Another look at the evidence on money-income causality
Stock and Watson's widely noted finding that money has statistically significant marginal predictive power with respect to real output (as measured by industrial production), even in a sample extending through 1985 and even in the presence of a short-term interest rate, is not robust to two plausible changes. First, extending the sample through 1990 renders money insignificant within Stock and Watson's chosen specification. Second, using the commercial paper rate in place of the Treasury bill rate renders money insignificant even in the sample ending in 1985. A positive finding is that the difference between the commercial paper rate and the Treasury bill rate does have highly significant predictive value for real output, even in the presence of money, regardless of sample. Alternative results based on forecast error variance decomposition in a vector autoregression setting confirm these findings by indicating a small and generally insignificant effect of money, and a large, highly significant effect of the paper-bill spread, on real output.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Robert B. Litterman & Laurence M. Weiss, 1984.
"Money, real interest rates, and output: a reinterpretation of postwar U.S. data,"
89, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Litterman, Robert B & Weiss, Laurence M, 1985. "Money, Real Interest Rates, and Output: A Reinterpretation of Postwar U.S. Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(1), pages 129-56, January.
- Robert B. Litterman & Laurence Weiss, 1983. "Money, Real Interest Rates, and Output: A Reinterpretation of Postwar U.S. Data," NBER Working Papers 1077, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Friedman, Benjamin M & Kuttner, Kenneth N, 1992. "Money, Income, Prices, and Interest Rates," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 472-92, June.
- Martin S. Eichenbaum & Kenneth J. Singleton, 1986.
"Do Equilibrium Real Business Cycle Theories Explain Post-War U.S. Business Cycles?,"
NBER Working Papers
1932, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Martin Eichenbaum & Kenneth I. Singleton, 1986. "Do Equilibrium Real Business Cycle Theories Explain Postwar U.S. Business Cycles?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1986, Volume 1, pages 91-146 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Benjamin M. Friedman, 1984. "The value of intermediate targets in implementing monetary policy," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 169-199.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:57:y:1993:i:1-3:p:189-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.