Taking Intermediation Seriously
Taking Intermediation Seriously
复制标题
认真对待中介
DOI：
10.1353/mcb.2004.0036
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bruce D. Smith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bruce D. Smith
许多现代宏观经济学方法并不重视金融中介。尽管银行活动的各种衡量指标与长期真实的经济活动以及商业周期中发生的事情密切相关，但这一点仍然成立。当然，如果能够证明，这些相关性是在中介活动主要因真实的活动变化而变化（或者换句话说，是“由”这种变化引起的）的背景下产生的，那么，不重视金融中介的宏观经济后果就可以合理化。然而，由于种种原因，对事实的这种解释似乎没有道理。例如，卡梅隆（1967）、金匠（1969）、金和莱文（1969）在一本关于金融中介和长期增长的大型文献中，（1993 a，1993 b），Atje and Jovanovic（1993），Demirguc-Kunt and Levine（1996），and Levine，Loayza，和Beck（2000）已经证明，私人中介借贷的措施与真实的长期增长（或与真实的活动的长期水平）有很强的正相关性。事实上，金和莱文认为，金融中介活动的措施是唯一的变量，承担了一个强大的显着关系，以长期增长的经验。有趣的是，格利和肖（Gurley and Shaw，1955）很早就指出，真实的经济活动的增长促进了金融活动的增长，反之亦然，而且真实的增长和金融发展都是内生的，共同决定的。这似乎是一个有用的概念框架。但是，也许更有趣的是，据我所知，试图讨论真实的增长是否因果地影响金融中介以及相反地影响金融中介的唯一正式实证检验是Levine、Loayza和Beck（2000）的检验。他们认为金融发展会导致增长，但不存在相反方向的经验因果关系。关于商业周期，作为一个受真实的商业周期理论影响的非常年轻的经济学家，我曾经问罗伯特·卢卡斯，有什么证据表明货币因素对商业周期很重要。他引用弗里德曼和
Many modern approaches to macroeconomics attach no significance to financial intermediation. This is true despite the fact that various measures of banking activity are strongly correlated both with long-run real economic activity and with what happens during business cycles. Of course, the failure to attach significance to the macroeconomic consequences of financial intermediation could be rationalized if it had been shown that these correlations arose in a context where intermediary activity changed primarily in response to (or, in other words, was “caused by”) changes in real activity. However, this interpretation of the facts does not seem justified for a variety of reasons. For example, in a large literature on financial intermediation and long-run growth, Cameron (1967), Goldsmith (1969), King and Levine (1993a, 1993b), Atje and Jovanovic (1993), Demirguc-Kunt and Levine (1996), and Levine, Loayza, and Beck (2000) have demonstrated that measures of private intermediary lending are strongly positively correlated with real long-run growth (or with the long-run level of real activity). Indeed, King and Levine argue that measures of financial intermediary activity are the only variables that bear a robustly significant relationship to longrun growth experience. Interestingly, Gurley and Shaw (1955) had argued at a very early point that growth in real activity promoted growth in financial activity and conversely—and that both real growth and financial development were endogenously and jointly determined. This seems like a useful conceptual framework. But, perhaps even more interestingly, the only formal empirical tests, of which I am aware, that attempt to discuss whether real growth affects financial intermediation causally and conversely are by Levine, Loayza, and Beck (2000). They argue that financial development causes growth, but that there is no empirical causality in the opposite direction. With respect to business cycles, as a very young economist influenced by real business cycle theory, I once asked Robert Lucas what the evidence was that monetary factors were important for business cycles. He cited Friedman and
影响因子：
4
作者：
Douglas Gale;M. Hellwig
通讯作者：
Douglas Gale;M. Hellwig