ArticlePDF Available

Money in the Production Function: A New Keynesian DSGE Perspective

Article

Money in the Production Function: A New Keynesian DSGE Perspective

Abstract and Figures

This article checks whether money is an omitted variable in the production process by proposing a microfounded New Keynesian Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium model. In this framework, real money balances enter the production function, and money demanded by households is differentiated from that demanded by firms. Using a Bayesian analysis, our model weakens the hypothesis that money is a factor of production. However, the demand of money by firms appears to have a significant impact on the economy, even if this demand has a low weight in the production process.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Money in the production function: A
New Keynesian DSGE perspective
Jonathan Benchimol
July, 2015
Abstract
This article checks whether money is an omitted variable in the
production process by proposing a microfounded New Keynesian Dy-
namic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model. In this frame-
work, real money balances enter the production function, and money
demanded by households is di¤erentiated from that demanded by
rms. By using a Bayesian analysis, our model weakens the hypoth-
esis that money is a factor of production. However, the demand of
money by …rms appears to have a signi…cant impact on the economy,
even if this demand has a low weight in the production process.
Keywords: Money in the production function, DSGE, Bayesian
estimation.
JEL Codes: E23, E31, E51.
Please cite this paper as:
Benchimol, J., 2015. Money in the production function: A New
Keynesian DSGE perspective. Southern Economic Journal 82 (1),
152–184.
Bank of Israel and EABCN, POB 780, 91007 Jerusalem, Israel. Phone: +972-2-
6552641. Fax: +972-2-6669407. Email: jonathan.benchimol@boi.org.il. I thank Jess
Benhabib, Akiva O¤enbacher, André Fourçans and two anonymous referees for their help-
ful advice and comments. This paper does not necessarily re‡ect the views of the Bank of
Israel.
1
1 Introduction
The theoretical motivation to empirically implement money in the production
function originates from the monetary growth models of Levhari and Patinkin
(1968), Friedman (1969), Johnson (1969), and Stein (1970), which include
money directly in the production function. Firms hold money to facilitate
production on the grounds that money enables them to economize on the use
of other inputs and saves costs incurred by running short of cash (Fischer,
1974).
Real cash balances are at least in part a factor of production.
To take a trivial example, a retailer can economize on his average
cash balances by hiring an errand boy to go to the bank on the
corner to get change for large bills tendered by customers. When
it costs ten cents per dollar per year to hold an extra dollar of
cash, there will be a greater incentive to hire the errand boy, that
is, to substitute other productive resources for cash. This will
mean both a reduction in the real ‡ow of services from the given
productive resources and a change in the structure of production,
since di¤erent productive activities may di¤er in cash-intensity,
just as they di¤er in labor- or land-intensity.
Milton Friedman (1969)
Considering real money balances to be a factor of production has nu-
merous implications. Money would have a marginal physical productivity
schedule like other inputs, …rms’demands for real balances would be derived
in the same way as other factor demand functions, changes in the stock of
money would a¤ect real output–contrary to the classical dichotomy which
implies that money is neutral–and real balances might explain part of the
growth rates of total factor productivity or the residual.
Sinai and Stokes (1972) present a very interesting test of the hypothesis
that money enters the production function, suggesting that real balances
could represent a missing variable that contributes to the attribution of the
unexplained residual to technological changes. Ben-Zion and Ruttan (1975)
conclude that as a factor of production, money seems to play an important
role in explaining induced technological changes.
Short (1979) develops structural models based on Cobb and Douglas
(1928) and generalized translog production functions, both of which provide
a more complete theoretical framework to analyze the role of money in the
production process. The empirical results obtained by estimating these two
models indicate that the relationship between real cash balances and output,
2
even after correcting for any simultaneity bias, is positive and statistically
signi…cant. The results suggest that it is theoretically appropriate to include
a real cash balances variable as a factor input in a production function in
order to capture the productivity gains derived from using money.
You (1981) …nds that the unexplained portion of output variation virtu-
ally vanishes with the inclusion of real balances in the production function.
In addition to labor and capital, real money balances turn out to be an
important factor of production, especially for developing countries. The re-
sults of Khan and Ahmad (1985) are consistent with the hypothesis that
real money balances are an important factor of production. Sephton (1988)
shows that real balances are a valid factor of production within the con…nes
of a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production function. Hasan
and Mahmud (1993) also support the hypothesis that money is an impor-
tant factor in the production function and that there are potential supply
side-e¤ects of interest rate changes.
Recent developments in econometrics regarding cointegration and error-
correction models provide a rich environment in which to reexamine the role
of money in the production function. Moghaddam (2010) presents empirical
evidence indicating that in a cointegrated space, di¤erent de…nitions of money
serve as an input in the Cobb and Douglas (1928) production function.
At the same time, Clarida et al. (1999), Woodford (2003), and Galí (2008)
develop New Keynesian Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE)
models to explain the dynamics of the economy. However, none of the studies
on New Keynesian DSGE models use money as an input in the production
function.
This article departs from the existing theoretical and empirical literature
by specifying a fully microfounded New Keynesian DSGE model in which
money enters the production function. This feature generates a new in‡ation
equation that includes money. Following Benchimol and Fourçans (2012), we
introduce the new concept of ‡exible-price real money balances and, in order
to close the model, a quantitative equation. We also analyze the dynamics
of the economy by using Bayesian estimations and simulations to con…rm or
reject the potential in‡uence of money in the dynamics of the Eurozone and
to determine the weight of real money balances in the production process.
By distinguishing between money used for productive and nonproductive
purposes (Benhabib et al.,2001), this paper intends to solve the now old and
controversial hypothesis about money in the production function proposed
by Levhari and Patinkin (1968) and Sinai and Stokes (1972), and to more
deeply analyze the role of these two components of the demand for money
(demand from households and …rms).
3
After describing the theoretical set-up in Section 2, we calibrate and es-
timate …ve models of the Euro area using Bayesian techniques in Section 3.
Impulse response functions and variance decomposition are analyzed in Sec-
tion 3.4, and we study the consequences of money in the production function
hypothesis by comparing the monetary policy rules of models in Section 4.
Section 5concludes, and Section 6presents additional results.
2 The model
The model consists of households that supply labor, purchase goods for con-
sumption, and hold money and bonds, as well as …rms that hire labor and pro-
duce and sell di¤erentiated products in monopolistically competitive goods
markets. Each …rm sets the price of the good it produces, but not all …rms
reset their respective prices each period. Households and …rms behave op-
timally: Households maximize their expected present value of utility, and
rms maximize prots. There is also a central bank that controls the nomi-
nal interest rate. This model is inspired by Smets and Wouters (2003), Galí
(2008), and Walsh (2017).
2.1 Households
We assume a representative, in…nitely lived household, that seeks to maxi-
mize
Et"1
X
k=0
kUt+k#;(1)
where Utis the period utility function and  < 1is the discount factor.
We assume the existence of a continuum of goods, represented by the
interval [0; 1]. The household decides how to allocate its consumption expen-
ditures among di¤erent goods. This requires that the consumption index, Ct,
be maximized for any given level of expenditure. 8t2Nand, conditionally
on such optimal behavior, the period budget constraint takes the form
PtCt+Mn;t +Mp;t +QtBtBt1+WtNt+Mn;t1+Mp;t1;(2)
where Ptis an aggregate price index; Mn;t and Mp;t are nominal money held
for nonproductive and productive purposes, respectively; Btis the quantity
of one-period, nominally risk-free discount bonds purchased in period tand
maturing in period t+ 1 (each bond pays one unit of money at maturity and
its price is Qt, so that the short-term nominal rate itis approximately equal
4
to ln Qt); Wtis the nominal wage; and Ntis hours worked (or the measure
of employed household members).
The above sequence of period budget constraints is supplemented with a
solvency condition, such as 8tlim
n!1 Et[Bn]0.
Preferences are measured using a common time-separable utility function.
Under the assumption of a household period utility given by
Ut=e"u
t C1
t
1+e"n
t
1Mn;t
Pt1
N1+
t
1 + !;(3)
consumption, labor supply, money demand, and bond holdings are chosen
to maximize Eq. (1), subject to Eq. (2) and the solvency condition. This
Money-in-the-Utility (MIU) function depends positively on the consumption
of goods, Ct, positively on real money balances, Mt
Pt, and negatively on labor
Nt.is the coe¢ cient of the relative risk aversion of households or the
inverse of the intertemporal elasticity of substitution, is the inverse of the
elasticity of money holdings with respect to the interest rate, and is the
inverse of the elasticity of work e¤ort with respect to the real wage (inverse
of the Frisch elasticity of the labor supply).
The utility function also contains two structural shocks: "u
tis a general
shock to preferences that a¤ects the intertemporal substitution of households
(preference shock) and "n
tis a shock to household money demand. and
are positive scale parameters.
This setting leads to the following conditions1, which, in addition to the
budget constraint, must hold in equilibrium. The resulting log-linear version
of the …rst-order condition corresponding to the demand for contingent bonds
implies that
ct=Et[ct+1]1
(itEt[t+1]c)1Et"u
t+1;(4)
where the lowercase letters denote the logarithm of the original aggregated
variables, c=ln (), and is the …rst-di¤erence operator.
The demand for cash that follows from the household optimization prob-
lem is given by
"n
t+ctmpn;t m=a2it;(5)
where mpn;t =mn;tptare the log-linearized real money balances for nonpro-
ductive purposes, m=ln ()+ a1, and a1and a2are the resulting terms of
the …rst-order Taylor approximation of ln (1 Qt) = a1+a2it. More precisely,
1See Appendix A.
5
if we compute our …rst-order Taylor approximation around the steady-state
interest rate, 1
, we obtain a1= ln 1exp 1

1
e
1
1
and a2=1
e
1
1
.
Real cash holdings has a positive relation with consumption, with an
elasticity equal to =, and a negative relation with the nominal interest
rate ( 1
>1, which implies that a2>0). Below, we take the nominal interest
rate as the central bank’s policy instrument.
In the literature, due to the assumption that consumption and real money
balances are additively separable in the utility function, the cash holdings of
households do not enter any of the other structural equations: Accordingly,
the equation above becomes a recursive function of the remainder of the sys-
tem of equations. However, as in Sinai and Stokes (1972), Subrahmanyam
(1980), and Khan and Ahmad (1985), because real money balances enter the
aggregate supply, we will use this money demand equation (Eq. 5) to solve
the equilibrium of our model. See, for instance, Ireland (2004), Andrés et al.
(2009), and Benchimol and Fourçans (2012) for models in which money bal-
ances enter the aggregate demand equation without entering the production
function.
The resulting log-linear version of the …rst-order condition corresponding
to the optimal consumption-leisure arbitrage implies that
wtpt=ct+ntn;(6)
where n=ln ().
Finally, these equations represent the Euler condition for the optimal in-
tratemporal allocation of consumption (Eq. 4), the intertemporal optimality
condition setting the marginal rate of substitution between money and con-
sumption equal to the opportunity cost of holding money for nonproductive
use (Eq. 5), and the intratemporal optimality condition setting the marginal
rate of substitution between leisure and consumption equal to the real wage
(Eq. 6).
2.2 Firms
We assume a continuum of …rms indexed by i2[0;1]. Each …rm produces a
di¤erentiated good, but they all use an identical technology, represented by
the following Money-in-the-Production function2
Yt(i) = e"a
te"p
tMp;t
Ptm
Nt(i)1n(7)
2This approach is similar to Benchimol (2011) and Benchimol (2011).
6
where exp ("a
t)represents the level of technology, assumed to be common to
all …rms and to evolve exogenously over time, and "p
tis a shock to …rm money
demand.
All …rms face an identical isoelastic demand schedule and take the ag-
gregate price level, Pt, and aggregate consumption index, Ct, as given. As
in the standard Calvo (1983) model, our generalization features monopolis-
tic competition and staggered price setting. At any time t, only a fraction
1of …rms, where 0<  < 1, can reset their prices optimally, whereas the
remaining …rms index their prices to lagged in‡ation.
2.3 Price dynamics
Let us assume a set of …rms that do not reoptimize their posted price in
period t. As in Galí (2008), using the de…nition of the aggregate price level
and the fact that all …rms that reset prices choose an identical price, P
t,
leads to Pt=P 1"
t1+ (1 ) (P
t)1"1
1". Dividing both sides by Pt1and
log-linearizing around P
t=Pt1yields
t= (1 ) (p
tpt1):(8)
In this set-up, we do not assume that prices have inertial dynamics. In-
ation results from the fact that …rms reoptimize their price plans in any
given period, choosing a price that di¤ers from the economy’s average price
in the previous period.
2.4 Price setting
A …rm that reoptimizes in period tchooses the price P
tthat maximizes
the current market value of the pro…ts generated while that price remains
ective. We solve this problem to obtain a …rst-order Taylor expansion
around the zero-ination steady state of the …rm’s …rst-order condition, which
leads to
p
tpt1= (1 )
1
X
k=0
()kEtcmct+kjt+ (pt+kpt1);(9)
where cmct+kjt=mct+kjtmc denotes the log deviation of marginal cost from
its steady-state value, mc =, and = ln ("= ("1)) is the log of the
desired gross markup.
7
2.5 Equilibrium
Market clearing in the goods market requires Yt(i) = Ct(i)for all i2[0;1]
and all t. Aggregate output is de…ned as Yt=R1
0Yt(i)11
"di"
"1; it follows
that Yt=Ctmust hold for all t. The above goods market clearing condition
can be combined with the consumer’s Euler equation to yield the equilibrium
condition
yt=Et[yt+1]1(itEt[t+1]c)1Et"u
t+1:(10)
Market clearing in the labor market requires Nt=R1
0Nt(i)di. Using Eq.
7leads to
Nt=Z1
00
@Yt(i)
e"a
te"p
tMp;t
Ptm1
A
1
1n
di (11)
=0
@Yt
e"a
te"p
tMp;t
Ptm1
A
1
1nZ1
0Pt(i)
Pt"
1ndi; (12)
where the second equality (Eq. 12) follows from the demand schedule and
the goods market clearing condition. Taking logs leads to
(1 n)nt=yt"a
tm"p
tmmpp;t +dt;(13)
where mpp;t =mp;t ptare the log-linearized, real money balances for pro-
ductive purposes and dt= (1 n) ln R1
0Pt(i)
Pt"
1ndi, where di is a
measure of price (and therefore output) dispersion across …rms3.
Hence, the following approximate relation among aggregate output, em-
ployment, real money balances, and technology can be written as
yt="a
t+m"p
t+ (1 n)nt+mmpp;t:(14)
An expression is derived for an individual …rm’s marginal cost in terms
of the economys average real marginal cost. Using the marginal product of
labor,
mpnt= ln @Yt
@Nt(15)
= ln e"a
te"p
tMp;t
Ptm
(1 n)Ntn(16)
="a
t+m"p
t+mmpp;t + ln (1 n)nnt;(17)
3In a neighborhood of the zero-in‡ation steady state, dtis equal to zero up to a …rst-
order approximation (Galí,2008).
8
and the marginal product of real money balances,
mpmpt= ln @Yt
@Mt
Pt!(18)
= ln e"a
te"p
tme"p
tMp;t
Ptm1
Nt1n!(19)
="a
t+m"p
t+ ln (m)+(m1) mpp;t + (1 n)nt;(20)
we obtain an expression of the marginal cost,
mct= (wtpt)mpntmpmpt(21)
=wtpt2 ("a
t+m"p
t)(2m1) mpp;t
(1 2n)ntln (m(1 n)) :(22)
Using Eq. 14, we obtain an expression of ntsuch that
nt=1
1n
(yt"a
tm"p
tmmpp;t):(23)
Plugging Eq. 23 into Eq. 22 leads to an expression of the marginal cost
mct= (wtpt) + 2n1
1n
yt+1nm
1n
mpp;t
ln (m(1 n)) 1
1n
"a
tm
1n
"p
t;(24)
where Eq. 24 de…nes the economy’s average marginal product of labor, mpnt,
and the economy’s average marginal product of real money balances, mpmpt,
in a way that is consistent with Eq. 14.
Using the fact that mct+kjt= (wt+kpt+k)mpnt+kjtmpmpt+kjt, we
obtain
mct+kjt= (wt+kpt+k) + 2n1
1n
yt+kjt+1mn
1n
mpp;t+k
1
1n
"a
t+km
1n
"p
t+kln (m(1 n)) (25)
=mct+k+2n1
1nyt+kjtyt+k(26)
=mct+k"2n1
1n
(p
tpt+k);(27)
9
where Eq. 27 follows from the demand schedule, Ct(i) = Pt(i)
Pt"Ct, com-
bined with the market-clearing condition (yt=ct).
Substituting Eq. 27 into Eq. 9and rearranging terms yields
p
tpt1= (1 ) 
1
X
k=0
()kEt[cmct+k] +
1
X
k=0
()kEt[t+k];(28)
where  = 1n
1n+"(2n1) 1.
Finally, combining Eq. 8with Eq. 28 yields the in‡ation equation
t=Et[t+1 ] + mc cmct;(29)
where cmct=mctmc is the real marginal cost gap and mc = (1)(1)
is
strictly decreasing in the index of price stickiness, , the measure of decreasing
returns, n, and the demand elasticity, ".
Next, a relation is derived between the economy’s real marginal cost and a
measure of aggregate economic activity. Note that independent of the nature
of price setting, average real marginal cost can be expressed as
mct= (wtpt)mpntmpmpt(30)
= (yt+ntn) + 2n1
1n
yt+1mn
1n
mpp;t
1
1n
"a
tm
1n
"p
tln (m(1 n)) (31)
=+n
1n
(1 )yt1 +
1n
"a
tm
1 +
1n
"p
t
+1m
1 +
1nmpp;t nln (m(1 n)) ;(32)
where the derivation of Eqs. 31 and 32 makes use of the household’s optimal-
ity condition (Eq. 6) and the (approximate) aggregate production relation
(Eqs. 14 and 23).
Knowing that  > 0,0n1, and 1, it is obvious that
(1 n)++2n1>0. However, the sign of (1 (1 + )mn)coming
from Eq. 32 appears unde…ned. In fact, it con…rms some studies from Sinai
and Stokes (1975,1977,1981,1989) concluding that 1n>(1 + )m>
m. If this is the case, then 1(1 + )mn>0.
Furthermore, under ‡exible prices, the real marginal cost is constant and
given by mc =. De…ning the natural level of output, denoted by yf
t, as
10
the equilibrium level of output under ‡exible prices,
mc =+n
1n
(1 )yf
t1 +
1n
"a
tm
1 +
1n
"p
t
+1m
1 +
1nmpf
p;t nln (m(1 n)) ;(33)
implies
yf
t=y
a"a
t+y
p"p
t+y
mmpf
p;t +y
c;(34)
where
y
a=1 +
+n(1 ) (1 n)
y
p=m(1 + )
+n(1 ) (1 n)
y
m=n+m(1 + )1
+n(1 ) (1 n)
y
c=(1 n) (ln (m(1 n)) + n)
+n(1 ) (1 n):
Subtracting Eq. 33 from Eq. 32 yields
cmct=+n
1n
(1 )ytyf
t+1m
1 +
1nmpp;t mpf
p;t;
(35)
where ytyf
tis the output gap, and mpp;t mpf
p;t is the real money gap,
where money is used here only for production purposes. By combining Eqs.
29 and 35, we obtain our …rst equation relating in‡ation to its next-period
forecast, output gap, and real money balances gap,
t=Et[t+1 ] + xytyf
t+ mmpp;t mpf
p;t(36)
where
x=+n(1 n) (1 )
1n+"(2n1) (1 )1
and
m=1nm(1 + )
1n+"(2n1) (1 )1
:
The second key equation describing the equilibrium of the New Keynesian
model is obtained from Eq. 10:
yt=Et[yt+1]1(itEt[t+1]c)1Et"u
t+1:(37)
11
Henceforth, Eq. 37 is referred to as the dynamic IS equation.
The third key equation describes the behavior of real money balances.
Rearranging Eq. 5yields
mpn;t =
yta2
itm
+1
"n
t:(38)
From Eq. 10, we obtain an expression for the natural interest rate,
if
t=c+Ethyf
t+1i:(39)
Therefore, from Eqs. 39 and 38, we obtain an expression of the money
demand of …rms in the ‡exible-price economy such that
mpf
n;t =
yf
ta2
Ethyf
t+1im+ca2
+1
"n
t(40)
The last equation determines the interest rate through a smoothed Taylor-
type rule,
it= (1 i)(t) + xytyf
t+Mk;t+iit1+"i
t;(41)
where and xare policy coe¢ cients re‡ecting the weight on the in‡ation
and output gaps and the parameter 0< i<1captures the degree of interest
rate smoothing. "i
tis an exogenous ad hoc shock accounting for ‡uctuations
in the nominal interest rate. is an in‡ation target and Mk;t is a money
variable that is de…ned as follows: money does not enter the Taylor rule
(k= 1), leading to a standard Taylor rule; money enters the Taylor rule by
the way of one real money gap (k= 24); and money enters the Taylor rule
by the way of two real money gaps (k= 5).
Table 1describes Mk;ts functional forms.
In the literature, money is generally introduced through a money growth
variable (Ireland,2003;Andrés et al.,2006,2009;Canova and Menz,2011;
Barthélemy et al.,2011). However, Benchimol and Fourçans (2012) also
introduce a money-gap variable and show that, at least in the Eurozone, it
is empirically more signi…cant than other money variable measures. Such a
rule can also be derived from the optimization program of the central bank
as a social planner (Woodford,2003).
Finally, closing the model requires an additional equilibrium relation. For
that purpose, we use the following quantitative equation:
PtYt=etMt;(42)
12
k Mk;t
1 0
22mpp;t mpf
p;t
33mpn;t mpf
n;t
44mptmpf
t
55mpp;t mpf
p;t+6mpn;t mpf
n;t
Table 1: The money variable in the Taylor rule
where Mtrepresents the total nominal money stock and etis an exogenous
time-varying velocity process de…ned in the next section. Taking logs, Eq.
42 leads to
yt=mpt+t=mpn;t +mpp;t +t(43)
The corresponding ‡exible-price economy equation is similar (Eq. 46) to
the previous relation.
2.6 DSGE model
Our DSGE model consists of eight equations and eight dependent variables:
in‡ation, nominal interest rate, output, ‡exible-price output, real money bal-
ances held for production purpose, its ‡exible-price counterpart, real money
balances held for nonproduction purpose, and its ‡exible-price counterpart.
Flexible-price economy
yf
t=y
a"a
t+y
p"p
t+y
mmpf
p;t +y
c(44)
mpf
n;t =
yf
ta2
Ethyf
t+1im+ca2
+1
"n
t(45)
mpf
p;t =yf
tmpf
n;t t(46)
Sticky-price economy
t=Et[t+1 ] + xytyf
t+ mmpp;t mpf
p;t(47)
yt=Et[yt+1]1(itEt[t+1]c)1Et"u
t+1(48)
mpn;t =
yta2
itm
+1
"n
t(49)
mpp;t =ytmpn;t t
13
it= (1 i)(t) + xytyf
t+Mk;t+iit1+"i
t(50)
As we have …ve historical variables, we have …ve microfounded shocks:
technology shock ("a
t), shock to household money demand ("n
t), shock to …rm
money demand ("p
t), short-term interest rate or monetary policy shock ("i
t),
and preference shock ("u
t).
De…nition 1 8j2 fa; n; p; i; ug,"j;t =j"j;t1+j;t, where jis an au-
toregressive coe¢ cient of the AR(1) processes and j;t follows a normal i.i.d.
process with a mean of zero and standard deviation of j.
Following the literature (Benk et al.,2008;Lothian,2009), the veloc-
ity process, t, depends essentially on money shocks. Then, we choose the
following speci…cation for the time-varying velocity process.
De…nition 2 t=+s(ms"n;t + (1 ms)"p;t ), where ,sand 0<
ms <1are parameters.
3 Results
As in Smets and Wouters (2007) and An and Schorfheide (2007), we apply
Bayesian techniques to estimate our DSGE models. We test …ve speci…cations
of the Taylor rule (Table 1) under our assumption that money is part of the
production function.
3.1 Eurozone data
In our model of the Eurozone, tis the in‡ation rate, measured as the yearly
log-di¤erence of the gross domestic product (GDP) de‡ator between one
quarter and the same quarter of the previous year; ytis output, measured as
the logarithm of GDP; and itis the short-term (three-month) nominal interest
rate. These data are extracted from the Euro-area Wide Model (AWM)
database of Fagan et al. (2001). mpn;t and mpp;t are the real money demands
of households and …rms, respectively, and are measured as the logarithm
of the Euro-area accounts series4divided by the GDP de‡ator. We detrend
historical variables using a Hodrick-Prescott …lter (with a standard coe¢ cient
for quarterly data of 1600).
4The money demand series of households and …rms are referenced in the Euro-
area accounts as S1M.A1.S.1.X.E.Z and S11.A1.S.1.X.E.Z, respectively (with the
IEAQ.Q.I6.N.V.LE.F2B su¢ x). The sum of these two aggregates leads to M2.
14
yf
t, the ‡exible-price output, mpf
n;t, the ‡exible-price household real money
balances, and mpf
p;t, the ‡exible-price …rm real money balances, are com-
pletely determined by structural shocks.
Notice that we deal with as many historical variables as shocks.
3.2 Calibration
We estimate all parameters except the discount factor (), the inverse of the
Frisch elasticity of the labor supply (), the Calvo (1983) parameter (), and
the elasticity of household demand for consumption goods ("). is set at
0:9926 so that the annual steady-state real interest rate is three percent and
,, and "are set to 0:66, one, and six, respectively, as in Ga(2008) and
Ravenna and Walsh (2006).
Following standard conventions, we calibrate beta distributions for pa-
rameters that fall between zero and one, inverted gamma distributions for
parameters that need to be constrained as greater than zero, and normal
distributions in other cases.
As our goal is to compare …ve versions of the model, we adopt the same
priors in each version with the same calibration, depending of the Taylor
rule speci…cation. The calibration of is inspired by Rabanal and Rubio-
Ramírez (2005) and Casares (2007). They choose risk aversion parameters
of 2:5and 1:5, respectively. In line with these values, we regard = 2 as
corresponding to a standard risk aversion (Benchimol and Fourçans,2012;
Benchimol,2014).
We calibrate our central parameter m, the share of money in the produc-
tion process, with a prior mean of 0:25 and a large standard error (relative
to its prior mean) of 0:2. Following Basu (1995), we assume that the share
of working hours in the production process is around n= 0:5.
As in Smets and Wouters (2003), the standard errors of the innovations
are assumed to follow inverse gamma distributions and we choose beta dis-
tributions for shock persistence parameters; the backward component of the
Taylor rules; output elasticities of labor, n; and real money balances, m,
of the production function that should be less than one.
The scale parameters and are calibrated to 0:44 and one, respectively,
as in Christiano et al. (2005), and the money velocity mean prior () is
calibrated to 0:31 following Carrillo et al. (2007).
The smoothed Taylor rules (i,, and x) are calibrated following
Gerlach-Kristen (2003), with priors analogous to those used by Smets and
Wouters (2003) and Benchimol and Fourçans (2012). In order to take pos-
sible behaviors of the central bank into consideration, we assign a higher
15
standard error to the Taylor rule coe¢ cients. The non-standard parameters’
mean priors of the augmented Taylor rules for k= 2 5are calibrated to
0:5, with a large standard error (relative to its prior mean) of 0:2.
All the standard errors of shocks are assumed to be distributed accord-
ing to inverted Gamma distributions, with prior means of 0:02. The latter
distribution ensures that these parameters have a positive support. The au-
toregressive parameters are all assumed to follow beta distributions. All these
distributions are centered around 0:75 and we take a common standard error
of 0:1for the shock persistence parameters, as in Smets and Wouters (2003).
The calibration of the parameters entering the time-varying component of
velocity is quite new. The prior mean of sis calibrated to one and, because
this calibration exercise is new, we assume a large standard deviation (0:50)
and a normal distribution. The prior mean of ms is calibrated to 0:50 and
theoretically constrained between zero and one. Thus, we assume a Beta
distribution for mswhich can be seen as a trade-o¤ parameter between
the two money demand shocks ("n;t and "p;t). Its standard deviation is not
assumed to be very large (0:1) with respect to its prior mean.
3.3 Estimations
The model is estimated using 52 observations of the Eurozone from 1999Q1
to 2012Q1 and the estimation of the implied posterior distribution of the
parameters under the …ve con…gurations of the Taylor rule is conducted us-
ing the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm5(ten distinct chains of 300,000 draws
each).
The real money balances parameter (m) of the augmented production
function is estimated to be between 0.014 (k= 4) and 0.042 (k= 1). This
result di¤ers from that found by Sinai and Stokes (1972) for the same parame-
ter (0.087).6The prior and posterior distributions are presented in Appendix
Band estimates of the macro-parameters (aggregated structural parameters)
are provided in Appendix E.
We use Bayesian techniques to estimate our model including money in
the production function (see Table 2). We do not adopt the Short (1979)
restriction involving constant returns to scale in the production function.7
The presence of a money gap in the Phillips curve (Eq. 47) supports di¤er-
ent Taylor rule considerations. Here, we test our model under …ve Taylor rules
5See, for example, Smets and Wouters (2003), Smets and Wouters (2007), Adolfson
et al. (2007), and Adolfson et al. (2008).
6Benchimol (2011) estimates mto be 0.064.
7This work has already been done in Benchimol (2011) and Benchimol (2011).
16
Priors Posteriors (k= 1) Posteriors (k= 2) Posteriors (k= 3) Posteriors (k= 4) Posteriors (k= 5)
Law Mean Std. Mean Std. 5% 95% Mean Std. 5% 95% Mean Std. 5% 95% Mean Std. 5% 95% Mean Std. 5% 95%
nBeta 0.50 0.20 0.5019 0.2774 0.1810 0.8347 0.4996 0.2773 0.1708 0.8295 0.5002 0.2774 0.1724 0.8317 0.5001 0.2773 0.1754 0.8310 0.5000 0.2773 0.1781 0.8305
mBeta 0.25 0.20 0.0427 0.0006 0.0000 0.0720 0.0299 0.0003 0.0000 0.0728 0.0222 0.0006 0.0000 0.0471 0.0147 0.0002 0.0000 0.0330 0.0248 0.0003 0.0000 0.0505
Normal 1.25 0.10 1.3567 0.0912 1.2044 1.5049 1.4009 0.0907 1.2542 1.5501 1.3270 0.0899 1.1795 1.4771 1.3571 0.0911 1.2049 1.5044 1.3715 0.0953 1.2206 1.5257
Normal 2.00 0.10 1.8465 0.1004 1.6803 2.0096 1.8755 0.1030 1.7055 2.0427 1.8106 0.1083 1.6481 1.9803 1.8465 0.1004 1.6794 2.0086 1.8540 0.1028 1.6873 2.0241
Normal 0.44 0.05 0.4399 0.0498 0.3578 0.5209 0.4100 0.0531 0.3237 0.4983 0.4585 0.0500 0.3770 0.5402 0.4388 0.0498 0.3560 0.5203 0.4288 0.0528 0.3435 0.5170
Normal 1.00 0.10 0.9998 0.1000 0.8374 1.1695 0.9998 0.1000 0.8333 1.1625 1.0009 0.1000 0.8358 1.1661 0.9994 0.1000 0.8346 1.1635 1.0010 0.1000 0.8354 1.1612
iBeta 0.50 0.05 0.6005 0.0519 0.5181 0.6843 0.6121 0.0507 0.5294 0.6949 0.5875 0.0538 0.5022 0.6735 0.5988 0.0520 0.5160 0.6838 0.6028 0.0523 0.5194 0.6883
Normal 3.50 0.20 3.4258 0.1981 3.1020 3.7526 3.3998 0.2009 3.0677 3.7269 3.4246 0.2026 3.0852 3.7416 3.4280 0.1988 3.1048 3.7617 3.4208 0.1994 3.0879 3.7408
xNormal 1.50 0.20 1.4118 0.2037 1.0724 1.7369 1.3933 0.2023 1.0582 1.7226 1.4305 0.2041 1.1101 1.7693 1.4197 0.2019 1.0952 1.7542 1.4129 0.2025 1.0782 1.7435
kNormal 0.50 0.20 0.6193 0.2134 0.2731 0.9737 0.4643 0.2725 0.0923 0.8320 0.4201 0.2019 0.0863 0.7450 0.3505 0.2323 -0.0116 0.7269
6Normal 0.50 0.20 0.5621 0.2212 0.2065 0.9204
Normal 0.31 0.10 0.3082 0.0998 0.1425 0.4711 0.3076 0.0998 0.1421 0.4716 0.3110 0.0999 0.1484 0.4739 0.3084 0.0999 0.1432 0.4703 0.3070 0.0998 0.1442 0.4725
sNormal 1.00 0.50 2.0798 0.2858 1.6270 2.5183 2.0830 0.2694 1.6330 2.5265 2.0754 0.2974 1.6309 2.5201 2.0806 0.2885 1.6297 2.5169 2.0794 0.2652 1.6286 2.5167
ms Beta 0.50 0.10 0.1617 0.0420 0.0958 0.2299 0.1595 0.0398 0.0928 0.2244 0.1654 0.0428 0.0961 0.2330 0.1622 0.0418 0.0949 0.2286 0.1610 0.0411 0.0922 0.2254
aBeta 0.75 0.10 0.9398 0.0217 0.9044 0.9753 0.9333 0.0234 0.8955 0.9720 0.9442 0.0202 0.9112 0.9779 0.9399 0.0209 0.9051 0.9757 0.9378 0.0216 0.9019 0.9750
uBeta 0.75 0.10 0.9543 0.0267 0.9307 0.9775 0.9423 0.0151 0.9140 0.9722 0.9638 0.0279 0.9446 0.9842 0.9557 0.0142 0.9341 0.9785 0.9515 0.0165 0.9255 0.9777
iBeta 0.15 0.01 0.1567 0.0104 0.1397 0.1736 0.1569 0.0104 0.1398 0.1739 0.1562 0.0104 0.1391 0.1729 0.1567 0.0104 0.1397 0.1736 0.1568 0.0104 0.1397 0.1738
pBeta 0.75 0.10 0.7656 0.0832 0.6390 0.8979 0.7492 0.0902 0.6186 0.8851 0.7815 0.0763 0.6592 0.9077 0.7659 0.0791 0.6409 0.8956 0.7605 0.0851 0.6335 0.8949
nBeta 0.75 0.10 0.8342 0.0520 0.7526 0.9191 0.8405 0.0510 0.7601 0.9235 0.8289 0.0528 0.7445 0.9156 0.8337 0.0508 0.7516 0.9179 0.8368 0.0509 0.7553 0.9222
aInvgamma 0.02 2.00 0.0071 0.0007 0.0058 0.0082 0.0068 0.0007 0.0056 0.0080 0.0073 0.0008 0.0061 0.0085 0.0071 0.0007 0.0058 0.0082 0.0070 0.0007 0.0058 0.0082
uInvgamma 0.02 2.00 0.1063 0.0454 0.0592 0.1520 0.0986 0.0200 0.0563 0.1417 0.1124 0.0585 0.0612 0.1635 0.1081 0.0279 0.0609 0.1566 0.1052 0.0280 0.0597 0.1521
iInvgamma 0.02 2.00 0.0290 0.0046 0.0211 0.0368 0.0258 0.0042 0.0182 0.0331 0.0341 0.0061 0.0240 0.0438 0.0314 0.0052 0.0226 0.0400 0.0300 0.0055 0.0203 0.0392
pInvgamma 0.02 2.00 0.0164 0.0027 0.0118 0.0209 0.0164 0.0026 0.0118 0.0209 0.0166 0.0028 0.0119 0.0210 0.0164 0.0026 0.0118 0.0208 0.0164 0.0025 0.0118 0.0209
nInvgamma 0.02 2.00 0.0169 0.0018 0.0139 0.0199 0.0174 0.0018 0.0143 0.0204 0.0166 0.0018 0.0135 0.0195 0.0169 0.0018 0.0139 0.0199 0.0171 0.0018 0.0140 0.0201
Acceptation rate 2[0:18; 0:19] Acceptation rate 2[0:21; 0:22] Acceptation rate 2[0:15; 0:16] Acceptation rate 2[0:21; 0:22] Acceptation rate 2[0:20; 0:21]
Log data density: -437.29 Log data density: -435.91 Log data density: -438.51 Log data density: -438.74 Log data density: -438.14
Table 2: Bayesian estimation of the model
17
(see Table 1), and the Bayesian estimation of the model with a productive-
money gap (k= 2) yields the higher log marginal density (-435.91).
A robustness test regarding the numerical maximization of the posterior
kernel is also conducted and indicates that the optimization procedure leads
to a robust maximum for the posterior kernel. The convergence of the pro-
posed distribution to the target distribution is satis…ed. A diagnosis of the
overall convergence for the Metropolis-Hastings sampling algorithm is pro-
vided in Appendix Dand, following Ratto (2008), all estimations are stable.
3.4 Simulations
3.4.1 Impulse response functions
Appendix Cpresents the responses of key variables to structural shocks for
each k.
In response to a preference shock, the in‡ation rate, output, output gap,
rm real money balances, nominal interest rate, and real interest rate rise,
whereas household real money holdings display a little undershooting process
in the …rst few periods, then return to their steady-state value.
After a technology shock, the output gap, in‡ation rate, nominal interest
rate, …rm real money balances, and real interest rates decrease, whereas
output and household real money balances rise.
In response to an interest rate shock, the in‡ation rate, output, and
output gap fall. Interest rates and …rm money demand rise. A positive
monetary policy shock induces a fall in interest rates due to a su¢ ciently
low degree of intertemporal substitution (i.e., the risk aversion parameter is
su¢ ciently high), which generates a high-impact response of current relative
to future consumption. This result has been noted in inter alia,Jeanne
(1994), and Christiano et al. (1997).
Following a shock in the money demand of …rms, interest rates, the output
gap, and the real money holdings of …rms decrease, whereas in‡ation and the
real money holdings of households increase. These impulse response functions
are similar to Smets and Wouters (2003) with regard to output, in‡ation, and
interest rates. However, the responses following a shock in the money demand
of households depends on the model speci…cation (see Appendix C).
3.4.2 Variance decompositions
The analysis is conducted via unconditional and conditional variance decom-
positions (see Table 3) to compare the impact of shocks on variables across
the models and over time.
18
For all models, most of the long-run variance in output comes from the
technology shock (around 75%), about one-quarter of the output variance re-
sults from the interest rate shock (around 5-20%) and the remaining quarter
occurs due to the other shocks. In the short run, most of the output variance
comes from the monetary policy shock (around 63%), whereas around 28% is
a result of the technology shock. The money demand of …rms impacts output
variance (and its ‡exible-price counterpart) due to the form of the produc-
tion function (Eq. 7). Although we do not add a constant return-to-scale
restriction to the production function, we know that such a restriction should
also attribute a larger role to real money demand in explaining the variances
of output and its ‡exible-price counterpart (Benchimol,2011). However, in
the short run, the share of ‡exible-price output variance explained by the
shock in the money demand of …rms is important (around 24%). This role
decreases over longer horizons (to around 8%) and is in line with Moghaddam
(2010). However, we must temper this result by the fact that we do not have
a money supply shock in our framework, which is similar to the frameworks
found in the literature (Benhabib et al.,2001;Ireland,2004;Andrés et al.,
2009;Benchimol and Fourçans,2012;Benchimol,2014).
A look at the conditional and unconditional ination variance decompo-
sitions shows the overwhelming role of the interest rate shock, which explains
more than 92% of ination rate variance in the short run. This role decreases
over time, whereas the role of the preference shock increases from around 6%
in the short run to around 20% in the long run (except for k= 2). The other
shocks play a minor role in in‡ation variance.
The variance of the nominal interest rate is dominated in the short run by
the direct interest rate shock (monetary policy shock), whereas the preference
shock does not play a signi…cant role. The relative importance of each of
these shocks changes over time. For longer horizons, there is an inversion
over timethe preference shock explains almost 75% of the nominal interest
rate variance, whereas the interest rate shock explains less than 21%.
Table 3shows that the demands for real money are mainly explained by
the money, technology, and interest rate shocks. In the short run, variance
in the money demand of …rms is essentially determined by its correspond-
ing shock (around 68%) as well as that in the money demand of house-
holds (around 25%). However, the variance in household money demand is
mainly driven by the interest rate shock (around 50%), its corresponding
shock (around 25%), and the technology shock (around 15%). In the long
run, variance in the money demand of …rms is also driven by its correspond-
ing shock (around 60%) and the households’money demand shock (around
30%) and the …rms’money demand variance decomposition changes. The
latter is mainly driven, in the long run, by the technology shock (around
19
Quarter 1 (k= 1) Quarter 1 (k= 2) Quarter 1 (k= 3) Quarter 1 (k= 4) Quarter 1 (k= 5)
a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t
yt27.99 1.20 63.45 7.36 0.00 27.69 1.73 63.66 6.91 0.01 29.64 0.66 62.17 7.53 0.00 28.18 0.93 63.68 7.21 0.00 28.14 1.13 63.68 7.05 0.00
t0.14 6.42 93.04 0.40 0.00 0.75 5.82 92.37 0.96 0.10 0.00 5.90 93.96 0.13 0.01 0.13 5.50 94.05 0.32 0.00 0.22 5.69 93.62 0.46 0.00
it0.42 19.31 78.83 1.44 0.00 1.01 21.62 75.25 2.10 0.03 0.14 15.36 83.55 0.95 0.00 0.39 17.13 81.26 1.22 0.00 0.51 18.63 79.31 1.55 0.00
mpp;t 0.56 0.15 4.26 69.92 25.12 0.51 0.13 3.48 70.31 25.57 0.64 0.15 5.09 68.96 25.17 0.62 0.15 4.74 69.42 25.08 0.62 0.15 4.55 68.98 25.71
mpn;t 15.23 0.00 53.10 4.65 27.02 15.13 0.02 50.70 4.43 29.73 15.90 0.02 54.14 4.64 25.30 15.36 0.00 54.10 4.52 26.02 15.37 0.00 53.23 4.50 26.90
yf
t75.16 0.00 0.00 24.84 0.00 74.16 0.00 0.00 25.84 0.00 77.19 0.00 0.00 22.81 0.00 76.30 0.00 0.00 23.70 0.00 75.70 0.00 0.00 24.30 0.00
mpf
p;t 1.44 0.00 0.00 72.05 26.51 1.41 0.00 0.00 71.29 27.30 1.58 0.00 0.00 72.14 26.28 1.48 0.00 0.00 71.84 26.67 1.50 0.00 0.00 71.22 27.28
mpf
n;t 35.47 0.00 0.00 13.96 50.57 33.12 0.00 0.00 14.14 52.74 38.42 0.00 0.00 13.16 48.41 36.29 0.00 0.00 13.23 50.49 35.43 0.00 0.00 13.71 50.87
t0.00 0.00 0.00 96.28 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.52 3.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.26 3.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.28 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.27 3.73
Quarter 4 (k= 1) Quarter 4 (k= 2) Quarter 4 (k= 3) Quarter 4 (k= 4) Quarter 4 (k= 5)
a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t
yt52.21 0.70 37.41 9.68 0.00 52.09 1.01 38.12 8.77 0.01 54.11 0.37 35.40 10.11 0.00 52.49 0.54 37.27 9.70 0.00 52.67 0.66 37.59 9.08 0.00
t0.23 10.82 88.50 0.45 0.00 1.41 8.28 89.03 1.08 0.19 0.01 11.57 88.25 0.14 0.02 0.21 9.64 89.77 0.37 0.00 0.41 9.43 89.64 0.52 0.01
it1.07 50.30 46.28 2.36 0.00 2.43 52.70 41.79 3.03 0.05 0.39 44.01 53.79 1.80 0.01 1.05 46.75 50.04 2.16 0.00 1.31 49.10 47.10 2.49 0.00
mpp;t 0.89 0.53 2.12 68.50 27.95 0.87 0.52 1.84 66.25 30.52 0.96 0.46 2.38 69.69 26.50 0.96 0.48 2.28 68.63 27.64 1.01 0.54 2.29 66.53 29.63
mpn;t 27.66 0.96 30.40 6.04 34.95 26.83 0.93 28.40 5.37 38.47 29.09 0.86 30.95 6.35 32.75 27.93 0.90 30.83 6.02 34.33 27.79 0.93 30.24 5.68 35.36
yf
t82.34 0.00 0.00 17.66 0.00 82.46 0.00 0.00 17.54 0.00 83.07 0.00 0.00 16.93 0.00 82.73 0.00 0.00 17.27 0.00 83.14 0.00 0.00 16.86 0.00
mpf
p;t 2.12 0.00 0.00 68.79 29.08 2.13 0.00 0.00 65.66 32.21 2.25 0.00 0.00 70.67 27.08 2.12 0.00 0.00 69.00 28.88 2.23 0.00 0.00 66.83 30.95
mpf
n;t 43.13 0.00 0.00 11.02 45.86 39.91 0.00 0.00 10.40 49.70 46.50 0.00 0.00 10.99 42.52 43.51 0.00 0.00 10.65 45.84 42.72 0.00 0.00 10.44 46.84
t0.00 0.00 0.00 95.75 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.58 4.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.07 3.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.82 4.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.53 4.47
Quarter 1(k= 1) Quarter 1(k= 2) Quarter 1(k= 3) Quarter 1(k= 4) Quarter 1(k= 5)
a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t a;t u;t i;t p;t n;t
yt75.42 0.36 18.51 5.70 0.00 73.71 0.55 20.40 5.33 0.01 78.20 0.18 15.87 5.75 0.00 75.88 0.28 18.07 5.77 0.00 75.82 0.34 18.59 5.25 0.00
t0.41 21.60 77.57 0.41 0.00 2.73 13.08 82.92 1.03 0.23 0.05 28.85 70.95 0.12 0.02 0.40 20.68 78.57 0.35 0.00 0.79 18.83 79.89 0.48 0.01
it1.47 77.71 19.58 1.23 0.00 3.33 75.69 19.31 1.64 0.03 0.55 77.30 21.21 0.94 0.00 1.48 76.08 21.27 1.17 0.00 1.82 76.83 20.06 1.28 0.00
mpp;t 2.13 1.70 1.71 64.49 29.98 1.93 1.48 1.51 60.49 34.59 2.41 1.72 1.84 67.12 26.91 2.28 1.59 1.79 64.77 29.57 2.39 1.74 1.84 61.34 32.69
mpn;t 47.69 2.78 17.88 4.25 27.41 43.79 2.44 17.41 3.75 32.61 51.89 2.75 17.08 4.46 23.82 48.24 2.63 17.79 4.28 27.06 47.42 2.69 17.65 3.89 28.36
yf
t92.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 91.63 0.00 0.00 8.37 0.00 92.65 0.00 0.00 7.35 0.00 92.14 0.00 0.00 7.86 0.00 92.51 0.00 0.00 7.49 0.00
mpf
p;t 4.88 0.00 0.00 64.15 30.96 4.48 0.00 0.00 59.34 36.18 5.50 0.00 0.00 67.26 27.24 4.86 0.00 0.00 64.49 30.65 5.10 0.00 0.00 61.03 33.88
mpf
n;t 62.67 0.00 0.00 6.49 30.84 56.28 0.00 0.00 6.30 37.42 68.11 0.00 0.00 6.27 25.62 62.94 0.00 0.00 6.30 30.76 61.63 0.00 0.00 6.01 32.36
t0.00 0.00 0.00 95.18 4.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.56 5.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.86 4.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.28 4.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.68 5.32
Table 3: Variance decompositions
20
45%), its corresponding shock (around 23-32%), and the interest rate shock
(around 17%).
It is also interesting to note that the same type of analysis applies to the
exible-price output variance decomposition. The technology shock, with a
weight of around 91%, is the main explanatory factor of long-run variance in
exible-price output. In shorter time frames, ‡exible-price output variance is
mainly explained by the shocks in technology (around 75%) and …rm money
demand. As previously explained, this result is attributable to the functional
form of the production function.
Although ‡exible-price real money demand of …rms is mainly impacted
by money shocks (regardless of the time horizon), ‡exible-price real money
demand of households is mainly driven by the technology shock in the long
run (around 56%-68%) and its corresponding shock, whereas in the short
run, it is mainly driven by its corresponding shock (household real money
demand shock).
4 Interpretation
Do increases in the real money supply increase the productive capacity of
the economy? Empirical and theoretical papers, ranging from Sinai and
Stokes (1972) to Benchimol (2011), have attempted to answer this question
by including real balances in an estimated aggregate production function.
Estimates of the output elasticity of real money, using various de…nitions of
money and various methods, range from about 0.02 to about 1.0 (Startz,
1984). Since the growth rate of real money balances is generally between
plus or minus seven percent per annum, these elasticity estimates suggest
that ‡uctuations in the real money supply can explain increases in aggregate
supply on the order of statistical noise in our case. The output elasticity of
real money balances is equal to 0.016 in our best model speci…cation (k= 2).
For all k, our results are at least ten times lower than those of Sinai and
Stokes (1972,1975,1989) and Short (1979).
In our study, we do not assume constant returns to scale: our production
function speci…cation follows the hypothesis of Khan and Ahmad (1985)–
decreasing return-to-scale hypothesis. This hypothesis gives by-construction
no in‡uence on money in the dynamics of the variables, despite its intro-
duction into the production function8. However, because of the Cobb and
8Following Benchimol (2011), the decreasing returns to scale hypothesis is preferred
over the constant returns to scale hypothesis. We do not follow the hypothesis of Short
(1979), Startz (1984), Benzing (1989), and Chang (2002) of constant returns to scale for
money in the production function.
21
Douglas (1928) assumption about the formulation of the production function,
and even if the elasticity of the real money holdings of …rms is attributed
to statistical noise, the money demand of …rms could impact at least output
dynamics.
The simulations (see Table 3and Appendix C) are close to those obtained
in the literature and provide interesting results regarding the potential e¤ect
of money on output and ‡exible-price output under two di¤erent money
demands (household and …rm).
Interestingly, and even if money enters into the in‡ation equation, money
shocks have almost no ect on the variance decomposition of in‡ation. This
result is common in the literature on money in a non-separable utility func-
tion (Ireland,2004;Andrés et al.,2009;Benchimol and Fourçans,2012).
Moreover, the estimated velocity means are in line with Carrillo et al. (2007)
and do not change across models (see Appendix E).
Another interesting result is that the shock on …rm money demand has
an important in‡uence on ‡exible-price output and in the Taylor rule. The
estimated contribution of …rms’money holdings in our money-augmented
Taylor rule (k= 2) seems to be signi…cant: this means that this shock could
potentially impact monetary policy. This result does not mean that we should
target …rm money demand. It only tells us that this variable could be taken
into account for policy analysis. Because …rm money holding shocks impact
macroeconomic variable dynamics in our framework, monetary policy should
pay particular attention to the money demand of …rms.
5 Conclusion
One of the most unsettled issues of the postwar economic literature involves
the role of money as a factor of production. The notion of money as a
factor of production has been debated both theoretically and empirically by
a number of researchers in the past …ve decades. The question is whether
money is an omitted variable in the production process.
In parallel, New Keynesian DSGE theory, combined with Bayesian analy-
sis, has become increasingly popular in the academic literature and in policy
analysis. The unique contribution of this paper is to build and test a micro-
founded New Keynesian DSGE model that includes money in the production
function. We depart from the existing theoretical and empirical literature by
building a New Keynesian DSGE model à la Galí (2008) that includes money
in the production function, and, as a consequence, in the in‡ation equation
(Phillips curve). Closing the model leads to the new concept of ‡exible-price
real money balances presented by Benchimol and Fourçans (2012).
22
Empirical support for money as an input along with labor has been mixed;
thus, the issue appears to be unsettled. This paper, as in Benhabib et al.
(2001), di¤erentiates between money demanded by households and …rms.
This distinction between money that is used for productive and nonproduc-
tive purposes seems to be warranted. By testing our models with Bayesian
techniques under di¤erent monetary policy rules, we show that even if the
weight of real money balances in the production function is very low, the
rm money shock has an important in‡uence on ‡exible-price output and a
signi…cant impact on output. Part of this in‡uence comes from the functional
form of the production function (non-separability between money holdings
and working hours).
With respect to our estimation of the weight of money in the production
function, real money balances could be excluded from the production process.
However, considering this hypothesis of money in the production function
highlights the signi…cant role of the …rm money shock. Incorporating the
real money balances variable as a factor input in a production function–in
order to capture the productivity gains derived from using money–could lead
to important monetary policy implications.
6 Appendix
A Optimization problem
Our Lagrangian is given by
Lt=Et"1
X
k=0
k(Ut+kt+kVt+k)#;
where
Vt=Ct+Mn;t
Pt
+Mp;t
Pt
+Qt
Bt
Pt
Bt1
Pt
Wt
Pt
Nt
and
Ut=e"u
t C1
t
1+e"n
t
1Mn;t
Pt1
N1+
t
1 + !:
The …rst-order condition related to consumption expenditures is given by
t=e"u
tC
t;(51)
where tis the Lagrangian multiplier associated with the budget constraint
at time t.
23
The …rst-order condition corresponding to the demand for contingent
bonds implies that
tQt=Ett+1
Pt
Pt+1 :(52)
The demand for cash held for nonproduction purposes that follows from
the household optimization problem is given by
e"u
te"n
tMn;t
Pt
=tEtt+1
Pt
Pt+1 ;(53)
which can be naturally interpreted as a demand for real balances. The latter
is increasing in consumption and is inversely related to the nominal interest
rate, as in conventional speci…cations.
Working hours following the household optimization problem are given
by
e"u
tN
t=t
Wt
Pt
:(54)
From Eq. 51, we obtain
t=e"u
tC
t,Uc;t =e"u
tC
t;(55)
where Uc;t =@Uk;t
@Ct+kk=0. Eq. 55 de…nes the marginal utility of consumption.
Hence, the optimal consumption/savings, real money balance, and labor
supply decisions are described by the following conditions:
Combining Eq. 51 with Eq. 52 yields
Qt=Ete"u
t+1 C
t+1
e"u
tC
t
Pt
Pt+1 ,Qt=EtUc;t+1
Uc;t
Pt
Pt+1 ;(56)
where Uc;t+1 =@Uk;t
@Ct+kk=1. Eq. 56 is the usual Euler equation for in-
tertemporal consumption ‡ows. It establishes that the ratio of marginal
utility of future and current consumption is equal to the inverse of the
real interest rate.
Combining Eq. 51 and Eq. 53 yields
e"n
t
C
tMn;t
Pt
= 1 Qt,Um;t
Uc;t
= 1 Qt;(57)
where Um;t =@Uk;t
@(Mn;t+k=Pt+k)k=0
. Eq. 57 is the intertemporal optimality
condition setting the marginal rate of substitution between money and
consumption equal to the opportunity cost of holding money.
24
Combining Eq. 51 and Eq. 54 yields
N
t
C
t
=Wt
Pt
,Un;t
Uc;t
=Wt
Pt
;(58)
where Un;t =@Uk;t
@Nt+kk=0. Eq. 58 is the condition for the optimal
consumption-leisure arbitrage, implying that the marginal rate of sub-
stitution between consumption and labor is equal to the real wage.
25
B Priors and posteriors
00.5 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.04
0
10
20
01.36
0
2
4
01.85
0
1
2
3
00.44
0
2
4
6
8
0 1
0
1
2
3
00.31 0.62
0
1
2
3
02.08 4.16
0
0.5
1
00.2 0.4 0.6
0
2
4
6
8
00.6
0
2
4
6
03.43
0
0.5
1
1.5
01.41 2.82
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.94
0
5
10
15
00.95
0
10
20
00.16
0
10
20
30
00.77
0
2
4
00.83
0
2
4
6
00.05 0.1
0
200
400
00.5
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
20
40
60
80
00.05 0.1
0
50
100
00.05 0.1
0
100
200
Figure 1: Priors and posteriors of the estimated parameters (k= 1).
26
00.5 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.03
0
10
20
01.4
0
2
4
01.88
0
1
2
3
00.41 0.82
0
2
4
6
0 1
0
1
2
3
00.31 0.62
0
1
2
3
02.08 4.16
0
0.5
1
00.2 0.4 0.6
0
2
4
6
8
00.61
0
2
4
6
03.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
01.39 2.78
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.93
0
5
10
15
00.94
0
10
20
00.16
0
10
20
30
00.75
0
2
4
00.84
0
2
4
6
00.05 0.1
0
200
400
00.2
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
20
40
60
80
00.05 0.1
0
50
100
00.05 0.1
0
100
200
Figure 2: Priors and posteriors of the estimated parameters (k= 2).
27
00.5 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.02 0.04
0
20
40
01.33
0
2
4
01.81
0
1
2
3
00.46
0
2
4
6
8
0 1
0
1
2
3
00.31 0.62
0
2
4
02.08 4.16
0
0.5
1
00.2 0.4 0.6
0
2
4
6
8
00.59
0
2
4
6
03.42
0
0.5
1
1.5
01.43 2.86
0
1
2
0 1 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.94
0
5
10
15
00.96
0
10
20
30
00.16
0
10
20
30
00.78
0
2
4
00.83
0
2
4
6
00.05 0.1
0
200
400
00.2 0.4
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
50
100
00.05 0.1
0
100
200
Figure 3: Priors and posteriors of the estimated parameters (k= 3).
28
00.5 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.010.020.030.040.05
0
20
40
01.36
0
2
4
01.85
0
1
2
3
00.44
0
2
4
6
8
0 1
0
1
2
3
00.31 0.62
0
1
2
3
02.08 4.16
0
0.5
1
00.2 0.4 0.6
0
2
4
6
8
00.6
0
2
4
6
03.43
0
0.5
1
1.5
01.42 2.84
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.94
0
5
10
15
00.96
0
10
20
00.16
0
10
20
30
00.77
0
2
4
00.83
0
2
4
6
00.05 0.1
0
200
400
00.2 0.4
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
50
100
00.05 0.1
0
100
200
Figure 4: Priors and posteriors of the estimated parameters (k= 4).
29
00.5 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.02 0.04
0
10
20
30
01.37
0
2
4
01.85
0
1
2
3
00.43
0
2
4
6
0 1
0
1
2
3
00.31 0.62
0
1
2
3
02.08 4.16
0
0.5
1
00.2 0.4 0.6
0
2
4
6
8
00.6
0
2
4
6
03.42
0
1
2
01.41 2.82
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
00.94
0
5
10
15
00.95
0
10
20
00.16
0
10
20
30
00.76
0
2
4
00.84
0
2
4
6
00.05 0.1
0
200
400
00.2 0.4
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
20
40
60
00.05 0.1
0
50
100
00.05 0.1
0
100
200
Figure 5: Priors and posteriors of the estimated parameters (k= 5).
30
C Impulse response functions
-0.04
-0.02
0
Technology
shock
Inflation (%)
0
0.5
1
Output (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Nominal interest
rate (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Real interest
rate (%)
-0.02
-0.01
0
Output
gap (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0
Firms'
real money (%)
0
0.5
1
Households'
real money (%)
020 40
-1
0
1
Total money
velocity
Quarters
0
0.2
0.4
Preference
shock
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.5
1
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
020 40
-1
0
1
Quarters
-2
-10
Interest
rate shock
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
0
1
2
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
-2
-10
020 40
-10
1
Quarters
-0.1
-0.05
0
Firms' money
demand shock
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.05
0
-4
-20
0
0.5
1
020 40
0
2
4
Quarters
-1
0
1
Households' money
demand shock
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
-2
-1
0
0
1
2
020 40
0
0.5
1
Quarters
Figure 6: Impulse response function (k= 1)
31
-0.1
-0.05
0
Technology
shock
Inflation (%)
0
0.5
1
Output (%)
-0.2
-0.1
0
Nominal interest
rate (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Real interest
rate (%)
-0.04
-0.02
0
Output
gap (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0
Firms'
real money (%)
0
0.5
1
Households'
real money (%)
020 40
-1
0
1
Total money
velocity
Quarters
0
0.2
0.4
Preference
shock
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.5
1
0
0.5
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
020 40
-1
0
1
Quarters
-1
-0.5
0
Interest
rate shock
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
0
1
2
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
-2
-10
020 40
-10
1
Quarters
-0.2
-0.1
0
Firms' money
demand shock
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.05
0
-4
-20
0
0.5
020 40
0
2
4
Quarters
-0.04
-0.02
0
Households' money
demand shock
-0.02
-0.01
0
-0.02
-0.01
0
0
0.005
0.01
-0.02
-0.01
0
-2
-1
0
0
1
2
020 40
0
0.5
1
Quarters
Figure 7: Impulse response function (k= 2)
32
0
0.005
0.01
Technology
shock
Inflation (%)
0
0.5
1
Output (%)
-0.04
-0.02
0
Nominal interest
rate (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Real interest
rate (%)
-0.01
0
0.01
Output
gap (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0
Firms'
real money (%)
0
0.5
1
Households'
real money (%)
020 40
-1
0
1
Total money
velocity
Quarters
0
0.2
0.4
Preference
shock
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.5
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
020 40
-1
0
1
Quarters
-2
-10
Interest
rate shock
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
0
1
2
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
-2
-10
020 40
-10
1
Quarters
-0.04
-0.02
0
Firms' money
demand shock
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.05
0
-0.04
-0.02
0
-4
-20
0
0.5
1
020 40
0
2
4
Quarters
0
0.01
0.02
Households' money
demand shock
0
5x 10-3
0
0.005
0.01
-4
-2
0x 10-3
0
5x 10-3
-2
-1
0
0
1
2
020 40
0
0.5
1
Quarters
Figure 8: Impulse response function (k= 3)
33
-0.04
-0.02
0
Technology
shock
Inflation (%)
0
0.5
1
Output (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Nominal interest
rate (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Real interest
rate (%)
-0.02
-0.01
0
Output
gap (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0
Firms'
real money (%)
0
0.5
1
Households'
real money (%)
020 40
-1
0
1
Total money
velocity
Quarters
0
0.2
0.4
Preference
shock
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.5
1
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
020 40
-1
0
1
Quarters
-2
-10
Interest
rate shock
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
0
1
2
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
-2
-10
020 40
-10
1
Quarters
-0.1
-0.05
0
Firms' money
demand shock
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.05
0
-0.04
-0.02
0
-4
-20
0
0.5
1
020 40
0
2
4
Quarters
-1
0
1
Households' money
demand shock
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
-2
-1
0
0
1
2
020 40
0
0.5
1
Quarters
Figure 9: Impulse response function (k= 4)
34
-0.04
-0.02
0
Technology
shock
Inflation (%)
0
0.5
1
Output (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Nominal interest
rate (%)
-0.1
-0.05
0
Real interest
rate (%)
-0.04
-0.02
0
Output
gap (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0
Firms'
real money (%)
0
0.5
1
Households'
real money (%)
020 40
-1
0
1
Total money
velocity
Quarters
0
0.2
0.4
Preference
shock
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.5
1
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
020 40
-1
0
1
Quarters
-2
-10
Interest
rate shock
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
0
1
2
-1
-0.5
0
0
0.5
1
-2
-10
020 40
-10
1
Quarters
-0.1
-0.05
0
Firms' money
demand shock
0
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.05
0
-4
-20
0
0.5
020 40
0
2
4
Quarters
-0.01
-0.005
0
Households' money
demand shock
-4
-2
0x 10-3
-4
-2
0x 10-3
0
1
2x 10-3
-4
-2
0x 10-3
-2
-1
0
0
1
2
020 40
0
0.5
1
Quarters
Figure 10: Impulse response function (k= 5)
35
D Robustness checks
Each graph represents speci…c convergence measures through two distinct
lines that show the results within (red line) and between (blue line) chains
(Geweke,1999). Those measures are related to the analysis of the model
parameter means (intervals), variances (m2), and third moments (m3). For
each of the three measures, convergence requires both lines to become rela-
tively horizontal and converge toward each other in both models9.
6
8
10 First moment
5
10
15 Second moment
0
50
100 Third moment
7
8
9
5
10
15
0
50
100
7
8
9
8
10
12
0
50
100
6
8
10
5
10
15
0
50
100
0 1 2 3
x 105
6
8
10
Iterations 0 1 2 3
x 105
5
10
15
Iterations 0 1 2 3
x 105
0
50
100
Iterations
Figure 11: Metropolis-Hastings’convergence diagnostics
9Robustness analysis with respect to calibrated parameters is available upon request.
36
E Macro parameters
k= 1 k= 2 k= 3 k= 4 k= 5
y
a1,0397 1,0321 1,0496 1,0398 1,0378
y
p0,0443 0,0308 0,0233 0,0152 0,0256
y
m-0,2145 -0,2273 -0,2390 -0,2446 -0,2337
y
c-1,0445 -1,1319 -1,2286 -1,3251 -1,1871
1,3610 1,3388 1,3644 1,3606 1,3518
a20,7828 0,7700 0,7847 0,7826 0,7775
m+ca2
-0,1534 -0,0984 -0,1882 -0,1516 -0,1332
1
0,7370 0,7138 0,7535 0,7368 0,7291
x0,6561 0,6943 0,6743 0,6819 0,6850
m0,1407 0,1578 0,1611 0,1668 0,1601
1
0,5415 0,5331 0,5523 0,5415 0,5393
c
0,0040 0,0039 0,0041 0,0040 0,0040
a2
0,4239 0,4105 0,4334 0,4238 0,4193
m
-0,1566 -0,1014 -0,1915 -0,1547 -0,1363
i0,6005 0,6121 0,5874 0,5987 0,6027
(1 i)1,3685 1,3187 1,4127 1,3753 1,3588
x(1 i)0,5640 0,5404 0,5901 0,5695 0,5612
k(1 i)0,2402 0,1915 0,1685 0,1392
6(1 i)0,2232
exp ()1,3609 1,3602 1,3647 1,3612 1,3593
sms 0,3363 0,3322 0,3433 0,3374 0,3347
s(1 ms)1,7434 1,7506 1,7321 1,7431 1,7446
Table 4: Macroparameter values
37
References
Adolfson, M., Laséen, S., Lindé, J., Villani, M., 2007. Bayesian estimation of
an open economy DSGE model with incomplete pass-through. Journal of
International Economics 72 (2), 481–511.
Adolfson, M., Laséen, S., Lindé, J., Villani, M., 2008. Evaluating an esti-
mated New Keynesian small open economy model. Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control 32 (8), 2690–2721.
An, S., Schorfheide, F., 2007. Bayesian analysis of DSGE models. Economet-
ric Reviews 26 (2-4), 113–172.
Andrés, J., López-Salido, J. D., Nelson, E., 2009. Money and the natural
rate of interest: structural estimates for the United States and the Euro
area. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 33 (3), 758–776.
Andrés, J., López-Salido, J. D., Vallés, J., 2006. Money in an estimated
business cycle model of the Euro area. Economic Journal 116 (511), 457–
477.
Barthélemy, J., Clerc, L., Marx, M., 2011. A two-pillar DSGE monetary
policy model for the euro area. Economic Modelling 28 (3), 1303–1316.
Basu, S., 1995. Intermediate goods and business cycles: implications for
productivity and welfare. American Economic Review 85 (3), 512–531.
Ben-Zion, U., Ruttan, V., 1975. Money in the production function: an inter-
pretation of empirical results. Review of Economics and Statistics 57 (2),
246–247.
Benchimol, J., 2011. New Keynesian DSGE models, money and risk aversion.
PhD dissertation, UniversitéParis 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.
Benchimol, J., 2014. Risk aversion in the Eurozone. Research in Economics
68 (1), 39–56.
Benchimol, J., Fourçans, A., 2012. Money and risk in a DSGE framework: a
Bayesian application to the Eurozone. Journal of Macroeconomics 34 (1),
95–111.
Benhabib, J., Schmitt-Grohé, S., Uribe, M., 2001. Monetary policy and mul-
tiple equilibria. American Economic Review 91 (1), 167–186.
38
Benk, S., Gillman, M., Kejak, M., 2008. Money velocity in an endogenous
growth business cycle with credit shocks. Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking 40 (6), 1281–1293.
Benzing, C., 1989. An update on money in the production function. Eastern
Economic Journal 15 (3), 235–239.
Calvo, G., 1983. Staggered prices in a utility-maximizing framework. Journal
of Monetary Economics 12 (3), 383–398.
Canova, F., Menz, G., 2011. Does money matter in shaping domestic business
cycles ? An international investigation. Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking 43 (4), 577607.
Carrillo, J., Fève, P., Matheron, J., 2007. Monetary policy inertia or persis-
tent shocks: a DSGE analysis. International Journal of Central Banking
3 (2), 1–38.
Casares, M., 2007. Monetary policy rules in a New Keynesian Euro area
model. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 39 (4), 875–900.
Chang, W., 2002. Examining the long-run ect of money on economic
growth: an alternative view. Journal of Macroeconomics 24 (1), 81–102.
Christiano, L., Eichenbaum, M., Evans, C. L., 1997. Sticky price and limited
participation models of money: a comparison. European Economic Review
41 (6), 12011249.
Christiano, L., Eichenbaum, M., Evans, C. L., 2005. Nominal rigidities and
the dynamic e¤ects of a shock to monetary policy. Journal of Political
Economy 113 (1), 1–45.
Clarida, R., Galí, J., Gertler, M., 1999. The science of monetary policy: a
New Keynesian perspective. Journal of Economic Literature 37 (4), 1661–
1707.
Cobb, C., Douglas, P., 1928. A theory of production. American Economic
Review 18 (1), 139–165.
Fagan, G., Henry, J., Mestre, R., 2001. An Area-Wide Model (AWM) for the
Euro area. Working Paper Series 42, European Central Bank.
Fischer, S., 1974. Money and the production function. Economic Inquiry
12 (4), 517–33.
39
Friedman, M., 1969. Optimum quantity of money. Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub-
lishing Co.
Galí, J., 2008. Monetary policy, in‡ation and the business cycle: an intro-
duction to the New Keynesian framework, 1st Edition. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Gerlach-Kristen, P., 2003. Interest rate reaction functions and the Taylor rule
in the Euro area. Working Paper Series 258, European Central Bank.
Geweke, J., 1999. Using simulation methods for Bayesian econometric mod-
els: inference, development, and communication. Econometric Reviews
18 (1), 1–73.
Hasan, M., Mahmud, S., 1993. Is money an omitted variable in the produc-
tion function ? Some further results. Empirical Economics 18 (3), 431–445.
Ireland, P., 2003. Endogenous money or sticky prices ? Journal of Monetary
Economics 50 (8), 1623–1648.
Ireland, P., 2004. Money’s role in the monetary business cycle. Journal of
Money, Credit and Banking 36 (6), 969–983.
Jeanne, O., 1994. Nominal rigidities and the liquidity e¤ect. Mimeo, ENPC-
CERAS.
Johnson, H., 1969. Inside money, outside money, income, wealth and welfare
in monetary theory. Journal of Money Credit and Banking 1 (1), 30–45.
Khan, A., Ahmad, M., 1985. Real money balances in the production function
of a developing country. Review of Economics and Statistics 67 (2), 336–
340.
Levhari, D., Patinkin, D., 1968. The role of money in a simple growth model.
American Economic Review 58 (4), 713753.
Lothian, J., 2009. Milton Friedmans monetary economics and the quantity-
theory tradition. Journal of International Money and Finance 28 (7), 1086–
1096.
Moghaddam, M., 2010. Co-integrated money in the production function-
evidence and implications. Applied Economics 42 (8), 957963.
Rabanal, P., Rubio-Ramírez, J. F., 2005. Comparing New Keynesian models
of the business cycle: a Bayesian approach. Journal of Monetary Economics
52 (6), 11511166.
40
Ratto, M., 2008. Analysing DSGE models with global sensitivity analysis.
Computational Economics 31 (2), 115–139.
Ravenna, F., Walsh, C. E., 2006. Optimal monetary policy with the cost
channel. Journal of Monetary Economics 53 (2), 199–216.
Sephton, P., 1988. Money in the production function revisited. Applied Eco-
nomics 20 (7), 853–860.
Short, E., 1979. A new look at real money balances as a variable in the
production function. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 11 (3), 326–
339.
Sinai, A., Stokes, H., 1972. Real money balances: an omitted variable from
the production function ? Review of Economics and Statistics 54 (3),
290–296.
Sinai, A., Stokes, H., 1975. Real money balances: an omitted variable from
the production function ? A reply. Review of Economics and Statistics
57 (2), 247–252.
Sinai, A., Stokes, H., 1977. Real money balances as a variable in the produc-
tion function:<