著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, no.1, pp.66-76, 2007-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Post Keynesian endogenous money supply theory appeared as one of the modern theory of credit money some twenty years ago. In recent years, while it keeping close relationship with French and Italian monetary circuit theory, the domain of the theory has expanded gradually. With regard to the role of government or state, the theory of endogenous money pays attention to the central bank which offers the means of settlement between commercial banks and plays the role of lender of last resort, but actually the state establishes money, and practices the control of money. In this respect Chartalism or state theory of money revive in the context of Post Keynesian in recent years. The relationship between the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism comes into question, because in the theory of endogenous money money supply is endogenous, while in Chartalism at a first glance exogenous money supply by the state is assumed. The two theories have not only a background of Post Keynesian, but also both theories have complementarities. That is, the theory of endogenous money deals the money of private level, and Chartalism argues the money of state level. However, both theories share nominalism especially in the theory of nature of money. In Chartalism the nature of money is regarded as establishment of money by the state, and Chartalistic money is a nominal one which has basically no relation to the real value, in the theory of endogenous money bank money also does not presuppose the relation to the real value of money. In this way, both theories share common ground, but there are differences. First, in the theory of nature of money the definition of money and various points are different. Second, both theories diverge in the role of the state. In the theory of endogenous money although the role of the state is generally assumed in relation to the function of central bank, the relationship between money and state, and the problem of Chartalism is not thoroughly examined. The placement of the state in Chartalism is unique and different from the theory of endogenous money. In this paper, aiming at clarifying what relationship both theories have, two points are examined. First, we compare both theories in the theory of nature of money, and we consider in what significance money in the real world is Chartalistic. Second, we investigate the role of the state, especially the function of the central bank respectively. The conclusions are three-fold. First, the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism share nominalism in the theory of nature of money. Nominalism is important in that it is a basis of the view against commodity theory of money. Second, two theories are different except nominalism of money in the theory of nature of money. In the theory of endogenous money the state plays important role in that it designate money as means of final settlement, this is the significance of Chartalism in the theory of endogenous money. Third, the role of the state in the theory of endogenous money moreover emerges as a function of central bank. The function of lender of last resort which is emphasized especially in Post Keynesian theory plays important role which maintains monetary and financial system, while in Chartalism central bank plays the role of bank of government, and does not conflict with central bank in the theory of endogenous money, but it has complementary function. Particularly both theories adopt the operation of short term interest rate as a measure of policy, which plays important role in the control of money.