利率市场化、LPR与货币政策调控有效性——基于政策对工业经济的影响视角

财经论丛 ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (6): 36-46.

利率市场化、LPR与货币政策调控有效性——基于政策对工业经济的影响视角

张年华¹, 黄楚光², 蒋彧²

1.上海财经大学金融学院,上海 200433;
2.南京大学商学院,江苏南京 210093

收稿日期:2022-03-22 出版日期:2023-06-10 发布日期:2023-06-13
作者简介:张年华(1991—),女,安徽合肥人,上海财经大学金融学院博士生;黄楚光(1992—),男,广东揭阳人,南京大学商学院硕士;蒋彧(1980—),男,江苏常州人,南京大学商学院教授,博士。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金青年项目(72202046)

The Effects of Monetary Policy in the Context of Interest Rate Liberalization and LPR: Based on the Impact of Policy on the Industrial Economy

ZHANG Nianhua¹, HUANG Chuguang², JIANG Yu²

1. School of Finance, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200433, China;
2. Business School, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China

Received:2022-03-22 Online:2023-06-10 Published:2023-06-13

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 2019年贷款市场报价利率(LPR)改革标志中国利率市场化进入新阶段,利率深化改革能否增强货币政策效果再度成为关注焦点。鉴于政策调控具有非线性时变影响,本文基于时变参数模型并构建政策时变溢出指数,研究不同利率市场化程度下货币政策对工业经济调控的有效性。研究表明:随着利率市场化程度加深,工业企业融资和工业经济增长对货币政策调控的反应愈加敏感,利率改革显著增强了数量型政策和价格型政策的调控效果;从影响程度看,数量型政策对工业经济的时变冲击效应和时变溢出效应较价格型政策高,这与中国长期依赖数量调控以及利率传导受阻有关。当前,央行的货币政策调控在本质上仍然比较依赖“量”传导,仅通过LPR改革难以完全疏通利率传导堵点,推动货币政策调控由“量”向“价”转型仍然任重道远。本研究为剖析利率改革成果,促进数量调控向价格调控转型提供了有益参考。

关键词: 利率市场化, LPR, 货币政策有效性, 工业经济, 时变效应

Abstract: The reform of LPR in 2019 marks a new stage of interest rate marketization in China. In this context, it is significant to study the effect of the interest rate reform on the regulation of the monetary policy. Relevant studies show that the dynamic and volatility of the interest rate reform will lead to the time-varying impact of the monetary policy on the real economy. Therefore, considering the nonlinear and time-varying characteristics of policy regulation, this paper studies the policy effect based on the TVP-VAR model. At the same time, by constructing the time-varying spillover index of the monetary policy, this paper explores the effectiveness of the monetary policy on the industrial economy under the different degree of interest rate marketization. At present, the industrial economy accounts for a high proportion of China's total economic output. Only by strengthening the impact of the monetary policy on the regulation of the industrial economy can we strengthen economic stability.
The results show that both quantitative and price-based monetary policies have nonlinear and time-varying effects on the industrial economy. With the deepening of interest rate marketization, the impact of the monetary policy on industrial enterprises' financing and industrial economic growth is more significant, which shows that the interest rate reform has significantly enhanced the regulatory effect of the two monetary policies. The results also reveal that with the reform of LPR, quantity-oriented monetary policies are more effective in controlling industrial financing and industrial production growth. However, interest rates influencing industrial financing through capital costs is not effective, which further restricts the role and effectiveness of price-oriented monetary policies in controlling industrial production growth. The main reason is that central banks rely on quantitative regulation and the transmission of interest rates is blocked. In addition, after the LPR reform, quantitative policies still play an important role in stabilizing growth, but the role of price-based policies needs to be improved.
At present, the effect ofthe monetary policy belongs to “quantity” rather than “price”, and it is difficult to improve the policy effect only through LPR reform. In addition, the effects of quantity-oriented monetary policies or price-oriented monetary policies on industrial economic activity in China have hysteresis and persistence, but the reform of LPR can reduce the lag of policy regulation and improve the sensitivity of policy regulation. Finally, we suggest embedding LPR into FTP pricing system in order to dredge the transmission mechanism of “MLF-LPR-RATE” price-oriented monetary policy. Only continuous reform can enhance the effect of LPR and promote the goal of policy regulation to achieve the transmission from “Quantity” to “Price”.

Key words: Interest Rate Liberalization, LPR, Effectiveness of Monetary Policy, Industrial Economy, Time-Varying-Effect

中图分类号:

F832

张年华, 黄楚光, 蒋彧. 利率市场化、LPR与货币政策调控有效性——基于政策对工业经济的影响视角[J]. 财经论丛, 2023, 39(6): 36-46.

ZHANG Nianhua, HUANG Chuguang, JIANG Yu. The Effects of Monetary Policy in the Context of Interest Rate Liberalization and LPR: Based on the Impact of Policy on the Industrial Economy[J]. Collected Essays on Finance and Economics, 2023, 39(6): 36-46.

参考文献

[1]王少林, 李仲达, 林建浩. 中国数量型货币政策有效性的时变性研究[J]. 当代经济, 2015, (8): 17-25.
[2]杨继生, 向镜洁. 货币传导异质性与实体经济流动性配置的“马太效应”[J]. 金融研究, 2020, (11): 40-57.
[3]李宏瑾, 苏乃芳. 数量规则还是利率规则？——我国转型时期量价混合型货币规则的理论基础[J]. 金融研究, 2020, (10): 38-53.
[4]张成思, 张步昙. 中国实业投资率下降之谜: 经济金融化视角[J]. 经济研究, 2016, (12): 32-46.
[5]刘红忠, 童小龙, 张卫平. 中国货币政策的经验性分析: 从数量型调控向价格型调控演进[J]. 复旦学报(社会科学版), 2020, (2): 164-179.
[6]郭豫媚, 陈伟泽, 陈彦斌. 中国货币政策有效性下降与预期管理研究[J]. 经济研究, 2016, (1): 28-41, 83.
[7]郭路, 刘霞辉, 孙瑾. 中国货币政策和利率市场化研究——区分经济结构的均衡分析[J]. 经济研究, 2015, (3): 18-31.
[8]徐忠. 经济高质量发展阶段的中国货币调控方式转型[J]. 金融研究, 2018, (4): 1-19.
[9]徐宁, 丁一兵, 张男. 利率管制、LPR与完全市场化下的货币政策传导机制: 理论对比与实证检验[J]. 南方经济, 2020, (5): 34-48.
[10]尚玉皇, 赵芮, 董青马. 混频数据信息下的时变货币政策传导行为研究——基于混频TVP-FAVAR模型[J]. 金融研究, 2021, (1): 13-30.
[11]杨筝, 刘放, 李茫茫. 利率市场化、非效率投资与资本配置——基于中国人民银行取消贷款利率上下限的自然实验[J]. 金融研究, 2017, (5): 81-96.
[12]章容洲, 李程.利率市场化、表外杠杆与银行脆弱性[J]. 财经论丛, 2021, (12): 61-69.
[13]李双建, 田国强. 银行竞争与货币政策银行风险承担渠道: 理论与实证[J]. 管理世界, 2020, (4): 149-168.
[14]Hartmann P., Smets F. The First Twenty Years of the European Central Bank: Monetary Policy[Z]. European Central Bank Working Paper, 2018.
[15]Samarina A., Apokoritis N. Evolution of Monetary Policy Frameworks in the Post-Crisis Environment[Z]. DNB Working Paper, 2020.
[16]戴金平, 刘东坡. 中国货币政策的动态有效性研究——基于TVP-SV-FAVAR模型的实证分析[J]. 世界经济研究, 2016, (12): 12-24, 132.
[17]Faulkender M., Petersen M. A. Does the Source of Capital Affect Capital Structure?[J].Review of Financial Studies, 2006, 19(1): 45-79.
[18]闫先东, 朱迪星. 货币政策与企业投融资行为: 基于最新文献的述评[J]. 金融评论, 2018, (3): 94-111, 125.
[19]陆军, 黄嘉. 利率市场化改革与货币政策银行利率传导[J]. 金融研究, 2021, (4): 1-18.
[20]龙超, 李玲娟. 利率市场化与货币政策转型的宏观调控效果研究[J]. 经济纵横, 2022, (3): 118-128.
[21]Woodford M. Optimal Interest-Rate Smoothing[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2003, 70(4): 861-886.
[22]Primiceri G.E. Time Varying Structural Vector Autoregressions and Monetary Policy[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2005, 72(3): 821-852.
[23]李成刚, 李峰, 赵光辉. 货币政策规则对国际资本流动与人民币汇率的时变影响——基于TVP-SV-VAR模型的实证检验[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, (10): 35-46.
[24]肖争艳, 陈惟. 货币政策、利率传导与中小企业融资成本——基于实际融资成本的实证研究[J]. 经济评论, 2017, (5): 79-90.
[25]殷兴山, 易振华, 项燕彪. 总量型和结构型货币政策工具的选择与搭配——基于结构性去杠杆视角下的分析[J]. 金融研究, 2020, (6): 60-77.
[26]Gerlach J.R., Mora N., Uysal P. Bank Funding Costs in a Rising Interest Rate Environment[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance, 2018, 87(9): 164-186.
[27]孙秋枫, 吴梅. 贷款市场报价利率改革对利率市场化的作用及建议[J]. 经济纵横, 2021, (1): 122-128.