This is opposed to the mainstream exogenous money supply theory: the idea that the central bank has direct control over the money supply and its growth. The latter theory is wrong, and I review that major points of endogenous money below.
I. History and Development of the Endogenous Money Theory
Endogenous money theory can be traced back to the 19th-century Banking school (Wray 1998: 32–33), and to Knut Wicksell and Schumpeter (Howells 2006: 53). The Continental European monetary circuit theorists also supported the idea of endogenous money.
Keynes in the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) treated the money supply as exogenous, but in A Treatise on Money (1930) and his article “Alternative Theories of the Rate of Interest” (Keynes 1937), he had recognised the concept (Arestis 1992: 180). In the latter work, Keynes had stressed the finance motive as a basis of endogenous money (Keynes 1937).
King (2002: 161) contends that Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson were the first to develop the Post Keynesian theory of endogenous money, even if in a somewhat limited and incomplete manner.
Nicholas Kaldor continued to develop the theory in his polemics against monetarism (King 2002: 166–167), and particularly in his now classic book The Scourge of Monetarism (Oxford and New York, 1982).
The fierce debate with monetarists actually inspired Post Keynesians to clarify and formulate a more rigorous endogenous money theory (King 2002: 172). The result was a better theory, but also a debate between so-called “horizontalists” and “verticalists” (see section III below).
II. Endogenous Money
Money in the modern world is mostly credit money. To understand this, we must understand how money is measured.
To take the US as an example, there are two main ways to measure money supply, as follows:
(1) High-powered money (= monetary base, base money, M0)When cheques, debit cards, electronic funds transfer at point of sale cards, or UK “chip and PIN” cards are used in purchases, this is an example of a sale made by means of bank money. Although final clearing between banks is effected by transfers of high powered money (which these days happens much faster than in the past, because of information technology), nevertheless the “bank money” or “demand deposit” money is used extensively in everyday transactions.
The “money base” consists of currency in circulation and bank reserves (both required and excess reserves). The monetary base includes all cash and coins, even vault cash at banks, as well as deposits that banks hold at the Fed (which are reserves).
(2) Broad Money (M1, M2, M3)
M1 includes:(1) currency in circulation outside bank vaults (and also excluding bank reserves),M1 excludes vault cash and bank reserves at the central bank. The largest component in M1 consists of the demand deposits of banks. This used to be called “book money” or “bank money,” and is a form of “credit money.” The demand deposit is simply the debt owed to the bank client by the bank in a mutuum contract (or loan for consumption). The “demand deposit” is the “monetised” debt of the bank: a debt that functions as money. (On M2 and M3, see note below.*)
(2) checking/transactions accounts (or demand deposits) and other checkable accounts, and
(3) travellers checks.
This “demand deposit” money is, as noted above, a major component of the money supply, and it is created by banks in response to the demand for it.
The major factors in money creation are
(1) the new creation of demand deposits by banks when a client “deposits” base money in the bank. The money deposited becomes the property of the bank and then in return the client gets a debt instrument or “demand deposit,” which can also be understood as “bank money”;In conventional theory, base money creation caused by the central bank, via the money multiplier, is seen as the causal mechanism in the movement of the price level.
(2) the creation of demand deposit accounts for those obtaining credit from banks.
The reverse is true:
changes in prices of factor inputs → more demand for credit money from businesses → money supply growth.That this happens before final output is produced misleads economists who think the direction of causation is as follows:
money supply growth → more demand for credit money from businesses → price changesBut Moore’s empirical work showed that changes in the money supply are induced by changes in economic activity (King 2002: 175). If demand for further credit is not met, then economic activity and investment are stifled.
The cause of credit money growth can be related to the various motives for holding money when that money is derived from bank credit:
(1) transactions motive – money is created from credit demand for money for capital goods or consumption goods purchases, or to pay off debt and other obligations (e.g., taxes);Since both default of borrowers and the negative effects of speculation are two major elements that destabilise market economies, it follows that regulating the quality of loans and cutting off the flow of credit to speculators are two main aims of any successful financial regulation.
(2) precautionary motive – money can be created to meet demand for money to hold as a hedge against future uncertainty;
(3) speculative motive – money is created to meet the demand for money to speculate on asset prices; and
(4) finance motive – money is created from the demand for factor inputs for investment, either capital goods or the wage bill for labour.
III. Horizontalists versus Structuralists
Basil Moore’s Horizontalists and Verticalists: The Macroeconomics of Credit Money (Cambridge and New York, 1988) was an important statement of the “horizontalist” viewpoint, which contends that banks passively supply the quantity of credit demanded, and the central bank accommodates the banks’ demand for high-powered money.
Opponents of this view were called “Structuralists,” and they argued that central banks are not as passive as the “Horizontalists” maintained, and that greater emphasis needs to be put on financial innovation and liquidity preference.
The resulting debate that emerged focussed on the question whether the money supply curve is horizontal or slopes upwards (Keen 2011: 359). I will not go into the details of this issue, but note how Steve Keen concludes that the debate actually
“ … put the empirically accurate findings of Post Keynesian researchers into the same methodological straightjacket that neoclassical economics itself employed: the equilibrium analysis of intersecting supply and demand curves. Though this was hardly the intention of the originators of endogenous money analysis, it effectively made monetary analysis an extension of supply and demand analysis.Keen sees the solution in models of money creation that capture feedback effects (Keen 2011: 360), and has provided his own developed money model derived from the Monetary Circuit School and Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis (Keen 2011: 360–368).
Participants in this debate were aware of the limitations of this approach – as Sheila Dow observed, ‘[T]he limitations of a diagrammatic representation of a non-deterministic organic process become very clear. This framework is being offered here as an aid to thought, but it can only cope with one phase of the process, not with the feedbacks’ (Dow 1997, p. 74). But one of the great ironies of economics is that, because critics of neoclassical economics were themselves trained by neoclassical economists, most critics weren’t trained in suitable alternative modeling methods, like differential equations or multi-agent simulation.” (Keen 2011: 359).
This is the key point:
Normally money creation is credit-driven. This means that most money is created by private banks and its quantity is determined by the private demand for it. This is the essence of endogenous money.Of course, none of this denies that money can also be created in other ways.
Let us summarise the ways money can be created:
(1) creation of credit money by the banking and financial institutions;But the crucial point is that the fundamental impetus, drive and cause of most money creation is demand from the private sector. The broad money stock of any capitalist nation is fundamentally driven by demand from bank clients for credit or demand deposits.
(2) creation of other credit money by means of negotiable debt instruments by private sector agents;
(3) creation of high powered money by the central bank through open market operations or discount window lending, and occasionally by unconventional means such as monetising a budget deficit.
Some would say that even the money base is largely endogenous too, given that the central bank must accommodate the banks’ demand for high-powered money to avoid financial crises and banking panics.
But even in abnormal times, such as we have seen from 2008 onwards, when highly unconventional and radical open market operations have been performed by central banks in the form of Quantitative Easing (QE), the creation of vast excess reserves has not induced a sufficient level of private investment or economic activity to create full employment. The reason is that most businesses and consumers do not wish to hold any greater levels of money in the form of debt, since they are over-indebted, engaged in deleveraging, or affected by pessimistic expectations about the future.
This failure of the QE in the UK and the US (and before them in Japan) is explained precisely by endogenous money theory.
But governments can, and do, have influence on the monetary and credit systems of an economy. Central banks control the interest rate, which is, above all, the price of credit money.
From the 1930s to the 1980s, many countries had policies of financial regulation that included many of the following:
(1) Interest rate ceilings;Many of these controls were abolished as financial liberalization and capital account liberalization became widely adopted in the 1980s and 1990s.
(2) Liquidity ratio requirements;
(3) Higher bank reserve requirements;
(4) Capital Controls (that is, restrictions on capital account transactions);
(5) Restrictions on market entry into the financial sector;
(6) Credit ceilings or restrictions on the directions of credit allocation;
(7) Separation of commercial from investment (“speculative”) banks;
(8) Government ownership or domination of the banks. (Ito 2009: 431–433).
The result has been a return to the pre-1940s type of business cycle in which asset bubbles and the wealth effect from speculative activity have driven capitalist boom phases, and financial crises and debt deflation have driven busts.
* M2 and M3 merely include increasingly less liquid forms of money, such as time deposits, money market deposits, and savings deposits. Thus M2 is as follows:
M1 supply + money held in money market funds + savings accounts + small certificates of deposit (CDs).M3 is simply M2 plus large CDs. The M3 measure was discontinued by the Federal Reserve in 2006.
Arestis, Philip. 1992. The Post-Keynesian Approach to Economics: An Alternative Analysis of Economic Theory and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, Hants, England.
Arestis, P. and M. Sawyer (eds.). 2006. A Handbook of Alternative Monetary Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass.
Chick, Victoria. 1983. Macroeconomics after Keynes: A Reconsideration of the General Theory. Phillip Allan, Oxford.
Chick, Victoria. 1986. “The Evolution of the Banking System and the Theory of Saving, Investment and Interest,” Économies et Sociétés no. 3: 111–126.
Chick, Victoria. 1992. “The Evolution of the Banking System and the Theory of Saving, Investment and Interest,” in Philip Arestis and Sheila Dow (eds.), On Money, Method and Keynes: Selected Essays. Macmillan, Basingstoke. 193–205.
Davidson, Paul. 2011. Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory: Foundation for Successful Economic Policies for the Twenty-First Century (2nd edn). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Dow, S. C. 1997. “Endogenous Money,” in G. C. Harcourt and P. A. Riach (eds.), A “Second Edition” of The General Theory (vol. 2), Routledge, London. 61–78.
Eichner, Alfred S. 1991. The Macrodynamics of Advanced Market Economies (rev. edn). M. E. Sharpe, Armonk.
Fontana, Giuseppe. 2009. Money, Uncertainty and Time, Routledge, London and New York.
Graziani, Augusto. 2003. The Monetary Theory of Production, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Howells, P. 2006. “The Endogeneity of Money: Empirical Evidence,” in P. Arestis and M. Sawyer (eds.), A Handbook of Alternative Monetary Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass. 52–68.
Kaldor, N. 1982. The Scourge of Monetarism, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
Keen, S. 2011. Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor Dethroned? (rev. and expanded edn). Zed Books, London and New York.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1930. A Treatise on Money. Macmillan, London.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1964 . The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Harvest/HBJ, New York and London.
King, J. E. 2002. A History of Post Keynesian Economics since 1936. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA.
Lavoie, Marc. 1992. Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
Moore, B. J. 1988. Horizontalists and Verticalists: The Macroeconomics of Credit Money, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
Palley, Thomas I. 1996. Post Keynesian Economics: Debt, Distribution, and the Macro Economy. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Rochon, Louis-Philippe and Sergio Rossi (eds.). 2006. Endogenous Money: The Evolutionary Versus Revolutionary Views, Centro di studi bancari, RME Lab, Vezia.
Rochon, Louis-Philippe. 1999. Credit, Money, and Production: An Alternative Post-Keynesian Approach, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA.
Rousseas, Stephen. 1998. Post Keynesian Monetary Economics (3rd end.), Macmillan, London.
Setterfield, M. (ed.). 2006. Complexity, Endogenous Money and Macroeconomic Theory: Essays in Honour of Basil J. Moore, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA.
Wray, L. Randall. 1990. Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies: The Endogenous Money Approach, E. Elgar, Aldershot, Hants, England and Brookfield, Vt., USA.
Wray, L. Randall. 1998. Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Wray, L. Randall. 2012. “Money,” in J. E. King, The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics (2nd edn.). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. 401–409.
Wray, L. Randall (ed.). 2012a. Theories of Money and Banking. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Arestis, P. and P. Howells. 1996. “Theoretical Reflections on Endogenous Money: The Problem with ‘Convenience Lending,’” Cambridge Journal of Economics 20: 539–552.
Arestis, P. and I. Biefang-Frisancho Mariscal. 1995. “The Endogenous Money Stock: Empirical Observations from the United Kingdom,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 17.4: 545–559.
Bell, S. 2001. “The Role of the State and the Hierarchy of Money,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 25.2: 149–163.
Chick, Victoria and Sheila Dow. 2002. “Monetary Policy with Endogenous Money and Liquidity Preference: A Nondualistic Treatment,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 24.4: 587–607.
Cottrell, Allin. 1994. “Endogenous Money and the Multiplier,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 17.1: 111–120.
Dalziel, Paul. 1996. “The Keynesian Multiplier, Liquidity Preference, and Endogenous Money,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 18.3: 311–331.
Dalziel, Paul. 1999–2000. “A Post Keynesian Theory of Asset Price Inflation with Endogenous Money,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 22.2: 227–245.
Fand, David I. 1988. “On the Endogenous Money Supply,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 10.3: 386–389.
Fontana, G. 2000. “Post Keynesians and Circuitists on Money and Uncertainty: An Attempt at Generality,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 23.1: 27–48.
Fontana, G. 2002. “The Making of Monetary Policy in Endogenous Money Theory: An Introduction,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 24.4: 503–509.
Fontana, G. 2003. “Post Keynesian Approaches to Endogenous Money: A Time Framework Explanation,” Review of Political Economy 15.3: 291–314.
Fontana, G. 2004. “Rethinking Endogenous Money: A Constructive Interpretation of the Debate Between Horizontalists and Structuralists,” Metroeconomica 55.4: 367–385.
Fontana, G. 2004. “Hicks on Monetary Theory and History: Money as Endogenous Money,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 28.1: 73–88.
Fontana, Giuseppe and Alfonso Palacio-Vera. 2003. “Is There an Active Role for Monetary Policy in the Endogenous Money Approach?,” Journal of Economic Issues 37.2: 511–517.
Fontana, Giuseppe and Venturino, Ezio. 2003. “Endogenous Money: An Analytical Approach,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 50: 398–416.
Howells, Peter G. A. 1995. “The Demand for Endogenous Money,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 18.1: 89–106.
Howells, P. 2006. “The Endogeneity of Money: Empirical Evidence,” in P. Arestis and M. Sawyer (eds), A Handbook of Alternative Monetary Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass. 52–68.
Howells, Peter G. A. 1997. “The Demand for Endogenous Money: A Rejoinder,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 19.3: 429–435.
Ito, H. 2009. “Financial Repression,” in K. A. Reinert, R. S. Rajan et al. (eds), Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy. Princeton University Press, Oxford and Princeton, N.J.
Jarsulic, Marc. 1989. “Endogenous Credit and Endogenous Business Cycles,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 12.1: 35–48.
Kaldor, N. 1939. “Speculation and Economic Activity,” Review of Economic Studies 7: 1–27.
Keynes, J. M. 1937. “Alternative Theories of the Rate of Interest,” The Economic Journal 47.186: 241–252.
Kydland, F. E. and E. C. Prescott. 1990. “Business Cycles: Real Facts and a Monetary Myth,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 14.2: 3-18.
Lavoie, Marc. 1984. “The Endogenous Flow of Credit and the Post Keynesian Theory of Money,” Journal of Economic Issues 18.3: 771–797.
Lavoie, Marc. 1985. “The Post Keynesian Theory of Endogenous Money: A Reply,” Journal of Economic Issues 19.3: 843–848.
Lavoie, Marc. 1985. “Credit And Money: Overdraft Economies, And Post-Keynesian Economics,” in M. Jarsulic (ed.), Money and Macro Policy, Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston; Kluwer Academic Pub., Hingham, MA. 63-84.
Lavoie, Marc. 1996. “Horizontalism, Structuralism, Liquidity Preference and the Principle of Increasing Risk,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 43.3: 275-300.
Musella, Marco. 1999. “Endogenous Money and Credit,” in P. A. O’Hara (ed.), Encyclopedia of Political Economy. Volume 1. A–K. Routledge, London and New York. 259–261.
Meulendyke, Ann-Marie. 1988. “Can the Federal Reserve Influence Whether the Money Supply Is Endogenous? A Comment on Moore,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 10.3: 390–397.
Moore, Basil J. 1979. “The Endogenous Money Stock,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 2.1: 49–70.
Moore, Basil J. 1997. “Reconciliation of the Supply and Demand for Endogenous Money,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 19.3: 423–428.
Musella, M. 2001. “Endogenous Money and Credit,” in P. Anthony O’Hara (ed.), Encyclopedia of Political Economy. Volume 1. A–K, Routledge, London and New York. 259–261.
Paganelli, Maria Pia. 2006. “Hume and Endogenous Money,” Eastern Economic Journal 32.3: 533–547.
Palacio-Vera, Alfonso. 2001. “The Endogenous Money Hypothesis: Some Evidence from Spain (1987–1998),” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 23.3: 509–526.
Palley, T. I., 2002, “Endogenous Money: What It is and Why It Matters,” Metroeconomica 53: 152–180.
Palley, Thomas I. 1987–1988. “Bank Lending, Discount Window Borrowing, and the Endogenous Money Supply: A Theoretical Framework,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 10.2: 282–303.
Palley, Thomas I. 1991. “The Endogenous Money Supply: Consensus and Disagreement,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 13.3: 397–403.
Palley, Thomas I. 1996. Post Keynesian Economics: Debt, Distribution, and the Macro Economy, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Palley, Thomas I. 1997. “Endogenous Money and the Business Cycle.” Journal of Economics 65.2: 133–149.
Piegay, P. 2003. “Post Keynesian Controversies on Endogenous Money: An Alternative Interpretation,” in L.-P. Rochon and S. Rossi (eds), Modern Theories of Money: The Nature and Role of Money in Capitalist Economies, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass.
Pollin, Robert. 1991. “Two Theories of Money Supply Endogeneity: Some Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 13.3: 366–396.
Rochon, Louis-Philippe. 1999. “The Creation and Circulation of Endogenous Money: A Circuit Dynamique Approach,” Journal of Economic Issues 33.1: 1–21.
Rochon, Louis-Philippe. 2000. “The Creation and Circulation of Endogenous Money: A Reply to Pressman,” Journal of Economic Issues 34.4: 973–979.
Setterfield, M. 2000. “Expectations, Endogenous Money, and the Business Cycle: An Exercise in Open Systems Modeling,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 23.1: 77–105.
Shanmugam, B., Nair, M. and Ong, W. L. 2003. “The Endogenous Money Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia (1985–2000),” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 25.4: 599–611.
Wray, L. Randall. 2003–2004. “Loanable Funds, Liquidity Preference, and Endogenous Money: Do Credit Cards Make a Difference?,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 26.2: 309–323.