Money is said to be superneutral – or long-run neutral – if changes in the steady-state rate of growth of the money supply do not affect the value of real economic variables. Superneutrality depends on the hypothesis that the marginal productivity of capital is not affected by the level or the growth rate of money balances. It may hold true in steady state equilibria where the marginal utility of consumption is constant over time. Qualitatively, superneutrality is a fragile, knife-edged result that fails in a variety of contexts. Empirically, however, it is not clear that deviations from superneutrality are quantitatively significant.
KeywordsCapital accumulation Imperfect competition Inflation Labour-leisure choices Leisure Menu costs Money supply Natural rate of unemployment Neoclassical growth theory Neutrality of money New Keynesian macroeconomics Optimal growth model Phillips curve Real business cycles Structural vector autoregressions Superneutrality Uncertainty Vector autoregressions
- Barro, R.J. 1996. Inflation and growth. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 78(3): 153–169.Google Scholar
- Cooley, T.F., and G.D. Hansen. 1989. The inflation tax in a real business cycle model. American Economic Review 79: 733–747.Google Scholar
- Goodfriend, M., and R.G. King. 1997. The new neoclassical synthesis and the role of monetary policy. In NBER macroeconomics annual, ed. B.S. Bernanke and J.J. Rotemberg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- McCandless, G.T. Jr., and W.E. Weber. 1995. Some monetary facts. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 19(3): 2–11.Google Scholar
- Sidrauski, M. 1967. Rational choice and patterns of growth in a monetary economy. American Economic Review, Proceedings 57: 534–544.Google Scholar