Rules versus discretion in monetary policy historically contemplated
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
- Mccallum, Bennet T., 1988. "Robustness properties of a rule for monetary policy," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 173-203, January.
- Paul R. Krugman, 1998. "It's Baaack: Japan's Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 29(2), pages 137-206.
- Bennett T. McCallum, 1987. "The case for rules in the conduct of monetary policy: a concrete example," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Sep, pages 10-18.
- repec:eee:jmacro:v:54:y:2017:i:pa:p:12-23 is not listed on IDEAS
- Laidler, David E, 1988. "British Monetary Orthodoxy in the 1870s," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 74-109, March.
- Milton Friedman, 1951. "Commodity-Reserve Currency," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59, pages 203-203.
- David Glasner, 1992. "The Real-Bills Doctrine in the Light of the Law of Reflux," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 867-894, Winter.
- Henry C. Simons, 1936. "Rules versus Authorities in Monetary Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44, pages 1-1.
- David Glasner, 1989. "On Some Classical Monetary Controversies," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 201-229, Summer.
- Sandeep Mazumder & John H. Wood, 2013. "The Great Deflation of 1929–33: it (almost) had to happen," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 66(1), pages 156-177, February.
- Milton Friedman & Anna J. Schwartz, 1963. "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number frie63-1.
- Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1977. "Rules Rather Than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(3), pages 473-491, June.
Blog mentionsAs found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
CitationsCitations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Samuel Demeulemeester, 2018. "The 100% money proposal and its implications for banking: the Currie–Fisher approach versus the Chicago Plan approach," Post-Print hal-01830363, HAL.
- repec:ejw:journl:v:16:y:2019:i:1:p:130-145 is not listed on IDEAS
More about this item
StatisticsAccess and download statistics
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jmacro:v:54:y:2017:i:pa:p:24-41. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622617 .
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.