by Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Central Banking. PDF. This paper offers a macroeconomic perspective on the “Reserves for All” (RFA) proposal to let the general public hold electronic central bank money and transact with it. I propose an equivalence result according to which a marginal substitution of outside money (e.g., RFA) for inside money (e.g., deposits) does not affect macroeconomic outcomes. I identify key conditions for equivalence and argue that these conditions likely are violated, implying that RFA would change macroeconomic outcomes. I also relate the analysis to common arguments found in discussions on RFA and point to inconsistencies and open questions.
Topics:
Dirk Niepelt considers the following as important: 100% money, Bank, Central Bank, Central bank digital currency, Contributions, Crypto currency, Deposits, Digital money, Equivalence, Narrow banking, Politico-economic equivalence, public debt, Research, Reserves, Reserves for all, Time inconsistency, Vollgeld
This could be interesting, too:
Dirk Niepelt writes Does the US Administration Prohibit the Use of Reserves?
Dirk Niepelt writes “Pricing Liquidity Support: A PLB for Switzerland” (with Cyril Monnet and Remo Taudien), UniBe DP, 2025
Dirk Niepelt writes The New Keynesian Model and Reality
Dirk Niepelt writes “Money and Banking with Reserves and CBDC,” JF, 2024
Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Central Banking. PDF.
This paper offers a macroeconomic perspective on the “Reserves for All” (RFA) proposal to let the general public hold electronic central bank money and transact with it. I propose an equivalence result according to which a marginal substitution of outside money (e.g., RFA) for inside money (e.g., deposits) does not affect macroeconomic outcomes. I identify key conditions for equivalence and argue that these conditions likely are violated, implying that RFA would change macroeconomic outcomes. I also relate the analysis to common arguments found in discussions on RFA and point to inconsistencies and open questions.