I.

INTRODUCTION The demand for money function creates a background to review the effectiveness of monetary policies as an important issue in terms of overall macroeconomic stability. Money demand is an important indicator of growth of a particular economy. An increasing money demand mostly indicates improvement in a countrys economic situation as opposed to falling money demand which normally indicates a deteriorating economic climate. This results from the fact that a rising money demand brings about an increase in production that causes the rate of money circulation to decline while a falling money demand results in restricted production that causes the rate of money circulation to increase. There are short-term and long-term aspects of money demand. The long-term aspect of money demand or the need for money relates to growing production. This means that the increased issue of money, which is consistent with price stability, may solely be achieved in the long run if it follows the growth of output. In the short-term, a decreasing rate of money circulation may cause the money demand to rise regardless of the movements in production. However, continuous increase in money supply, irrespective of trends in production, leads to stronger inflationary pressures. In developed countries, implementations of monetary policy changes were used to alter short-run business cycle fluctuations, although long-run price movement was likewise, the more important objective. In developing countries like the Philippines, however, long-run economic growth were a major focus of monetary policy, where money expansion frequently used as a major source of the governments demand management. Theoretically, demand for real money balances could be divided into transactions demand component, which is positively related to income and inversely related to interest rates, precautionary demand component, which is positively related to income, and speculative demand component, which is inversely related to interest rates. In developing countries like the Philippines, using broad money (M2) is very much prevalent. Moreover, the government, businesses and investors are using credit or lending to ensure the smooth running of their
1

is

development activities. The banking system and other financial institutions create money by giving loans. In addition, it is a practice that during economic boom and the returns on investment is high, banks and other financial institutions employ a relatively lower cost of credit (i.e. interest rate) to stimulate borrowing. By contrast, during economic crisis, either by inflation or deflation, the banks and other financial institutions increase the cost of credit in order to discourage the clients from borrowing. Therefore, an increase in the cost of borrowing is likely to decrease the demand for money. The objective of this paper is to empirically investigate whether an equilibrium relationship exists between certain combinations of money balances, real national income, an opportunity cost measure, and price level. This study attempts to determine factors affecting the demand for money in the Philippines. Furthermore, this paper examines the role of interest rates in the money demand function as the appropriate measure of opportunities cost of holding money. Understanding public demand for newly created money is important because it has several implications on critical macroeconomic variables such as income, interest rates, expected inflation, and exchange rates. Nevertheless, money demand plays a vital role in the success or failure of a countrys development. Thus, knowledge regarding money demand and the factors affecting it is a must for government policymakers, businessmen, investors and the like. Review of Related Literature There were a number of studies that examined the relationship between certain combinations of money balances, real national income, an opportunity cost measure, and price level. Hossain (1988) estimated a short-run money demand model for Bangladesh using quarterly data from 1974:1 to 1985:4. The author found a Laidler (1982) short-run real money demand model, which is appropriate for Bangladesh on the basis of the set of criteria
2

suggested by McAleer et al. (1985). On the basis of MacKinnon et al. (1983) non-nested test of model selection, the author concluded that neither the log-linear nor the linear functional form has any advantage over the other for Bangladesh. The author found the real permanent income and expected inflation rate are the significant explanatory variables in the demand for money function. The real permanent income was measured as four quarters unweighted moving average of actual real income and expected inflation was measured as one-period lagged inflation rate. Finally he found that both narrow money (M1) and broad money (M2) functions were empirically stable. Bahmani-Oskooee and Rehman (2005) analyzed the money demand functions for India and six other Asian countries during the period beginning with the first quarter of 1972 and ending with the fourth quarter of 2000. Using the ARDL approach described in Pesaran et al. (2001), they performed cointegration tests on real money supplies, industrial production, inflation rates, and exchange rates (in terms of US dollar). For India, cointegrating relationships were detected when money supply was defined as M1, but not M2, so they concluded that M1 is the appropriate money supply definition to use in setting monetary policy. Contrasting with the above, there is also prior research that uses money supply defined broadly in holding that India's money demand function is stable. In one example, Pradhan and Subramanian (1997) employed cointegration tests, an error correction model, and annual data for the period of 1960 to 1994 to detect relationships among real money balances, real GDP, and nominal interest rates. They estimated an error correction model using M1 and M3 as money supply definitions and found the error correction term to be significant and negative. Their position, therefore, was that the money demand function is stable not only with M1 but also with M3. The early versions of the quantity theory of money (mainly Fishers, 1911, equation of exchange, and the Cambridge approach, e.g. Pigou, 1917) emphasized the proportionate relationship between the amount of money in circulation, the volume of transactions, and the price level.
3

Nevertheless, Nelson (2005) made a study regarding the relationship between U.S. Treasury bond yield and M1 per dollar of GDP and had the following results:

Scatter Plot of T-Bond Yield and M1 per dollar of GDP

Scatter Plot of T-Bill Yield and M1 per Dollar of GDP

Both figures do form a pattern that has the general shape of the demand function. They are downward sloping and concave, flattening as they approach the X axis and steepening as they approach the Y axis. Their points do not, however, lie exactly along a smooth line, rather they appear to be scattered around a curve that has the general shape of the demand function. In contrast to the aforementioned studies, this paper uses time series data from the Philippines. It also focuses on the four macroeconomic variables namely real money supply (specifically narrow [M1] and broad [M2] money supply), real national income, interest rate, and price level. It also differs from the aforementioned studies in that it uses the most recent
4

data. While the majority of previous researchers use data from the 1970s to 1980s, I use data from the 2000s.

II.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The demand for money theory, also known as liquidity preference, deals with the desire

to hold money rather than other forms of wealth (e.g. stocks and shares). It is particularly associated with the work of English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes distinguished three motives for holding money: the transaction motive, the speculative motive, and the precautionary motive. The transactions motive is money used for the purchase of goods and services. The transactions demand for money is positively related to real incomes and inflation. As an individual's income rises or as prices in the shops increase, he will have to hold more cash to carry out his everyday transactions. The quantity of nominal money demand is therefore proportional to the price level in the economy. The speculative motive is money not held for transaction purposes but in place of other financial assets, usually because they are expected to fall in price. The precautionary motive is money held to cover unexpected items of expenditure. Like the transactions demand for money, precautionary demand for money is positively correlated with real incomes and inflation. Keynes demonstrated that there was an inverse relationship between the price of a bond and the rate of interest. Conversely, if the rate of interest increases, the price of bonds will fall. There is an inverse relationship between interest rates and the market prices of fixed interest government securities. Keynes argued that each individual has a view about an 'average' rate of interest. If the current interest rate was above the average rate then a rational individual would expect interest rates to fall. Similarly, if current rates are below the average rate then obviously interest rates would be expected to rise.

At high rates of interest, individuals expect interest rates to fall and bond prices to rise. To benefit from the rise in bond prices individuals use their speculative balances to buy bonds. Thus when interest rates are high speculative money balances are low. At low rates of interest, individuals expect interest rates to rise and bond prices to fall. To avoid the capital losses associated with a fall in the price of bonds, individuals will sell their bonds and add to their speculative cash balances. Thus, when interest rates are low speculative money balances will be high. Consequently, there is an inverse relationship between the rate of interest and the speculative demand for money. The total demand for money is obtained by summating the transactions, precautionary and speculative demands. Represented graphically, it is sometimes called the liquidity preference curve and is inversely related to the rate of interest.

The Demand for Money and the Rate of Interest

Interest Rate (r) 9% 7% 5% Money Demand Real Money Demand

During periods of sustained economic growth, rising real incomes and increasing numbers of people employed, demand for money at each rate of interest tends to increase.

Therefore higher real national income causes an outward shift in the demand for money. This is shown in the diagram below:

Money Demand and Increases in Real GDP

Interest Rate (r) 9% 7% 5% MD2 MD1 Real Money Demand

The general approach I will be using in analyzing my data is as follows:

Formulate an econometric model and choose the type of functional form to use.

Conduct the tests of hypothesis for the coefficients.

Distinguish the dependent or explained variable from the independent or explanatory variable/s.

Interpret the coefficient of determination, R2, and the adjusted coefficient of determination, R2.

Determine the appropriate statistics/data that best represent variables.

Check for normality of error terms.

Determine whether to use Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) or Generalized Least Squares (GLS) estimation.

Detect for signs of multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity, and serial correlation.

Run the regression.

If there are signs of the aforementioned problems in multiple regression, diagnose.

Interpret coefficients.

III.

ECONOMETRIC MODEL AND ESTIMATION PROCEDURE a. Econometric Model

ln(Mt) = 1 + 2ln(Yt) + 3Rt + 4ln(Pt) + t

where

Mt = real quantity of money Yt = real national income Rt = interest rate Pt = price level

Variables

Real Quantity of Money (Mt) refers to the quantity of money available in the

Philippine economy. In this study, data on the broad money (M2) of the Philippines was used.

Real National Income (Yt) refers to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the

Philippines. GDP is the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.

Interest Rate (Rt), in this model, is quantified through data on 91-day Philippine

Treasury Bills. Treasury Bills (T-Bills) are government securities which mature in less than a year. There are three tenors of T-Bills: (1) 91 day (2) 182-day (3) 364-day maturities. The number of days is based on the universal practice around the world of ensuring that the bills mature on a business day. T-Bills are quoted either by their yield rate, which is the discount, or by their price based on 100 points per unit. Those that mature in less than 91 days are called Cash Management Bills (e.g. 35-day, 42day). T-Bills do not bear interest but are rather issued and sold at a discount from face value (they cant be traded at a premium) and are redeemed at maturity for the full face value of the instrument.
9

Price Level (Pt), in this model, is quantified through data on Consumer Price

Index (CPI) which is a measure of the overall cost of the goods and services bought by a typical consumer.

Functional Form The model assumes a log-linear form in real quantity of money (M t), price level (Pt), and real national income (Yt). Meanwhile, it assumes a linear form in interest rates (Rt). The aforementioned functional forms were employed based on Keynes theoretical assumptions on the demand for money. Essentially, he made the transactions and precautionary balances functions of the level of income, and speculative balances a function of the current rate of interest and the level of wealth. Under Keyness assumptions, the demand for money, where W represents wealth, can be written as: MD =[kY + l(r) W] P In the equation, kY represents transactions and precautionary balances, and

l(r)W represents speculative balances (l), which are a function of the interest rate. Traditionally, the standard theory of the demand for money has been tested empirically by estimating the equation: MD = ( P, Y, R) where MD is expected to be a stable function of a small number of key macroeconomic variables which includes P, the price level; Y, a scale variable (income); and R, a vector of interest rates, representing the opportunity cost of holding money.

10

Price homogeneity is frequently imposed, which is a testable restriction, given that the units of a currency are irrelevant. So the equation becomes: MD = f(Y.R) P

Taking logarithms of the equation yields (hereafter small caps represent logs of variables): ln(M) = 1 + 2ln(Y) + 3R + 4ln(P) +

Hence, the equation assumes log-linearity in money, prices, and income, and linearity in interest rates, which is a common functional form.

b. Estimation Procedure I used the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method in estimating the parameters of my econometric model. I chose the OLS estimation procedure over the General Least Squares (GLS) method because the former is consistent when regressors (real national income, interest rates, and price level in this case) are exogenous and there exists no problem of multicollinearity. In addition, OLS can be derived as a maximum likelihood estimator under the assumption that error terms t are normally distributed.

11

IV.

THE DATA Variable Descriptions m2r gdpr tbr3 p real money supply, 2000-2010 real gross domestic product, 2000-2010 interest rate on three-month (91-day) treasury bills consumer price index, 2000-2010

Summary Statistics Variable Mean Median Standard Deviation 0.16055 0.07518 2.18860 0.07566 Minimum 3.153266 3.36557 3.41 2.00000 Maximum 3.634094 3.57123 9.86 2.22037

ln(m2r) 3.3947 3.364626 ln(gdpr) 3.4672 3.46761 tbr3 6.0864 6.36 ln(p) 2.1115 2.11327 Number of observations = 11

12

V.

RESULTS OLS Results, Dependent Variable: Real Money Supply

Dependent Variable: LN_M2R Method: Least Squares Date: 03/11/11 Time: 22:16 Sample: 2000 2010 Included observations: 11 Variable C LN_GDPR TBR3 LN_P R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood Durbin-Watson stat Coefficient -0.632805 -0.093505 -0.005529 2.076881 0.994278 0.991826 0.014516 0.001475 33.43522 1.540820 Std. Error 0.769167 0.488637 0.003690 0.469749 t-Statistic -0.822715 -0.191358 -1.498115 4.421255 Prob. 0.4378 0.8537 0.1778 0.0031 3.394737 0.160554 -5.351859 -5.207169 405.4533 0.000000

Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion F-statistic Prob(F-statistic)

Interpretation of coefficients: ln(Mt) = -0.632805 - 0.093505ln(Yt) - 0.005529Rt + 2.076881ln(Pt)

The relationship between M and Y takes a double-log functional form. As these results show, the elasticity of M with respect to Y is about -0.0935, suggesting that if real national income goes up by 1 percent, on average, the real quantity of money goes down by about 9.35 percent. Thus, the relationship between real quantity of money and real national income is inversely proportional.

The relationship between M and R takes a semilog, specifically a log-lin, functional form. As these results show, an absolute change in the value of R results in a constant proportional or relative change in M equal to the slope coefficient of R (i.e. 3).

The relationship between M and P takes a double-log functional form. As these results show, the elasticity of M with respect to P is about 2.0769, suggesting that is
13

the price level goes up by 1 percent, on average, the real quantity of money goes up by 207.69 percent. Thus the relationship between real quantity of money and price level is directly proportional. Test of Hypothesis for the Coefficients:
a. The t Test 1. Ho : j = 0

H 1 : j = 0 2. Test statistics: Variable C LN_GDPR TBR3 LN_P t-Statistic -0.822715 -0.191358 -1.498115 4.421255 Prob. 0.4378 0.8537 0.1778 0.0031

3. Level of Significance: = 5%
4.

Comparison of t statistics with the critical t value: Variable C LN_GDPR TBR3 LN_P t-Statistic -0.822715 -0.191358 -1.498115 4.421255 Critical t value 2.306 2.306 2.306 2.306

5. Decision: At the 5% significance level, the critical t value corresponding to n = 11 and k = 3 is t0.025 (8) = 2.306. Since the explanatory variable LN_P is the only coefficient whose t value is greater, in absolute value, than 2.365, it is the only significant variable in explaining real money supply at the 5% level.

b. The F Test 1. Ho : 2 = 3 = 4 = 0

H1 : There is a j = 0.
14

2. Test statistic: F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) 3. Level of Significance: = 5%

4. The critical F value corresponding to the level of significance = 5%, n = 11, and

405.4533 0.000000

k = 3 is F0.05(2,8) = 4.46. Therefore, the computed F value (405.4533) is greater than the tabulated F0.05(2,8) = 4.46. 5. Decision: Since the computed F value is greater than the tabulated F value, we conclude that the regression as a whole is significant at the 5% level. Interpretation of R2 and R2:
a. Interpretation of the coefficient of determination, R2

R2 value

Bet. LN_M2R and LN_GDPR 0.977310

Bet. LN_M2R and TBR3 0.688456

Bet. LN_M2R and LN_P 0.992405

The coefficient of determination between LN_M2R and LN_GDPR, R2 = 0.9773,

says that 97.73% of the variation in LN_M2R about its mean is explained by the variation in LN_GDPR.
The coefficient of determination between LN_M2R and TBR3, R2 = 0.6885, says

that 68.85% of the variation in LN_M2R about its mean is explained by the variation in TBR3.
The coefficient of determination between LN_M2R and LN_P, R2 = 0.9924, says

that 99.24% of the variation in LN_M2R about its mean is explained by the variation in LN_P.

b. Interpretation of the adjusted coefficient of determination, R2

Adjusted R-squared

0.991826
15

The adjusted coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.9918, says that 99.18% of the variation in LN_M2R about its mean is explained by the variation in its regressors namely LN_GDPR, TBR3, and LN_P. Checking for Normality of Error Terms: a. The Jarque-Bera Test
5 Series: RESIDUALS Sample 2000 2010 Observations 11 Mean Median Maximum Minimum Std. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis Jarque-Bera Probability -0.02 0.00 0.02 -2.42e-16 0.001517 0.014499 -0.032180 0.012145 -1.678336 5.724099 8.565316 0.013806

0 -0.04

The JB statistic of 8.565316 has a p-value of 0.013806. If the level of significance is = 1%, then, since 0.01 < p = 0.013806, the null hypothesis (i.e. normality of the residuals) cannot be rejected.

16

Detection of and Remedies for Problems in Linear Regression: a. Multicollinearity Detection through the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF): LN_GDPR vs. TBR3, LN_P 2.874 TBR3 vs. LN_GDPR, LN_P 59.456 LN_P vs. LN_GDPR, TBR3 3.070

VIF

When using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) as an estimate of the increase in the variance of an estimated coefficient due to multicollinearity, the higher the VIF the more serious the multicollinearity problem is. Consequently, the regression results indicate that the TBR3 variable is causing a serious multicollinearity problem.

Proposed Remedies:
i.

In order to correct for the multicollinearity problem caused by the TBR3 variable, I will transform the functional form of my econometric model into the following:

ln(Mt) = 1 + 2ln(Yt) + 3ln(Rt) + 4ln(Pt) + t

Regressing the new econometric model using OLS: LN_GDPR vs. TBR3, LN_P 68.295 TBR3 vs. LN_GDPR, LN_P 3.372 LN_P vs. LN_GDPR, TBR3 61.578

VIF

The OLS results show that the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) of the TBR3 variable decrease from 59.456 to 3.372. However, after this change in functional form, the VIFs of the GDPR and P variables increase from 2.874 to 68.295 and from 3.070 to 61.578 respectively. Thus, the remedy of changing the functional form presents another serious multicollinearity problem.

17

ii.

In order to correct for the multicollinearity problem caused by the TBR3 variable, I will drop the TBR3 variable from the econometric model. Dropping the TBR3 variable will result to the following econometric model:

ln(Mt) = 1 + 2ln(Yt) + 3ln(Pt) + t

Regressing the new econometric model using OLS: LN_GDPR vs. TBR3, LN_P 59.456 LN_P vs. LN_GDPR, TBR3 59.456

VIF

The OLS results show that the Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) of the GDPR and P variables still remain high even after the TBR3 variable is dropped. Thus, the remedy of dropping the TBR3 variable, still fails to correct the multicollinearity problem. In conclusion, since all the other remedies for multicollinearity (i.e. using priori information, adding more observations, and using ridge regression and principal components) have certain drawbacks, I choose to do nothing about the problem. Inasmuch as there are no available additional data on all of the variables in the econometric model, the remedy of adding more observation is clearly unfeasible. Since the specification of the econometric model is theoretically correct, even with multicollinearity, the estimators were BLUE. Nevertheless, dropping a variable that is theoretically appropriate can lead to specification error, resulting in biased estimates of the retained coefficients.

b. Serial Correlation 18

Detection through graphical method:

Plot of e t against e t - 1

The graph of et against et-1 suggests no clear evidence of a positive serial correlation.

Detection of Higher-Order Serial Correlation through the Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation Test: 1. Ho : 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 0 H1 : There is at least one j not equal to zero. 2. Residuals et :
Observation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Residual 0.00151 0.01450 0.00468 -0.00259 -0.00341 -0.03219 -0.00311 0.00828 0.00284 -0.00052

19

11

0.01001

3. Regression Analysis:
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test: F-statistic Obs*R-squared 0.297145 3.121437 Probability Probability 0.864161 0.537713

Test Equation: Dependent Variable: RESID Method: Least Squares Date: 03/22/11 Time: 07:24 Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero. Variable C LN_GDPR TBR3 LN_P RESID(-1) RESID(-2) RESID(-3) RESID(-4) R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood Durbin-Watson stat Coefficient 0.224687 -0.109794 0.000473 0.071848 0.077305 -0.390520 -0.059606 -0.570039 0.283767 -1.387443 0.018765 0.001056 35.27085 2.291783 Std. Error 1.438038 0.956363 0.005073 0.926279 0.597207 0.806201 0.588627 0.654511 t-Statistic 0.156245 -0.114803 0.093210 0.077566 0.129444 -0.484395 -0.101262 -0.870939 Prob. 0.8858 0.9159 0.9316 0.9431 0.9052 0.6613 0.9257 0.4479 -2.42E-16 0.012145 -4.958336 -4.668957 0.169797 0.974995

Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion F-statistic Prob(F-statistic)

4. Test statistic: 2 = 3.121437 5. Level of Significance: = 5% 6. Decision: Since the computed 2 = 3.121437 is less than the critical 2 (8) value = 15.5073 at the significance level = 0.05, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the said significance level. Consequently, there is no evidence of a serial correlation up to the fourth order (i.e. p = 4).
20

c. Heteroskedasticity Detection through Whites Heteroskedasticity Test:

1. Ho : There is no heteroskedasticity.

H1 : There is heteroskedasticity. 2. Residuals:

Observation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Residual 0.00151 0.01450 0.00468 -0.00259 -0.00341 -0.03219 -0.00311 0.00828 0.00284 -0.00052 0.01001

3. Regression output: R2 = 0.235 m=3 4. Test statistic:

White Heteroskedasticity Test: F-statistic Obs*R-squared 0.205172 2.588662 Probability Probability 0.957069 0.858416

4. Level of Significance: = 5%

5. Decision: Since the value of the test statistic Obs*R-squared = 2.588662 is less than the critical 2 (8) value = 15.5073 at the significance level = 0.05, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the said significance level. Alternatively, since the p-value of the test statistic Obs*R-squared = 0.858416 is greater than the significance level = 0.05, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the said significance level. Consequently, there is no evidence that the error terms t are heteroskedastic.
21

VI.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The empirical analysis results show that the demand for money function is well specified. The Jarque-Bera test verifies the normality of the error terms in the econometric model. The regression, as a whole, is significant and explains much of the variation in the real quantity of money. However, the t test shows that the only significant variable in explaining the real quantity of money is the price level. Put in other words, changes in the price level account for the majority of changes in the real quantity of money. Nevertheless, changes in the real national income and interest rates also contribute, although to a lesser extent, to the variation in real quantity of money. With regards to diagnosing and treating problems in linear regression, I test for problems in multicollinearity, serial correlation and heteroskedasticity. Through the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), I arrive at the conclusion that the interest rates explanatory variable is the one causing the multicollinearity problem. However, even though the problem of multicollinearity exists, the estimators are still BLUE since the specification of the econometric model is correct. Moreover, the Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation Test shows that there is no evidence of a serial correlation up to the fourth order (i.e. p = 4). With regards to detecting the problem of heteroskedasticity, I use the Whites Heteroskedasticity Test and arrive at the conclusion that the error terms t are not heteroskedastic. The conclusions above are subject to a number of limitations. First, it is unclear as to what extent the results can be generalized to other countries. Each country has different data for the explanatory variables used and thus the results generated may be far different for the cases of other countries. Second, the error terms for each variable can be correlated over time. For example, if demand for money increases one year given a level of national income, interest rates and price level, demand for money will likely increase in the following year as well. Therefore, the estimation procedure may need to correct for this autocorrelation. Third, the number of observations available is limited making trend analysis rather difficult. Finally, there may be
22

other variables that affect the demand for money (e.g. poverty rate or government expenditure). Including these in the regression may increase the precision of my estimates as well as eliminate potential omitted variable bias. Nevertheless, considerations of these shortcomings are left for future research.

23

REFERENCES Book

Rolando A. Danao: Introduction to Statistics and Econometrics, University of the Philippines Press, 2002

Damodar N. Gujarati: Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2003, fourth edition J. Maravic, M. Palic: Econometric Analysis of Money Demand in Serbia, National Bank of Serbia Research Department Discussion Paper, April 2005

I. Takeshi, H. Shigeyuki: An empirical analysis of the money demand function in India, Institute of Developing Economies (IDE) Discussion Paper No. 166. 2008.9, September 2008

Website

htttp://www.adb.org/Statistics http://www.bsp.gov.ph/statistics/sdds/dcs.htm http://www.bsp.gov.ph/statistics/spei_new/tab46.htm http://www.indexmundi.com/philippines/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html http://moneysense.com.ph/investing/government-securities-gs-investing-101/ http://www.bsp.gov.ph/statistics/sdds/tbillsdds.htm http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/tbills.asp http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/monetarypolicy/demand_for_money.h http://internationalecon.com/Finance/Fch40/F40-6.php http://internationalecon.com/Finance/Fch40/F40-7.php

tm

24