增长方式的转变,数据也显示货币供给量的平稳增长和通货膨胀率存在背离的现象。因此,继续采取紧缩性货币政策应对当前通货膨胀是低效的,应当综合采取多种政策手段实现对经济的调控。     

How justified is abandoning money in the conduct of monetary policy in Australia on the grounds of instability in the money‐demand function?

The role of money in the design and conduct of monetary policy has reemerged as an important issue in both advanced and developing economies, especially since the 2007 global financial crisis. A growing body of recent literature suggests that the causal relationship between money supply growth and inflation remains intact across countries and over time and that this relation is not conditional on the stability of the money‐demand function or whether money is endogenous or exogenous. Moreover, critical for a rule‐based monetary policy is the presence of a long‐run stable money‐demand function, rather than a short‐run money‐demand model that may exhibit instability for many reasons, including problems with estimating a money‐demand model with high‐frequency data. Provided that a stable money‐demand function exists, it could be useful to establish long‐run equilibrium relations among money, output, prices, and exchange rates, as the classical monetary theory suggests. Within this analytical framework, this paper addresses the question of whether money has any role in the conduct of monetary policy in Australia. The conventional wisdom is that the money‐demand function in Australia has been unstable since the mid‐1980s due to financial deregulation and reforms; this led to a change in the strategy of monetary policy for price stability in the form of inflation targeting that ignores money insofar as inflation and its control are concerned. This paper reports empirical findings for Australia, obtained from a longer quarterly data series over the period 1960Q1–2015Q1, which suggest that instability in the narrow‐money‐demand function in Australia was primarily due to the exclusion of variables which have become important in the deregulated environment since the 1980s. These findings are confirmed by an expanded form of the narrow‐money‐demand function that was found stable over the past two decades, although it experienced multiple structural breaks over the study period. The paper draws the conclusion that abandoning the monetary aggregate as an instrument of monetary policy in Australia, under a rule‐based monetary policy such as inflation targeting, cannot be justified by instability in the money‐demand function or even by lack of a causal link between money supply growth and inflation.     

Does money have a role in the inflation process? Evidence from Australia

Inflation, defined as a sustained increase in the price level, is considered a monetary phenomenon, as it can be explained within the framework of money‐demand and money‐supply relationships. In the extant literature, money growth is shown to remain causally related to inflation across countries and over time, irrespective of the exchange rate regime and stability of the money‐demand function. Nevertheless, emerging literature suggests a diminishing role of money in the conduct of monetary policy for price stability, especially under inflation targeting. Monetary policy in Australia under inflation targeting since 1993 is an example of policy that denies a relationship between money growth and inflation. The proposition that money does not matter insofar as inflation is concerned seems odd in both theory and the best‐practice monetary policy for price stability. This paper uses annual data for the period 1970–2017 and quarterly data for the period 1970Q1–2015Q1. It deploys both the Johansen cointegration approach and the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) cointegration approach to investigate for Australia whether money, real output, prices and the exchange rate (non‐stationary variables) maintain the long‐run price‐level relationship that the classical monetary theory suggests in the presence of such stationary variables as the domestic and foreign interest rates. As expected, the empirical findings for Australia are consistent with the classical long‐run price‐level relationship between money, real output, prices and the exchange rate. The error‐correction model of inflation confirms the presence of a cointegral relationship among these variables; it also provides strong evidence of a short‐run causal relationship between money supply growth and inflation. On the basis of a priori theoretical predictions and empirical findings, the paper draws the conclusion that the monetary aggregate and its growth rate matter insofar as inflation is concerned, irrespective of the strategy of monetary policy for price stability.     

The Sovereign Yield Curve and the Macroeconomy in China

A dynamic Nelson–Siegel model is adopted to estimate three time‐varying factors of yield curves, the level, the slope and the curvature, and a vector autoregressive model is built to study interactions between macro variables and the yield curve. Results show that, first, money supply growth is a more effective instrument to curb inflation than the monetary policy interest rate; however, the central bank also adjusts the interest rate to stabilize money supply. Second, investment is an important measure to stimulate the Chinese economy, but it also pushes up money supply growth, which results in higher inflation. Third, the yield curve reacts significantly to innovations to investment growth and money supply growth. The segmentation of China's bond market hinders the efficient implementation of monetary policy, and the monetary policy transmission mechanism is still weak in China. Finally, interactions between the yield curve and the macroeconomy in China are nearly unidirectional. Macroeconomic variables reshape the yield curve, but direct adjustments of the yield curve do not significantly change macroeconomic variables. Due to the incomplete liberalization of financial markets, there exists a wide disjunction between the real economy and financial markets in China.