




































Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | ASFBR 

 

Asian Finance & Banking Review; Vol. 3, No. 2; 2019 
ISSN 2576-1161    E-ISSN 2576-1188 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business, USA 

 

     1 
 

 

Macroeconomics Needs Fresh Methodology of Theorization 
 
 
 

Bijan Bidabad  
B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., Post-Doc.  

Professor,  
Economics and Chief Islamic Banking Advisor,  

Bank Melli, Iran 
E-mail:bijan@bidabad.com 

 
 

 
 
 

Abstract 
In this paper, we try to analyze the macroeconomic reasoning in different methodological issues. Subsequently, we try to touch 
some current macroeconomic debates on aggregations, relations, monetary and real sectors analyses. We assess that what we 
know about the behavior of macroeconomic variables is just our understanding from empiricism, and we have rarely found the 
laws of linkages among macroeconomic variables. We also conclude that successive theories have an intuitional foundation. It 
seems that to improve macroeconomic theories and policies, we need to be redirected to basic philosophical thinking about the 
macroeconomic theoretical foundation and try to rebuild a new concrete base for macroeconomics. 

Keywords: Macroeconomics, Methodology, Theorization.  
 
 
1. Introduction 
Despite the existence of a long history in the realm of macroeconomic theorization, it seems that this important area of 
economic analysis needs fresh methodological bases. At the micro level of analysis; the characteristics of the phenomenon is more 
or less under the eyes of the investigator. He actually looks at micro-phenomena as a small specimen that has billions of similars. 
He can think about the similarities and dissimilarities of micro-phenomena to find some hypothesis or conjectures for explaining 
their behaviors. But, the same does not exist at the macro level of analysis. At this level, observations are aggregated; samples are 
not mainly similar; they are not numerous, and constructing hypothesis comes from sense and feeling not scrutinized 
investigation. Generally, microeconomics is the study of individual economic units and their interactions and is often contrasted 
with macroeconomics, which is concerned with the behavior of economic aggregates.  
 
2. Macroeconomic Methodology 
Generally, the macroeconomic methodology uses four main streams of methodological thinking. Let's introduce them as;  

 Micro foundation presuppositions 

 Meso (micro-macro) foundation presuppositions 
 Intuitional foundation presuppositions 
 Macro analytic methodology 

 
The first category is often called "neoclassical synthesis" because, in a simple, general equilibrium setting, the framework appears 
to be consistent with the traditional microeconomic analysis in terms of supply and demand. Behavioral equations at the macro 
level are obtained by adding up the behavioral equations of individuals whose information about market events is limited to 
prices. 
 
The second category more or less inspires from some implications of "Robinson Crusoe" type analysis. In mesoeconomics, a 
representative micro agent is chosen, and her behavior is exaggerated and generalized in such a way that similar corresponding 
macro behavior is akin to it. For example, in mesoeconomics, a representative firm is used to represent either an industry or the 
whole economy, depending on the question at hand. 

mailto:bijan@bidabad.com


Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | ASFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/asfbr                                 Asian Finance & Banking Review                                 Vol. 3, No. 2; 2019 
 

2 
                         
 

The third category consists of those theories that come from intuitions and feelings of theoreticians based on their logical 
reasoning inspired by their findings from general economic, social, and psychological relations and facts among selected 
aggregate variables. 
 
At the fourth category, theoretician is going to innovate suitable logical tools to explain the relations of aggregates. That is, he 
tries to build a concrete logical structure from base to roof as similar to the observed phenomena. In contrast to the latter  
category, he does not try to justify the observations, but his endeavor is to build a specific behavioral model to interpret 
behavior. 
 
All the above first three categories suffer from certain deficiencies. The major problem with the first category is aggregation from 
micro to the macro level, which is always tricky. On the other hand, this micro foundation relies on what is generally regarded as 
the weakest part of micro theory as the tatonnement mechanism. Generalization from micro to macro level as in the second 
category is again tricky. The majority of problems in these two categories are due to marginal principles. Since this principle, 
holds at the micro level of analysis but does not hold at the macro level. At the former level, all agents are assumed to act as price 
takers, and there is no one who can change prices, but at the latter level, the aggregate variables can and should change price level. 
Despite these, some authors have discussed that the fundamental distinction between macroeconomics and microeconomics is 
that macroeconomics is an attempt to understand situations of underemployment and excess capacity, while microeconomics is 
primarily concerned with situations of full utilization of resources (see, Leijonhufvud (1968)). This distinction is well taken, 
certainly the inspiration for what we today call macroeconomics came from an attempt to understand the prolonged 
underutilization of resources. Thus, it seems that the aggregated versus disaggregated nature of the study is the fundamental  
distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics. In this regard, structuring microeconomic bases for macroeconomic 
analysis becomes a bit tricky. 
 
The methodology of the third category is highly widespread. Although, it suffers from not having concrete micro or meso 
foundations, but is not pure of them. Perhaps, it may be claimed that the major contributions to macroeconomics literature 
belong to this category. Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) is the most famous milestone in 
this realm. The analysis based on the feeling and comprehension of the macroeconomic aggregate variables is the major 
characteristic of this category. Theoreticians in this area try to understand the behavior of aggregates and think to find the 
interactions howness of them from the past facts. For example, one as Keynes may observe a scatter plot of consumption versus 
disposable income during a long time horizon. At first glance, observer understands that all points follow each other around a 
linear straight positively sloped line through the origin at a high degree of closeness. Description of this observation as "Absolute 
Income Hypothesis" was the inference that Keynes raised. Interpretation of this phenomenon as a theory (consumption 
function) is free of basic prerequisite logical reasoning. Though, this hypothesis has been shown to be most often true. 
 
The fourth category methodology consists of origins of original thinking in macroeconomic theorization. As an example, we 
may look at Fisher's The Purchasing Power of Money (1911). In this book, Fisher uses very simple but concrete logical 
reasoning to explain the quantity theory of money. His reasoning uses some simple analytical tools as steelyard. Empirical 
evidence has shown the validity of his theory based on so many evidence for such wide ranges of circumstances. And instances in 
which prices and quantity of money have moved together are recorded for many centuries of history, for countries in every part 
of the globe, and for a wide diversity of monetary arrangements. 
 
In subsequent discussions, we are going to touch some of the current macroeconomic discussions briefly, which suffer from not 
having concrete methodological tools. In this task, we do not survey the literature engaged; since there are valuable references to 
expose the chronological development of macroeconomic discussions. 
 
3. Macroeconomic Aggregates 
Generally, the aggregation problem is a scientific task to reduce or combine detailed information when data are too numerous or 
in too many details to be manageable. The microeconomic theory treats the behavior of optimizing individual agents. The desire 
to analyze the aggregates of macroeconomics leads to the theories that construct such aggregates from the behavior of individual 
agents. 
 
Leontief's (1947a, 1947b) theorem states that commodity (or input) aggregate exists if and only if the marginal rate of 
substitution between any two kinds of commodities (or inputs) is independent of the quantity of other commodities (or inputs) 
excluded from our commodity (or input) aggregate. That is the marginal rate of substitution between each pair of elements 
included in and excluded from our aggregate are independents. According to this theorem, we are confronted with many 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | ASFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/asfbr                                 Asian Finance & Banking Review                                 Vol. 3, No. 2; 2019 
 

3 
                         
 

difficulties in macroeconomic aggregates (see, F.M. Fisher (1988)). In the case of consumption, if a similar restrictive condition 
is satisfied for all the aggregates of consumer, then the household's utility function can be written in the aggregate term. If we 
wish to represent consumer behavior as maximizing the aggregated utility function subject to an aggregated budget constraint, we 
should have aggregate prices as well as aggregate consumption commodities. Aggregate prices similarly should obey Leontief 
theorem as well. To construct the aggregate demands of a collection of consumers by horizontal summation of their individual 
demands causes a set of questions. For example, only aggregate income and not its distribution can influence demand. On the 
other hand, at given prices, this makes the relative changes of demand to changes of income for all consumers’ demand for a 
given commodity the same constant. 
 
In the case of production, the satisfaction of Leontief condition is again required for aggregation over inputs or outputs. 
Accordingly, movement of inputs among different firms should leave total output unchanged. This necessarily requires that all 
firms’ production functions be linear in inputs with the same coefficients. Assuming this assumption is highly strong. Even this 
restrictive assumption will not suffice since there are high differentiations among inputs. That is not all labors are the same and 
all capital equipment too. On the other side, the linearity of production function implicitly implies a constant return to scale, 
and this causes to consider small firms equivalent to large ones. 
 
However, we may conclude that the analytical use of macroeconomic aggregates is without sound foundation (see, Fisher (1988) 
and Sonnenschen (1988)). That is, we cannot treat the consumption and production sides of the economy as a single household 
or firm. Moreover, we cannot build aggregated variables with similar definitions that we have for microeconomic agents. This 
latter obstacle actually causes distortion of aggregate variables, which are used in macroeconomic analysis frequently. 
 
4. Macroeconomic Relations 
In the macroeconomic analysis, we try to investigate the relation among macroeconomic aggregates. Apart from the shortages of  
aggregates pointed out before, there are lots of paradoxes in macroeconomic relations. Macroeconomists often tend to examine a 
large domain of economic phenomena by adapting theoretical concepts that had originally been devised for a much narrower 
range of special issues, especially at the micro level. The discoveries of paradoxical relations derive from the fact that their 
process of generalization often turns out to be ill-conceived and misleading, if not entirely unwarranted. One of the main sources 
of disputes among macroeconomists is because of this phenomenon and has made macroeconomics as the most controversial 
fields of economics. But, science looks for strong theories and behavioral laws to make the man able to forecast and control the 
states of variables. 
 
5. Monetary Sector 
There is a huge amount of literature on monetary sector analysis, but among this literature, there are some major questions that 
have not been responding yet and are of crucial importance as economic methodology viewpoints. 
 
There are many intellectual and philosophical controversies among monetary economists to give a concrete and well-defined 
foundation for monetary discussions. The philosophical arguments that are milestones for developing theories are well treated 
but not sufficient in the realm of monetarism. Many monetary variables have not been thoroughly defined yet. Mainly, money 
itself does not have an exact definition to allow economists to refer to it properly in a theoretical-empirical consistent 
framework. However, across different structures of different economies, it is concluded that the definition of money should be 
consistent with what can be used as money in a specific economy and at a specific time. Degree of moneyless and degree of 
public acceptability of different means as money are other problems that need to be recognized in each economy under 
consideration. In this regard, the particular content of money may be different from place to place and from time to time. It is 
discussed that there is no sharp distinction between money and other assets in the real world. Moreover, it is the asset holder's 
decision that determines what asset types are close substitutes for another and which are not. It is also emphasized that one can 
define money as what is meant by a sufficiently close substitute for other assets and as far as the definition of money is 
concerned, the most important issue is the identification and measurement of stable aggregate demand for money function.  
 
Thus, in the context of this more general approach, the correct definition of money becomes a matter of empirical analysis. 
Here, an important question is arisen, as to what is the theoretical definition of money that is consistent with its real -world 
application. This is the point that turns the economist attention to the demand motives for money or kinds of assets that are 
included in the broader definitions of money. On the other hand, it is defined based on the functions that money performs. 
 
Indeterminacies in the definition of money arise from misspecification of the functioning of money in the economy. On the 
other hand, money is defined commonly as anything that is generally accepted as a means of payment or in final settlement of a 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | ASFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/asfbr                                 Asian Finance & Banking Review                                 Vol. 3, No. 2; 2019 
 

4 
                         
 

debt. Thus, this still remains the problem of classification, of enumerating those items that are generally accepted as a means of 
payment. Acceptability is an attribute possessed by most assets - but in varying degrees. However, for this "concrete" definition 
of money as means of exchange or store of value, we cannot draw the borderline to distinguish money from other assets that may 
be physical or non-physical, tangible or non-tangible assets, goods, services and so on. "Abstract" definition of money that 
thinks of money as a unit of account or measure of value also cannot identify the border of money and other assets. However, in 
a technologically changing world and continuous improvements in financial systems, drawing such a borderline is not an easy 
task. The following example shows the reject ability of both concrete and abstract money definitions.  
 
The services that housewives offer their husbands to look after children and managing home affairs are noticeable if we could 
add them up in national income accounts. However, this is because of problems and shortcomings of national income 
accounting, but, for these services, no money is allotted, but the wives' services are compensated by other types of services  as 
providing family expenditure and support that their husbands offer their wives. In this particular case, wives' services are 
exchanged by husbands' services in the absence of money. So, money as a means of exchange is not used, and nothing is stored by 
money as value. Money is not also used to account the services exchanged or measuring the corresponding  value. Therefore, 
concrete and abstract definitions do not include the phenomenon presented by this example. There are many examples that may 
be observed which do not satisfy these definitions and the border of money, and other assets remain undefined. Instead, 
economists have attempted to discuss the functioning of money based on various monetary aggregates. It is also tried that each 
monetary aggregate has certain characteristics to be consistent for specific issues. However, it is not a good remedy but is actually 
prevailed. 
 
Now let us consider money as an economic commodity that has its own price and market consequences. If money is working as 
a commodity, it must have a price. Its equilibrium price should be determined when its demand and supply meet each other in 
the market. Again another question is arisen, as to what is the "price of money" definition!? There are many works of literature 
regarding the demand for and supply of money, but in existing theories, there is no coordination between the money demand 
and supply in the market to determine the price of money. The cornerstone of economic analysis is based on demand and supply 
analysis, and the main variable in demand and supply functions is price. We always talk about the demand for and supply of  
money without referring to the "price of money". That is we talk about the amount of quantity exchanged without reference to 
the price of exchange. Some authors try to interpret inverse of general price level of goods and services as the price of money, but 
it is only an interpretation of a related variable and replacement of its inverse form instead of the lost "price of money" variable. 
However, even this interpretation of the "price of money" does not enter into demand and supply analysis of money 
theoretically. Some other authors think of interest rate as money price. But it is not really true since when money is used for a 
transaction, no interest is mentioned and when money is used for speculation interest is matter. This means that interest rate as 
"price of money" is zero for transaction and positive for speculation purposes. Thus, the interest rate is the productivity measure 
of money source not "price of money". It is by this misunderstanding that we observe the interest rate in the theoretical and 
empirical formulation of demand for and supply of money. Ignorance of price in demand and supply functions is the same as 
neglecting the laws of demand and supply (see, Bidabad (2014)) 
 
Monetary transmission mechanism -that is the mechanism of transmission of the effects of the monetary sector onto the real 
sector is also distorted. The foundation of this mechanism is given by Fisher's equation of exchange. This equation which relates 
money to the transaction is of the most important in this area, but this equation does not show the relation of the transaction to 
income and concluding money to income. After the introduction of this important theory, however, other schools of thoughts 
interpreted income as a scale variable of the transaction and tried to reinterpret velocity of circulation of money only as a 
variable, which equates nominal income to the stock of money as "income velocity of circulation of money" and so on. These 
interpretations actually distorted the main proposition of Fisher, which is the most important contribution to monetary 
economics.  
 
6. Real Sector 
Let us start the discussion on the aggregate demand and supply as the final conclusions that macroeconomists try to sum up. 
Generally, as pointed out before, we have not reached a complete methodology to find the economy utility (or welfare) and 
production functions. Under the highly restrictive assumption, suppose we were able to define them. Even in this case, 
optimization of global utility or profit of the economy is not possible, because the assumption of rationality does not hold 
anymore for the global economy. Society is not as rational as an individual. Abolishing of perfect competition is another 
problem. Comparability of different statics does not establish. The optimization of utility or profit of the global economy is so 
far from those of individual economic agents, and there is no certainty that even have the same direction. Social benefits can be 
in the opposite direction of individual benefits. This does not occur rarely, and it is actually a well-known discussion in 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | ASFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/asfbr                                 Asian Finance & Banking Review                                 Vol. 3, No. 2; 2019 
 

5 
                         
 

economic literature. By this, it is not possible to maximize the economy’s utility function to derive aggregate demand or to 
maximize the economy profit function to derive marginal cost as the aggregate supply curve. What is used as these functions of 
aggregate demand and supply are just conjectural curves similar to what we observe at microeconomics as market demand and 
supply. Sectors of aggregate demand also suffer from not having certain theoretical bases. The main part of aggregate demand is 
the consumption function. This function should be a demand schedule. And every demand schedules must be functions of 
prices. This statement is an economic law, not a tautology. This is also true for investment demand function. These functions 
have deep roots in economic literature, but even no one of them states aggregate consumption or investment demands as 
functions of prices. In contrast to these sectors, demand for imports and supply of exports that conform to the foreign sector of 
aggregate demand have been introduced as functions of prices. Other minor sectors of aggregate demand as changes in inventory 
and depreciation of capital also have the same problem of consumption and investment demands. 
 
Another problem is mathematical aggregation (or summation) of the sectors functions. Since income is equal to production at a 
macro level, and then the sum of all functions of sectors should add up to income. This condition is satisfied for national 
income accounts as the sum of sectors expenditures, but it does not hold for sectors of aggregate demand prevailing functions. 
That is if we sum up consumption function, investment function, government expenditures, export function, and negative of 
import function, we cannot reach the equation of "income equal to expenditures". On the other hand, the sum of these 
functions does not reduce to the original mathematical identity of national income. 
 
Other aggregates at the income side of national income accounts as saving, transfer payments, and taxes have a similar problem. 
The saving function should be directly related to consumption, and thus, it should also be a function of prices. But the only 
variable that is not observed at saving function is price. The problem of mathematical summation cited before also remains 
unsolved at this side of national income accounts identity. That is, again, we cannot reach income by mathematical summation 
of the consumption function, saving function, tax function, and transfer payments function. 
 
Definition of aggregates cannot recognize a definite border among them. We cannot actually distinguish saving from investment. 
We cannot explain the relation of saving at the monetary sector to saving at the real sector or at national income accounts. That 
is, we cannot link saving and time deposits at banking sector to saving and investment of real sector. Although saving at banks, 
saving at national income accounts and investment as sub aggregate of expenditure are all "saving" and are all "investment". 
Despite this, saving and investment both in monetary and real sectors, lead to the paradox of capital. Capital itself is one of the 
main controversial variables in macroeconomic analysis. Wealth, the nearest friend of capital, is another problem. These two 
latter variables have not exact definitions in macroeconomics, and there is no exact criterion to distinguish them. Relating to 
capital, we cannot distinguish the substitution of old capital equipment by new ones from the depreciation of capital equipment. 
That is, we cannot draw a border to distinguish capital substitution from capital depreciation. 
 
Relation of foreign exchange to domestic money is another puzzle. We do not know how the exchange rate is determined as a 
result of the monetary process. We observe a high correlation between domestic money and foreign exchange rates, but we 
cannot remove the problem of specification error in these relations. This means that we know the existence of such a 
relationship, but we do not know how it is. 
 
Generally, the relation of variables is based on the empiricism rather that theorism. Empirical relation of inflation and 
unemployment has been devoted to lots of literature. It is justified for short and long terms, and economists try to interpret why. 
Dynamism over macroeconomic relations and introducing models as multi-period dynamic relations is just to make unsolved 
and unidentified problems more complex. In this area, the phenomenon of business cycles and economic fluctuation is of the 
most important problems. The monetary transmission mechanism is another unsolved problem in this area. We do not have an 
exact response to the question as to how the monetary sector can affect the real sector, because this mechanism is highly 
dependent on the interest rate and interest rate is a time-based variable. Thus, all monetary and fiscal policies are determined in a 
realm of doubts about their effects on the economy. 
 
7. Conclusion 
Disregarding the how macroeconomic aggregates are constructed and their structural definitional problems, what we know about 
the behavior of macroeconomic variables is just our understanding from empiricism, and we have rarely found the laws of the 
inter-relationship among macroeconomic variables. Perhaps it can be said that Fisher's original quantity theory of money is just 
our main progress at macroeconomics. He tries to express equilibrium rather than going through supply and demand. Other 
successive theories have an intuitional foundation, as discussed before. Disregarding the definition of aggregate and sub-aggregate 
variables, national income accounting, and identities among total income and total expenditures and total production is an 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | ASFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/asfbr                                 Asian Finance & Banking Review                                 Vol. 3, No. 2; 2019 
 

6 
                         
 

elegant theoretical base for macroeconomic analysis. It seems that to improve macroeconomic theories and policies, we need to 
redirect researches to basic philosophical thinking about the macroeconomic theoretical foundation and try to rebuild a new 
concrete base for macroeconomics. 
 
References 
Bidabad, Bijan. [2014], Bijan Bidabad, General monetary equilibrium. Lap Lambert Academic Publishing, Omni Scriptum 

GmbH & Co. KG, ISBN: 978-3-659-54045-5, Spring 2014. 
Bidabad, Bijan. [2014], Money-Transaction-Income Process (Quantification of Quantity Theory of Money). Proceeding of the 

3rd International Conference on Economics, Political, Law and Fiscal Sciences (EPLS '14), World Scientific and 
Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS). Transilvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania, pp. 213-220, June 26-

28, 2014 . 
http://www.bidabad.com/doc/MTV4.pdf  
http://www.bidabad.com/doc/MTV4.ppt  

Bidabad, Bijan. [1991], Dependence of research methodology on laboratory tools in economics. Methodus, Bulletin of 
International Network for Economic Method, Vol. 3, No.1, June, 129-30. 

Bidabad, Bijan. [1990], Micro-macro analysis of trade and migration, Economic and Management Journal, No. 7, Winter, 
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. http://www.bidabad.com/doc/mohajerat-tejarat.pdf 

Chrystal, K.A. [1990], (ed.) Monetarism, Vol. I, II; Edward Elgar. 
Dean, E. [1965], (ed.); The controversy over quantity theory of money, D.C. Health & Company, a division of Raytheon 

education company, Lexington, Massachusetts. 
Fisher, I. [1911], The purchasing power of money, its determination and relation to credit, interest, and crises; assisted by H.G. 

Brown, reprinted by Augustus M. Kelly bookseller, 1963, New York. 
Fisher, D. [1980]. Monetary theory and demand for money, Martin Robertson Pub., Oxford. 
Fisher, F.M. [1988] Aggregation problem, The new Palgrave, a dictionary of economics, J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, P. Newman; 

eds., Macmillan. 
Hume, D. [1752]. Of money, in writings on economics, edited by Eugene Rotwein (University of Wisconsin Press, 1970). 

Reprinted of selected essays from political discourses, 1752. 
Johnson, H.G. [1979]. (ed.), Selected Essays in Monetary Economics, 2nd impression, George Allen & Unwin, London. 
Keynes, J.M. [1936], General theory of employment, interest, and money, Macmillan, London. 
Laidler, D.E.W. [1977]. The demand for money: theories and evidence, 2nd ed., Harper & Row Inc., New York. 
Laidler, D.E.W. [1969]. The definition of money: theoretical and empirical problems, Journal of money, credit and banking, 

Aug. 
Leijonhufvud, A. [1968], On Keynesian economics and the economics of Keynes, New York, Oxford University Press. 
Leontief, W.W. [1947a]. A note on the interrelation of subsets of independent variables of a continuous function with 

continuous first derivatives. Bulletin of American Mathematical Society 53, 343-56. 
Leontief, W.W. [1947b], Introduction to a theory of internal structure of functional relationships. Econometrica 15(4), 

October, 361-73. 
Mayer, T. [1990], (ed.), Monetary theory, Edward Elgar, London. 
Muellbauer, J., R. Portes [1978] Macroeconomics models with quantity rationing, The Economic Journal, December. 
Newlyn, W.T. [1974], Theory of money, Oxford University Press. 
Ng, Yew-Kwang [1986]. Mesoeconomics: a micro-macro analysis, Brighton, U.K., Wheatsheaf. 
Pesek, B.P. [1979], Modern bank deposits, and the theory of optimum money, in economic perspectives, an annual survey of 

economics. M.S. Ballabon (ed.), Baruch College of the city university of New York, Vol. I, Harwood Academic Publishers, 
Chur, New York. 

Patinkin, D. [1965]. Money, interest and prices, an integration of monetary and value theory, 2nd ed., Harper & Row, New 
York. 

Pierce, D.G., D.M. Shaw [1974]. Monetary economics, theories, evidence, policy; London, Butterworth. 
Sonnenschein [1988], Aggregate demand theory, The new Palgrave, a dictionary of economics, J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, P. 

Newman; eds., Macmillan. 
 
 
Copyrights  
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access 
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

http://www.bidabad.com/doc/MTV4.pdf
http://www.bidabad.com/doc/MTV4.ppt
http://www.bidabad.com/doc/mohajerat-tejarat.pdf

