Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:28:24.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Empirical Study of Financial Intermediation in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Jagdish Handa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Considerable attention has been focused in the past two decades on the substitutability of the liabilities of private nonmonetary financial intermediaries for money, narrowly defined as the sum of currency and demand deposits adjusted. Discussion concerning this topic related to the United States, and most of the empirical work has been confined to that country. The essential folklore of that discussion crossed the border into Canada and is now even reflected in its textbooks on Canadian money and banking. However, very little empirical work has been done in Canada to examine this lore.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 583 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Breton, A.A., The Demand for Money in Canada 1900–59 (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1965).Google Scholar
[2]Chetty, V.K., “On Measuring the Nearness of Near-Moneys,” presented at the Econometric Society Meetings(Chicago: December 1968).Google Scholar
[3]Dhrymes, P., and Kurz, M., “Technology and Scale in Electricity Generation,” Econometrica XXXII (July 1964), pp. 287–315.Google Scholar
[4]Friedman, M., “The Quantity Theory of Money – A Restatement,” in Friedman, M., ed., Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money (Chicago: 1956), pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
[5]Friedman, M., and Meiselman, D., “The Relative Stability of Monetary Velocity and the Investment Multiplier in the United States, 1897–1958,” in Commission on Money and Credit, Stabilization Policies (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1963), pp. 165–268.Google Scholar
[6]Goldman, S.M., and Uzawa, H., “A Note on Separability in Demand Analysis,” Econometrica, XXXII (July 1964), pp. 387–398.Google Scholar
[7]Gurley, J., and Shaw, E., “Financial Aspects of Economic Development,” American Economic Review, XLX (September 1955), pp. 515–538.Google Scholar
[8]Gurley, J., and Shaw, E., “Intermediaries and the Saving – Investment Process,” Journal of Finance, XI (May 1956), pp. 257–276.Google Scholar
[9]Gurley, J., and Shaw, E., Money in a Theory of Finance (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1960).Google Scholar
[10]Handa, J. C., “Liquidity, Substitution, and Preferences among Liquid Assets,”Presented at the Canadian Economic Association Meetings(Toronto:June 1969).Google Scholar
[11]Hicks, J.R., Critical Essays in Monetary Theory (Oxford: 1967).Google Scholar
[12]Laidler, D., “Some Evidence on the Demand for Money,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXIV (February 1966) pp. 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Lee, T. H., “Alternative Interest Rates and the Demand for Money: The Empirical Evidence,” American Economic Review, LVII (December 1967), pp. 1168–1181.Google Scholar
[14]Meltzer, A., “The Demand for Money: The Evidence from the Time Series,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXI (June 1963), pp. 219–246.Google Scholar
[15]Timberlake, R.H. Jr., and Fortson, J., “Time Deposits in the Definition of Money,” American Economic Review, LVII (March 1967), pp. 190–194.Google Scholar
[16]Tintner, G., Econometrics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1952), pp. 114–121.Google Scholar
[17]Tobin, J., “Liquidity Preference As Behaviour towards Risk,” Review of Economic Studies, XXV (February 1958), pp. 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Urquhart, M.C., and Buckley, K.A.H., Historical Statistics of Canada (Toronto: The MacMillan Co., 1965).Google Scholar
[19]Waugh, F.V., “Regressions between Sets of Variables,” Econometrica, X (1942), pp. 291–310.Google Scholar