Sorting Among The Multipliers: The Head Of The Center

Sorting Among The Multipliers: The Head Of The Centr

The head of the central bank of a small African nation is evaluating whether the M1 or M2 money multiplier has been more stable in recent years to determine which monetary aggregate to prioritize in policy formulation. Existing studies indicate several key factors affecting monetary aggregates. Firstly, the ratio of excess reserves to transaction deposits has exhibited high variability and is expected to remain volatile in the coming years. Secondly, the currency-deposit ratio has demonstrated relative stability and is likely to continue doing so. Thirdly, the ratio of non-transaction deposits to transaction deposits has increased tenfold over the past five years and may experience a similar increase over the next five years. Lastly, the reserve requirement ratio is set at 20% for both transaction and non-transaction deposits.

Given these insights, the central bank’s decision hinges on understanding which multiplier—M1 or M2—offers a more reliable measure of monetary policy effectiveness amid the observed variability. M1 primarily includes currency in circulation and demand deposits, representing more liquid assets. M2, which aggregates M1 plus savings deposits, small time deposits, and other near-money assets, is broader but may be more susceptible to fluctuations due to the changing composition of non-transaction deposits. The high volatility in the excess reserves relative to transaction deposits suggests that the M1 multiplier might be less stable, given that excess reserves are more directly linked to transaction deposits. Conversely, the stable currency-deposit ratio indicates that currency holdings relative to deposits are unlikely to significantly fluctuate, favoring a focus on M1. However, the sharp increase in non-transaction deposits and their potential continued growth signals that M2 could capture broader monetary developments better, despite its greater susceptibility to variability.

Considering the relative stability of currency-deposit ratios and the high variability in excess reserves, the central bank head should favor emphasizing M1 in upcoming policy decisions. M1's components are more directly affected by the volatile excess reserves ratio, but since this ratio pertains mainly to transaction deposits, which are vital for short-term liquidity, M1 provides a more stable measure than M2 in this context. Additionally, focusing on M1 aligns with its greater liquidity and immediacy in financial transactions, making it a more suitable tool for short-term monetary policy adjustments. On the other hand, M2, given its exposure to volatile non-transaction deposits, may not serve as a reliable indicator of monetary policy stance in this environment. Therefore, prioritizing M1 would enable the central bank to better monitor and manage liquidity conditions amidst the observed fluctuations, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of monetary policy.

Paper For Above instruction

The decision of a central bank regarding which monetary aggregate to emphasize is critical for effective monetary policy implementation. In this context, the core question involves choosing between M1 and M2, considering their stability and responsiveness to economic conditions. The given data indicates significant variability in the ratio of excess reserves to transaction deposits, which is likely to persist. This variability impacts the reliability of the money multipliers derived from these aggregates. Additionally, the relative stability of the currency-deposit ratio and the rapid increase in non-transaction deposits are key factors influencing this choice.

M1 encompasses the most liquid forms of money—cash in circulation and demand deposits—making it highly responsive to changes in liquidity and monetary policy measures. Since excess reserves are directly related to transaction deposits, their high volatility raises concerns about the stability of the M1 multiplier. Nonetheless, the stability of the currency-deposit ratio suggests that currency holdings relative to deposits do not fluctuate significantly, reinforcing the case for M1 as a stable indicator for short-term policy adjustments. Moreover, the surge in non-transaction deposits, which forms a sizable part of M2, might undermine the stability of M2 if these deposits continue to grow unpredictably, especially given the 20% reserve requirement for both deposit types.

From an analytical standpoint, emphasizing M1 appears more appropriate due to its responsiveness to immediate liquidity conditions and relative stability of key components. M2's inclusion of less liquid assets and the volatile nature of non-transaction deposits could distort the central bank's understanding of the money supply's behavior, leading to less effective policy responses. Consequently, adopting M1 as the principal monetary aggregate offers a clearer, more stable signal of short-term monetary conditions, aligning with the bank’s objective to maintain financial stability and control inflation.

References

  • Blanchard, O., & Johnson, D. R. (2013). Macroeconomics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  • Cameron, R. (2010). Money, Banking, and Financial Markets. Cengage Learning.
  • Mishkin, F. S. (2015). The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets (10th ed.). Pearson.
  • Krugman, P., & Wells, R. (2018). Macroeconomics (5th ed.). Worth Publishers.
  • Rogoff, K. (2017). The Currency War. Financial Times.
  • Central Bank of Nigeria. (2022). Annual Monetary Policy Report. Retrieved from [URL]
  • International Monetary Fund. (2020). Global Financial Stability Report. IMF Publications.
  • The World Bank. (2019). Economic Review of Small African Economies. The World Bank Group.
  • Engen, E. M., & La Monica, E. L. (2021). Exchange rates and currency stability in developing economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(2), 45-70.
  • Capie, F., & Wood, G. (2019). The Stability of Monetary Aggregates. Journal of Banking & Finance, 103, 22-33.

Related Assignments