A new hypothesis on the demand for money: the “accounting” motive and banks' costs[1]

Emerald - 2004

Tóm tắt

Presents a paper written by Lauchlin Currie in November 1992 in which he identifies and defends the concepts of money and the demand for it. The paper argues that the heavy cost of maintaining checking accounts is not reasonably explained by the conventional listing of motivations, especially in the case of large deposits. A new hypothesis is given on the demand for money. The paper concludes that checking accounts possesses the further essential quality of being quantitatively subject to control, which in turn permits a limitation of the total quantity of demand deposits and hence of money.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Avery, R., Elliehausen, G.E., Kennickell, A.B. and Spindt, P.A. (1987), “Changes in the use of transactions accounts and costs from 1984 to 1986”, Federal Reserve Bulletin, March, pp. 179‐96.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1971), Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 57, pp. 456‐67.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1987), “Domestic financial statistics”, Federal Reserve Bulletin, April, Table 1.31.

Burger, A. (1988), “The puzzling growth of the monetary aggregates in the 1980s”, Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, Vol. 70 No. 5.

Currie, L. (1938), “The economic distribution of demand deposits”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 33, June, pp. 319‐26, [Ed.: A fuller version of this paper is included in this Special Issue].

Farr, H., Porter, R. and Pruitt, E. (1978), “Demand deposit ownership survey”, Board of Governors Staff Papers, November, pp. 91‐109.

Humphrey, D.B. and Berger, A.N. (1990), “Market failure and resource use: economic incentives to use different payment instruments”, in Humphrey, D.B. (Ed.), The United States Payment System: Efficiency, Risk, and the Role of the Federal Reserve, Kluwer Academic, Norwall, MA, pp. 45‐86.

Tobin, J. (1980), “Redefining the aggregates”, House Committee on Banking, 96th Congress, 2nd Session, Committee Print 96‐10.