Liquidity is a highly complex phenomenon. Its concrete manifestation is powerfully affected by changes in financial institutions and practices, which have been occurring with extraordinary rapidity in recent decades. It calls for analysis both at the microeconomic and the macroeconomic level, with unusually strong dangers of committing fallacies of composition. It needs to be conceptualized both ex ante and ex post, involving recognition that the latter perspective alone facilitates statistical estimation, while the former is more relevant to transactors’ wealth-holding and expenditure decisions. Together, these factors render extremely difficult a definitive answer to the major policy-related issue, namely the extent to which liquidity weakens the Quantity Theory link between ‘money’ stocks and expenditure flows.
- Gurley, J.G., and E.S. Shaw. 1960. Money in a theory of finance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Hicks, J.R. 1967. Critical essays in monetary theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Newlyn, W.T. 1962. The theory of money. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Report of the Committee on the Working of the Monetary System. 1959. (The Radcliffe report) London: HMSO, Cmnd. 827.Google Scholar
- Sayers, R.S. 1960. Monetary thought and monetary policy in England. Economic Journal 70, December: 710–724.Google Scholar
- Tobin, J. 1963. Commercial banks as creators of ‘money’. In Banking and monetary studies, ed. D. Carson. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar