|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Analysis of the relationship between issuing money, inflation and economic growth with the help of the SMR-model
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2019-8-45-66
Abstract
A model of the shifting mode of reproduction (SMR-4), considering inflation as an endogenous phenomenon, has been built. A new approach to explaining the non-neutrality of money in the short and long term has been proposed. Scenario calculations were performed using the SMR-4 model. The main theoretical result: it is shown that the well-known position on the neutrality of money in the long term is only a special case of the economy’s response to issuing money. Depending on the income indexation coefficient (w), issuing money in the long run can generate growth without inflation, can generate both growth and inflation at the same time, finally, it can lead to inflation against the background of a recession (stagflation). Using the SMR-4 model, it is shown that the preservation of restrictive monetary policy in Russia for the period up to 2022 can be explained by the overestimated level of the coefficient w. The latter reflects the state of the basic institutions of the economy. The higher it is, the less developed they are. The increased w index indicates a situation where capital owners spend their income on anything but investment in domestic fixed capital. Some measures have been proposed to change this situation.
Keywords
monetary policy,
issuing money,
inflation,
economic growth,
shifting mode of reproduction model,
fixed capital,
income indexation coefficient
JEL: B12; B31; C32; E21; E22; E23; E50
About the Authors
Vladimir I. Mayevsky
Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences; State University of Management
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
Sergey Yu. Malkov
Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
Alexander A. Rubinstein
Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Bank of Russia (2018). Monetary policy guidelines for 2019—2021. Moscow.
2. Glazyev S. Yu. (2015a). Poverty and brilliance of the Russian monetarists. Part 2. Ekonomicheskaya Nauka Sovremennoy Rossii, No. 3 (70), pp. 7—25. (In Russian).
3. Glazyev S. Yu. (2015b). On urgent measures to strengthen the economic security of Russia and the transition of the Russian economy on the trajectory of advanced development. Moscow: Institute of Economic Strategies, Russian Biographical Institute. (In Russian).
4. Davidson Р. (2006). The post Keynesian school. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 8, pp. 82 — 101. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2006-8-82-101
5. Ershov M. V. (2014). On ensuring monetary stability and on new financial mechanisms under conditions of the sanctions regime. Rossiyskiy Ekonomicheskiy Zhurnal, No. 5, pp. 22—30. (In Russian).
6. Ivanter V. V. (ed.) (2016). Recovery of economic growth in Russia: Scientific report. Moscow: Institute for Economic Forecasting, RAS. (In Russian).
7. Kudrin A., Goryunov E., Trunin P. (2017). Stimulating monetary policy: Myths and reality. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 5—28. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-5-5-28
8. Maevsky V. I., Malkov S. Yu. (2014). A new look at the reproduction theory. Moscow: INFRA-M. (In Russian).
9. Mayevsky V., Andryushin S., Malkov S., Rubinstein A. (2016a). Money mechanisms and the shifting mode of reproduction model. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 9, pp. 129—149. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-9-129-149
10. Maevsky V. I., Malkov S. Yu., Rubinstein A. A. (2016b). New theory of capital reproduction: Development and practical application. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istorya. (In Russian).
11. Maevsky V. I., Rubinstein A. A. (2016). Elements of the theory of shifting mode of reproduction and its approbation on US statistics. Vestnik IE RAS, No. 3, pp. 106 — 125. (In Russian).
12. Maevsky V. I., Malkov S. Yu., Rubinstein A. A. (2018a). Analysis of the economic dynamics of the US, the USSR and Russia with the help of the SMR-model. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 7, pp. 82 — 95. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-7-82-95
13. Maevsky V. I., Malkov S. Yu., Rubinstein A. A. (2018b). On the evolution of models of the shifting mode of reproduction. Aktualnye Problemy Ekonomiki i Prava, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 816 — 827. (In Russian).
14. Meadows D., Randers J., Meadows D. (2007). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. Moscow: Akademkniga. (In Russian).
15. Moiseev S. R. (2018). Monetarism’s „renaissance": How the well-known theory lived in 2000 — 2018. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 26 — 44 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-1-26-44
16. Nekipelov A. D. (2019). What macroeconomic policy does Russia need? Paper presented at the meeting of the Economics Section of the Branch of Social Sciences of the RAS, Moscow, MSE MSU, January 30. (In Russian).
17. Romer D. (2015). Advanced macroeconomics. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).
18. Sadovnichiy V. A., Akayev A. A., Korotayev A. V., Malkov S. Yu. (2012). Modelling and forecasting world dynamics. Moscow: Institute of Social and Political Research. (In Russian).
19. Titov B. Yu. et al. (2017). Growth strategy: Medium-term program for the socio-economic development of the country until 2025. Moscow: Stolypin Institute of Economics of Growth. (In Russian).
20. Forrester J. W. (1978). World dynamics. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).
21. Eskindarov M. et al. (2016). Sustainable development of the Russian economy: Improving monetary, currency and fiscal policies. Vestnik Finansovogo Universiteta, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 6—18 (In Russian)
22. Yakunin V. I. et al. (2012). The political dimension of global financial crises. Phenomenology, theory, elimination. Moscow: Nauchnyy Ekspert. (In Russian).
23. Bae S. K., Jensen M. J., Murdock S. G. (2005). Long run neutrality in a fractionally integrated model. Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 257—274.
24. Ball L., Romer D. (1990). Real rigidities and the non-neutrality of money. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 183—203.
25. Diamond P. (1965). National debt in a neoclassical growth model. American Economic Review, Vol. 55, No. 5, Part 1 (Dec.), pp. 1126 — 1150.
26. Habibullah M. S., Puah C. H., Azali M. (2002). Testing long-run neutrality of money in a developing economy. Savings and Development, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 165 — 181.
27. IMF (2018). World economic outlook: Challenges to steady growth. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, October.
28. Kydland F. E., Prescott E. C. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 473—492.
29. Noriega A. E. (2004). Long-run monetary neutrality and the unit-root hypothesis: Further international evidence. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 179 — 197.
30. Puah C. H., Tang M. M. J., Shazali A. M., Brahmana R. (2015). Does money matter in Indonesia? Revisiting Divisia money. Journal of International Finance and Economics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 7—12.
31. Tang M. M. J. (2016). A review of the literature on monetary neutrality. MPRA Paper, No. 70113. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70113/
Review
For citations:
Mayevsky V.I., Malkov S.Yu., Rubinstein A.A. Analysis of the relationship between issuing money, inflation and economic growth with the help of the SMR-model. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2019;(8):45-66. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2019-8-45-66
Views:
1606
Email this article 
