Doing without money: a critical assessment of Woodford's analysis

Rogers, Colin

doi:10.1093/cje/bei060

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Smets and Wouters' (2007) quantitative modelling illustrates, the 'frictions' considered in the models include sticky nominal prices and wages, habit formation in consumption, investment adjustment costs, variable capacity utilisation ,and fixed costs in production. Critical accounts of these New Neoclassical Synthesis models include Rogers (2006), Harcourt (2010), and Caballero (2010). Rogers' critique is particularly interesting as it draws similar conclusions to those noted above that Hahn (1984c) had stated in his critique of the earlier monetarist approaches.…”

Section: Notes 205mentioning

confidence: 58%

Alfred Marshall and Modern Economics

Hart¹

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Notes 205mentioning

confidence: 58%

Alfred Marshall and Modern Economics

Hart¹

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To date, the most detailed academic attention on money, and to a lesser extent digital money, has come from anthropology (Maurer, 2006;Parry & Bloch, 1989), sociology (Dodd, 1994;Simmel, 1990), and history (Eagleton & Williams, 2011;Ferguson, 2012). Other academic attention has either focused on regulatory (Freedman, 2000;Rogers, 2006) or technical (Eslami & Talebi, 2011;Juang, 2007) aspects, or on the social benefits of particular digital money technologies (Jack & Suri, 2011;Morawczynski, 2014). This plethora of differing perspectives, although informative and insightful, does not currently constitute a coherent theoretical basis for research into digital money.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the modern monetary regime is generally called the "monetary system" (Dodd, 1994;Mbiti & Weil, 2013;Rogers, 2006;Woodford, 2000).…”

Section: Digital Money Socio-technical Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regulatory concerns relate to both the ability of the central bank to oversee the monetary system (Freedman, 2000;Lee & Longe-Akindemowo, 1999;Rogers, 2006), as well as privacy and security concerns (Kelly, 1997;Roberds, 1998 (Halpin & Moore, 2009). The importance of regulation is underlined by the many difficulties that this Directive caused, which in fact slowed the development and adoption of digital money in the EU (Courtneidge, 2012).…”

Section: Digital Money Socio-technical Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adoption readiness in service innovation: the case of digital money

Thomas

Vernet

Gann

2016

Industry and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One challenge for firms seeking to develop new services is to understand the conditions likely to affect rates of adoption. Understanding relative degrees of "adoption readiness" provides innovators with information to choose market segments and indicates opportunities to influence adoption environments. This paper considers these issues through the case of digital money, a service innovation some claim to have the potential to provide major economic and social benefits. However, there is little research into the adoption readiness of countries upon which firms can base their new service development decisions. Defined as "currency exchange by electronic means", we conceptualize digital money as a socio-technical system, and propose a Digital Money Readiness Index. This composite index integrates institutional, financial, technological, economic, industrial and social attributes to measure adoption readiness. We identify four stages of readiness and systematically analyze the factors that drive under or over adoption of digital money technologies.Key words: Service innovation, digital money, adoption readiness, composite index, cashlessness 3 INTRODUCTIONPerhaps the most influential service innovations shaping history, money has driven wealth creation and socio-economic development. Innovation in the technologies of money has the potential to provide major economic and social benefits. Dodgson, Gann, Wladawsky-Berger, and George (2012) argue that the reduction of time lost in making transactions, or waiting for receipt or confirmation of payments, will improve productivity by removing the "friction" in transactions.Others have emphasized potential social and economic benefits of mobile payments such as M-PESA in developing nations (Jack & Suri, 2011;Morawczynski, 2014). Digital money innovation also offers the possibility of "dis-intermediating" financial systems through removing the requirements for intermediaries to facilitate transactions (Dodgson et al., 2012). The development and adoption of digital money poses a range of questions for innovation studies and for management scholars (Dodgson, Gann, Wladawsky-Berger, Sultan, & George, 2015).A challenge for firms and governments seeking to develop and regulate new service innovations such as digital money is to understand the conditions of adoption in different markets.However, comparisons of service innovation adoption across markets is difficult, as social, economic, political and cultural factors complicate such comparisons (Cooper, 1998;Rogers, 2003). Research comparing service innovations across markets has generally considered firm level new service development rather than national level adoption (see for instance Thakur & Hale, 2013;Yen, Wang, Wei, Hsu, & Chiu, 2012). Digital money adoption probably represents an extreme polar case (Yin, 1984), as the flow of money influences, and is influenced by, a wide range of social and institutional conditions including economic policy, security, ethics, and morality (Eagleton & Williams, 2011;Simmel, 1990)...

show abstract

“…The neo-Wicksellian model is deemed able to derive results similar to the traditional Wicksellian literature, despite important analytical differences in their assumptions. 1 See also Rogers (2006) about the distinction between Wicksell's pure credit and Woodford's cashless economy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Woodford's Interest and Prices from the Perspective of the History and Methodology of Economic Thought: A Mini-Symposium

Boianovsky

2006

J Hist Econ Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Michael Woodford's 2003 Interest and Prices has been regarded as the most important contribution to monetary economics since the publication of Don Patinkin's Money, Interest and Prices fifty years ago. Like Patinkin, Woodford sought inspiration in Knut Wicksell's 1898 Interest and Prices. But, while Patinkin built on Wicksell's incipient formulation of the real balance effect and stability analysis of the price level (see Boianovsky 1998), Woodford has elaborated on Wicksell's concept of a pure credit economy (called “cashless economy” in the 2003 version), a theme largely disregarded by Patinkin. This difference in perspective is in part related to the fact that Patinkin's concern was mainly monetary theory, whereas Woodford has focused on monetary policy instead. In early 2004 I invited a group of scholars to discuss Wood-ford's book from the point of view of the history of thought and methodology in a session at the History of Economics Society meetings, held in June of that year at Victoria University, Toronto. Michael Woodford was also invited to participate in the session and reply to the comments. The revised papers are published here as a mini-symposium.

show abstract

Doing without money: a critical assessment of Woodford's analysis

Cited by 26 publications

References 20 publications

Alfred Marshall and Modern Economics

Alfred Marshall and Modern Economics

Adoption readiness in service innovation: the case of digital money

Woodford's Interest and Prices from the Perspective of the History and Methodology of Economic Thought: A Mini-Symposium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About