货币政策危机管理、货币调控概念误区与货币中介目标评价

Crisis Management of Monetary Policy,Conceptual Misunderstanding of Monetary Regulation,and Evaluation of Monetary Intermediary Target

本文从现实货币政策传导入手,详细梳理了货币政策研究中的几个常见争议,并对三种主要货币中介目标(M2、社会融资规模和政策利率)的危机管理能力进行了识别,主要得出如下结论:第一,“量调实体、价管金融”是货币政策危机管理的常见方式,这是因为货币供给向实体端传导的速度要快于利率,而利率对资产价格的指示作用则强于货币数量变动;第二,相比于操作端,中央银行更应注重对货币中介目标的培育和管理,这是因为货币中介目标具有便于理解、构架稳定和与实体经济高度关联等显性优势;第三,量价转型绝不代表放弃培育有效的数量型货币中介,而是应强调常态化时期的价格型中介管理,但又不仅限于价格型中介的单边盯住;第四,社会融资规模与实际经济目标的相关度较高,并且对产出和通胀的调控力度亦明显优于M2和政策利率,因此,其更适合作为管理大幅实体经济波动和经济危机的政策工具。

Since the outbreak of the global public health event,China’s business cycle fluctuations have increased significantly,which has challenged the normal regulation of monetary policy,and the discussion on the crisis management of monetary policy has begun to prevail rapidly.From the angle of monetary policy transmission in reality,this paper explains several common controversies and misunderstandings in existing research in detail and identifies the crisis management ability of three main monetary intermediary targets(M2,social financing scale,and policy interest rate).Our core contribution can be described in four aspects.Firstly,based on monetary policy practice,this paper elaborates on the transmission mechanism of China’s monetary policy.Secondly,this paper decomposes the M2 and social financing scale indicators and finds that the core difference between them comes from the government bond,which is a part of the social financing scale but not of M2.Thirdly,this paper provides the essential character of LPR in detail.In crisis periods,LPR can be completely controlled by the central bank,while during normal periods,it can be determined by market factors.Fourthly,this paper constructs a complete system to evaluate the crisis management ability of monetary intermediary targets and finds that the social financing scale is superior to others in all aspects.The main conclusions of this paper are as follows.Firstly,quantity-based intermediary targets regulating real economy and price-based intermediary targets regulating virtual part’is a common rule for monetary policy regulation,because the transmission speed of money supply to the real economy is faster than interest rate,and asset prices are more sensitive to changes in money supply.Therefore,despite the recent emphasis on the transition from quantity-based to price-based monetary policy by the central bank,monetary authorities should not ignore monitoring the quantity aspect,which remains a critical impact on managing economic crises.Secondly,compared with the operation side,the central bank should pay more attention to the cultivation and management of monetary intermediary targets,because they have obvious advantages such as being easy to understand and remaining stable and highly correlating to the real economy.There are three core purposes for cultivating the new monetary intermediary targets by the central bank:(1)To improve the transmission efficiency of monetary policy to the ultimate goal;(2)To enhance the ability of policymakers to control the intermediary targets.During normal periods,the central bank should allow the intermediary end to change freely according to the market condition,while under crisis periods,the operational end should form absolute control over the intermediary targets;(3)To balance the supplementation,refinement,and innovation of both price-based and quantitybased monetary intermediary targets.Thirdly,the static test result of monetary intermediary targets shows that the social financing scale has a high correlation with both inflation and output,while M2 and nominal interest rates only significantly correlate with inflation.The dynamic test result of monetary intermediary targets indicates that the social financing scale has an explicit advantage in managing entity crises.On the one hand,the impulse response function of social financing scale shock converges most quickly;on the other hand,compared to the other two intermediary targets,the impact of social financing scale on ultimate goals is significantly stronger.Therefore,the social financing scale is a more effective instrument to deal with large business cycle fluctuations and economic crises.This paper puts forward the following policy implications.Firstly,we should make a comprehensive understanding of the transformation of the monetary policy regulatory framework.Secondly,the central bank should strengthen the crisis-management capabilities of the governance systems to curb any possible large fluctuations in the future.Thirdly,the monetary authorities should appropriately develop unconventional monetary policy instruments to reserve necessary policy space for crisis management,which can not only stimulate economic recovery after sudden shocks but also provide a solid guarantee for comprehensively improving risk management ability and enhancing the resilience of China’s economy.