American Economic Association

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance Author(s): John Y. Campbell Source: Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 667-673 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2728699 . Accessed: 27/09/2011 08:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Economic Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Economic Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

Journal of Economic Literature Vol. XXXII (June 1994), pp. 667-673

The

New

Paigrave
and

Dictionary Finance

of

Money

By JOHN Y. CAMPBELL WoodrowWilson School, Princeton University I am grateful to Ken Rogofffor helpful comments on thefirst version of this paper. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance is a successor to the 1987 work The New Palgrave:A Dictionary of Economics. Both dictionariesclaim descent from Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy, published as a summary of the state of economics during the 1890s. The same team of three editors is responsible for both New Palgrave dictionaries,1 and there are many similarities in approach. Indeed, about 20 percent of the essays in the New Palgrave Money and Finance are reprinted from the New Palgrave Economics (and ten essays are reprinted from the original Palgrave). There are also some obvious differences between the two New Palgrave dictionaries. The New Palgrave Economics had a much broader scope, aimingto cover all of moderneconomics. It was considerably larger than the New Palgrave Money and Finance, with four volumes ratherthan three, 3500 pages ratherthan 2500, and almost 2000 essays rather than 1000 or so. The New Palgrave Economics included biographicalessays, which took up about a third of the work; the New Palgrave Money and Finance has no biographybut includes manyshort definitions of technical terms. Last but not
' The editors' names appear in a different order on the New Palgrave Money and Finance, but it is not clear whether this reflects a different allocation of responsibilitiesor merely an attempt to redress the inequity of alphabetical ordering on the previous work.

least, the New PalgraveEconomicsomitted empiricaltopics to concentrateon economic theory and historyof economic thought, while the New Palgrave Money and Finance covers much empirical material. I. Why Money and Finance? Why, among all the fields of economics, should monetary and financialeconomics have their own three-volumedictionary? And if these fields are importantenough to deserve special attention, should they be treated together? At a commerciallevel, the answersare clear. The financialservices industrymakesup a large and growing part of the world economy, and it differsfrom other importantindustries in the intensity with which economics is used by participants in the industry as well as by students of the industry. Technologicalinnovation in financialservices has often been driven by innovation in financial economics. Professors of financial economics have accordingly become prominent on Wall Street, and some of their students have enjoyed spectacularfinancialsuccess. Hence there is a large market beyond academiafor a reference work in finance. Many practitionersare interested in aspects of monetary economics, and so it makes commercial sense to cover these topics as well. At an intellectual level, there remains the question of whether the fields of monetaryand financialeconomics have some special identity. To help answer this question I now review

667

668

Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXII (June 1994)

of economics in the 1960'sand 1970's.The early literatureon rationalexpectationsin macroeconomics, for example, is quite distinct from the finance literature on efficient markets, despite the similarityof these ideas.2 One reason for the separate development of finance may have been its emphasison the idea of arbitrage. Both detractors and admirers of financial economics agree that arbitrage has been central to the field. Lawrence Summers (1985), for example, invites us to consider a field of economics whichcouldbut does not exist:ketchup economics. Therearetwogroups ofresearchers with concerned ketchup economics. Somegeneral economists studythe market for ketchupas part of the broadereconomic system. The other group is composed of ketchupeconomists locatedin Department of Ketchup wherethey receivemuchhighersala. ries thando general economists. . . Ketchup economists have an impressive researchprogram, focusing the scopeforexcessopportuon nitiesin the ketchup market. Theyhaveshown thattwoquart bottlesof ketchup invariably sell for twice as much as one quart bottles of traceable transto ketchup exceptfordeviations actionscosts. . Financialeconomists like . economists . . are concerned with ketchupal the interrelationships betweenthe pricesof differentfinancial assets.Theyignorewhatseems to manyto be the moreimportant questionof what determinesthe overall level of asset prices.(pp. 633-34) Stephen Ross (1987) agrees with Summers in substance if not in tone: conFinance uses the modelingframework in structed economics withinthis scaffoldbut,
2 Even today the connection between these litera-

(briefly and of course superficially)the recent history of financialeconomics. In the early postwar period finance held a rather lowly place among fields of economics. This is well illustrated by the old Journal of Economic Literature classificationscheme for articles in economics, which was used from the 1960's through 1990. The important category "Domestic Monetaryand Fiscal Theory and Institutions" included "Domestic Monetary and Financial Theory and Institutions" as one of two sub-categories along with public finance. Monetaryeconomics and the study of financial intermediariesfell under this heading. The rest of financialeconomics, including portfolio theory and corporate finance, was grouped with other topics taught in business schools in the miscellaneous category "Administration,Business Finance, Marketing,Accounting."Before the mid-1950s,moreover, these topics were the preserve of institutionalists,and economic theory had little impact. Pioneers of modern financialeconomics drew on economic and statisticaltheory to challenge institutionalfinance. But their work was often imperfectly appreciated by other economists. An anecdote that illustrates this point appears in Peter Bernstein's 1992 book, Capital Ideas: TheImprobableOriginsof ModernWall Street. Bernstein describes Harry Markowitz'thesis defense before Jacob Marschak and Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago: A coupleofminutes the defense,Friedman into I and turnedto Markowitz declared,"Harry, don'tsee anything wrongwith the mathhere, Thisisn'ta dissertation but I havea problem. in economics, we can'tgive you a PhD in and for that'snot economeconomics a dissertation it's ics. It's not math,it's not economics, not even businessadministration." 60. Bern(p. stein cites conversations correspondence and as for withMarkowitz the source thisanecdote.) Markowitzreceived his Ph.D. despite this critique, and was more thoroughly vindicated in 1990, when he won the Nobel MemorialPrize in Economic Science with Merton Miller and William Sharpe. Despite the contributionsof economistswellknown in other fields, such as James Tobin and Franco Modigliani, modern finance continued to develop somewhat independently of the rest

tures is often left obscure. In the New Palgrave Money and Finance, for example, there is one group of essays by Thomas Sargent on "RationalExpectations," N.E. Savinon "Rational Expectations:Econometric Implications,"and Michael Dotsey and Robert King on "RationalExpectation Business Cycle Models." There is a separate group of articles by BurtonMalkielon "EfficientMarketHypothesis"and Kenneth French on "Weak,Semi-Strong,and Strong Forms of MarketEfficiency."There are no cross-references acrossthe two groupsof articles. Only a short article by Jane Black and Ian Tonks on "Rational Expectations Equilibrium"summarizesthe work of SanfordGrossman others on rationalexpectations and with asymmetricinformationthat brought the term into use in finance.

Campbell: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance

ing, finance has taken a differentmethodological perspective. It is wrong to characterizefinance . . . as simply another of the specialty

669

areas of economics-not unlike, for example, labor economics or development economics or public finance. While finance is specialized in its focus on the financial markets, the differences between economics and finance only begin there. The principal difference is one of methodologyratherthanfocus. If labormarkets behaved like financialmarkets, the theories of
finance would be used to study them. .
.

. Paul

Samuelson'stextbookon economics has the following anonymousquote, "Youcan make even a parrotinto a learned political economist-all he must learn are the two words 'supply' and 'demand'." contrast,the intuitionof neoclasBy sical finance is quite different. The focus of finance is micro theoretic and the intuition of finance is the absence of arbitrage. To make the parrot into a learned financial economist, he only needs to learn the single word "arbitrage." (pp. 29-30) a finance, Ross argues, supply and demand urves are often horizontal because there exist ,erfect substitutes for the assets being priced; hence the apparatus of supply and demand is of little use. Arbitrage arguments relate asset prices to the prices of their substitutes, but the resulting propositions are less trivial than those of Summers' ketchup economists. They include most notably the Modigliani-Miller, theorem in corporate finance and the Black-, Scholes formula in option pricing. Ross develops this theme further in his remarkable essay "Finance" in the New Palgrave Money and Finance, writing that when judged by its abilityto explainthe empirical data, option-pricingtheory is the most successful theory not only in finance, but in all of economics. It is now widely employed by the financialindustry and its impact on economics has been far ranging.At a theoreticallevel, we now understandthat option-pricingis a manifestation of the force of arbitrageand that this is the same force that underlies much of neoclassical finance. (New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance, Vol. 2, p. 36) Although there is much truth in Ross' description of the methodological unity of finance, recent developments have changed the picture considerably. In asset pricing it is now understood that the absence of arbitrage implies the existence of a "stochastic discount factor" or

"equivalent martingale measure" that can be used to price all assets.3 Much recent research has tried to go beyond this, using equilibrium macroeconomicmodels to characterizethe behaviorof the stochasticdiscountfactor.4Empirical asset pricing, meanwhile, has drawn on econometricsmore intensely than before; many new time-series methods find their most successful applications on financial data, and finance has driven the development of some of these techniques.5 In corporate finance there has been an explosion of work using game theeconomicsthat has directed ory and information financeeconomists'attentionback to the details of institutions and has brought the field close While arbitragereto industrialorganization.6 mains a central idea in finance it is less dominant than it was, and many of the most active research areas are at the interface between finance and other fields. The connections between finance and the rest of economics have been reinforcedas economists trained in other areas have migrated into finance in response to high salaries and intellectual opportunities. These developments have given finance a new place as a field of economics, rather than a separate discipline, but one with its own strong intellectual heritage. This is well illustrated by the new Journal of Economic Literature classification scheme for articles in economics, in use since 1991. There is now one category for "Macroeconomicsand Monetary Economics," including "Money and Interest Rates"and "MonetaryPolicy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit." There is a separate category for "FinancialEconomics," including "General Financial Markets," "Financial Institutionsand Services,"and "Corporate Finance and Governance." The new
3 The essay on "Arbitrage" Philip Dybvig and Ross by states this particularlyclearly. 4 So far this work has stated more puzzles than it has solved. The New Palgrave Money and Finance articles by Simon Benninga and Aris Protopapadakis on "Equity Premium" and by Craig Burnside and ThomasMaCurdyon "EquityPremiumPuzzle"give the flavorof this literature. 5 An exampleis the ARCHclass of stochasticvolatility models, compactlysummarizedin the New Palgrave Money and Finance by Daniel Nelson.
6

Eric Rasmusen has a brief essay on "Game Theory

in Finance" that introduces some basic ideas and leads to other useful essays on this topic.

670

Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXII (June 1994)

Perhapsthe closest thing to an agreed paradigm in macroeconomicsis the neoclassical growth model; but even this has been challenged by recent workon endogenous growththeory, and in any case it has little to do with monetary economics. The lack of a single frameworkfor monetary economics does not mean that the field has nothing to offer. It does mean that one must accept a greater variety of approachesused to address differentquestions.9The editors of the New Palgrave Money and Finance, however, write as if monetary and financial economics are two competing intellectual traditionswhich confront each other within the framework of the dictionary: with Painting a verybroad brush,one canlabel monetary economics a subjectthatemploys as to aggregative general equilibrium analysis concentrateon the whole economy,and financial economicsas one which uses disaggregative partial equilibrium analysis studyindividual to financial markets agents. . . . Over time and the thesestrategic differences between twosub. jects have lessened substantially. .. Such convergence, however,has not yet proceeded to perfect union.Indeed,it is oneusefulconsequenceof this Dictionary that, in presenting so manyessayson monetary financial and ecoout and nomicsand thus bringing similarities in differences approach, style and technique, it maycontribute the processof rapprocheto ment between them. At the least it should economics more imhelp in makingfinancial in economists. It of portant the training general cannotof coursecreatesynthesiswhere none existsbut it can lay all the cardsof each side on the table, as it were, and see where they matchand wherethey do not. (NewPalgrave
Dictionary of Money and Finance, Vol. 1, p. ix).

scheme gives finance a more prominent role within economics as a whole, and it allows finance to include some monetary topics which are also discussed by macroeconomists.7 This historical review suggests that there is enough coherence in financial economics to provide an intellectual skeleton for a work such as the New PalgraveMoneyand Finance. There may be substantive debate and methodological diversity at the research frontier, but at least there is a body of established theory to which new work can refer. Monetaryeconomicsis in a weakercondition. Monetary economics is a branch of macroeconomics that cannot be well understoodwithout considering broader topics in macroeconomics such as the determination of aggregate consumption and investment, and the nature of "stickiness"in wages and prices.8 Macroeconomics itself is in a state of flux, offeringa great variety of approacheswith useful insights, but at present no single paradigm. As Olivier Blanchardand Stanley Fischer put it in their Lectures on Macroeconomics(1989), We have not writtena treatisenor presented a unifiedview of the field. Thatwas possible
when Patinkin wrote Money, Interest, and

the revoluPrices,whichintegrated Keynesian while to tionintomacroeconomics pointing fuBut ture developments. the field is now too large and too fragmented.The Keynesian in embodied the "neoclassical synframework the thesis,"which dominated field until the for is crisis,searching mid-1970's, in theoretical no microfoundations; new theoryhas emerged the to dominate field, and the time is one of with in directions the unity explorations several in of the fieldapparent mainly the set of questionsbeingstudied.(pp.26-27)
7In a similarspirit the NationalBureauof Economic

Research recently divided its research program on Financial Markets and Monetary Economics into three new programs, Monetary Economics, Asset Pricing, and CorporateFinance. 8The New Palgrave Money and Finance offers no entries on Keynesian or New Keynesian economics or on price or wage stickiness. There are essays on "Menu Costs"by Andrew Caplin, on "Non-Clearing BeMarketsin MonetaryEconomics"by Jean-Pascal nassy, and on "Neutralityof Money" by Don Patinkin; there are also essays on "Indexation"by Paul by McNelis and on "WageIndexation" JoshuaAizenman. Overall, one gets the impressionthat wage and price behavior is regarded as at the very edge of the relevant topics for the dictionary.

The reality of the New Palgrave Money and Finance is ratherdifferent.Manymonetarytopics are covered, but no single vision of monetary economics emerges to compete with the finance perspective as summarizedby Ross. The New Palgrave Money and Finance is ultimately a dictionaryof finance including monetarymaterial, and not a dictionaryof finance and macroeconomics.

9As Blanchardand Fischer put it, "eclecticism in the pursuit of truth is no crime" (p. 27).

Campbell: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance

II. Why a Dictionary? If one grants the importance of finance and the need to summarize contemporaryunderstanding of it, the next question is whether a dictionary-and this particular dictionarymeets the need. The New Palgrave Money and Finance is a dictionary in the broad sense. It containsstraightforward definitions, but like an encyclopedia it also contains many longer essays. In browsing through the three volumes, I discovered that the essays come in at least seven varieties: a) Brief definitions. These include both entries short essays and 70 special "glossarial" defining technical terms and describinginstitutions mentioned in the regular essays. Many of the definitions are very useful, particularly those on recent financial innovations such as "Collateralized Mortgage Obligations" and "Stripped Bonds." Here the New Palgrave Money and Finance strikes a good balance between brevity and detail. There are also some splendid definitions reprintedfromthe originalPalgrave.I can recommend F. Y. Edgeworthon "ForcedCurrency," F. Hendrikson "Loanon Bottomry,"and A.E. I Stampon "Tale"; will not venture to compete with these essays by defining these terms here in inelegant modern English. b) Majorsurveys of large areaswithin monetary and financialeconomics. The outstanding example here is Ross' essay on "Finance,"but there are other highlights including Michael Jensen on "Marketfor CorporateControl"and James Tobin on "Money." These essays often are written by extremely eminent scholars,and some provide a masterly synthesis of a field. The surveys on monetary topics tend to be shorter than those on financial topics, as the state of macroeconomicsdoes not permit one single entry on a subject such as business cycles. c) Technical summaries. These essays briefly summarizetechnical topics such as "Arbitrage Pricing Theory" (Gur Huberman), "ARCHModels" (Daniel Nelson), or "Kalman Filter"(KennethWest). Space constraintsoften bind these articles very tightly, because they must motivate the topic, define notation, state key results, and give the reader some intuition within a few paragraphs. d) Advocacy pieces. Some articles are po-

671

lemics disguised as definitions. Even though they may contain valuable information, they must be read with caution. Paul Craig Roberts spends much of his articleon "Supply-SideEconomics" defending supply-side economists in the first Reagan administration against the charge that they were so foolish as to believe that President Reagan'stax cuts would increase total tax revenue. Paul Marsh's article on is "Short-Termism" well-arguedand useful, but his advocacybecomes clear in the last paragraph when he writes: became sideIt wouldbe a greatpityif industry tracked fromthe central issuesit faces-intermarketorientation, nationalcompetitiveness, innovation, quality excellence-by further and talkabout from marshort-termism thefinancial kets.. . . Quitesimply, wayahead both the for the financial and is community industry to get on with managing if tomorrow as mattered.
(New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Fi-

nance,Vol.3, p. 452) This exhortationis very different from the sober academic tone of the more technical articles. e) Empiricalessays. Some of the most useful material in the New Palgrave Money and Finance is empirical. I particularlylike the two articles on the "StockMarketCrashof October 1929," by Stephen Cecchetti, and the "Stock MarketCrash of October 1987" by G. William Schwert. Both articles give the salient facts (nicely supported by tables and figures in Schwert's article), and lucidly discuss alternative interpretations. f) Institutional essays. It is often hard to know where to find a summaryof institutional information.The New Palgrave Money and Finance meets this need with a great variety of institutionalessays. For example, there are useful essays on the monetaryand financialsystems of 29 countries (although, curiously, there are no overviews of the U.S. or U.K. monetary financialsystems-the readermust find his own way into the maze of essays on differentaspects of these systems). Many individualinstitutions, including financial exchanges, central banks, and financial intermediaries, are described in more or less detail. g) Curiosities. What else can one call essays such as Hugh Rockoff'son the "Wizardof Oz" as a monetaryallegory, or ThomasKruegerand William Kennedy's on the "Super Bowl Stock

672

Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXII (June 1994)

The value of the New Palgrave Money and Finance depends not only on the qualityof individual entries, but also on the system for navigating between entries. At the end of each major essay one finds a list of cross-references; there are also "external" cross-references placed in the alphabeticalsequence of the dictionarywhich refer the reader to the appropriate essay. I tested this system by exploringthe entries for several major research areas, and found that it workswell for fields with an established body of theory. In asset pricing, for example, I was easily able to find the majorarticles on the "Capital Asset Pricing Model" PricingTheory" (Michael Brennan),"Arbitrage (Huberman), "IntertemporalPortfolio Theory and Asset Pricing"(Douglas Breeden), "Empirical Testing of Asset Pricing Models" (Bruce Lehmann),and so on. Similarly,when I looked up the demand for money I found two lucid surveys by Bennett McCallumand MarvinGoodfriend on theoretical aspects, and Stephen Goldfeld on empirical studies; each of these referred me to essays on more specific topics. The cross-referencing system is less useful for the reader who wants to become familiar with the most active contemporary debates. Consider for example the role of takeovers in corporate finance. Here the central essay on for the "Market CorporateControl,"by Jensen, is a distinguished survey but it also strongly advocates a particularworld-view. The reader is then confronted with an overwhelming list of direct or indirect cross-referenceson "Acquisitions"(B. Espen Eckbo), "CommonStockRepurchase"(Michael Barclay),"CorporateGovernance"(Leo Herzel), "CorporateOwnership and Management" (RandallMorck),"Corporate Raiders" (Matthew Spiegel), "Corporate Restructuring" (JohnMartinand John Kensinger), "CorporateTakeovers"(Ajit Singh), "Foreign Takeovers"(Robert Harris and David Ravenscraft), "JunkBonds" (RobertTaggart),"Leveraged Buyouts" (Alan Shapiro), "Management (Dennis Buyouts"(Stephen Kaplan),"Mergers" Mueller), "Regulation of Takeovers" (Herzel and RichardShepro), "Reputation,Incentives, and ManagerialDecisions" (DaYidHirshleifer), (Paul Marsh),"Stakeholders" "Short-Termism" (Kensinger and Martin), "Takeovers"(Hirshleifer), "TakeoverDefenses" (Paul Malatesta), "TenderOffers"(David Brown), and "Winner's

There are also amusing esMarketPredictor"? says on the specialized terminology used by corporatefinanciersand technical stock market analysts. Even this taxonomy does not accommodate all the essays in the New Palgrave Money and Finance. Consider, for example, Stephen Ross' excellent essay on "Stock Market Indices," which includes remarkson index number theory, a discussion of the CAPM in relation to alternativeasset pricing theories, a table sumstockindices, marizingthe leading international and a discussion of nontradingeffects on stock index behavior. How useful are these differenttypes of essay? Much depends on the skill of each writer, but a few general remarksare possible. The short essays defining terms and the essays summarizing empirical data and institutionalknowledge are often excellent points of reference. They provide a useful introductionto a subject and a short bibliographyas a startingpoint for more detailed research. Some of the empiricalessays use tables and figures to great effect; I would have been happy to see these devices used more heavily throughoutthe dictionary. Even after the passage of time outdates the New Palgrave Money and Finance, many of these articles will have historicalvalue. The summaries of technical areas are more problematic.They depend criticallyon the skill of the writer to bring out key points in a very short space. Even at their best, these essays are probably most useful for review (by a student wanting to confirm his knowledge of a topic, or by a professorwanting to compile her course materials). They are simply too dense to make a good introductionto technical material. Moreover, some technical essays devote most of their space to a summaryof an individual article (often one written by the author of the essay)."This strategy may be justified by the seminal contribution or pedagogical value of the work summarized, but often it is not. George Stigler (1988) criticized the frequency of self-citationin the New PalgraveEconomics, and it is clear that the editors have not been able to eliminate this tendency in the latest dictionary.
10The essay by Frank Page on "Securities Markets and General Equilibrium"is an example of this.

Campbell: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance

Curse" (Mario Levis). There is a great deal of duplication in these articles, particularly in their bibliographies; Jensen's and Mueller's essays even print almost identical figures showing the history of merger activity in the U.S. Many of the essays advocate particular views of the subject, and it is easy to become confused. I encountered a related problem when I looked up the entries on business cycles. I found an admirably clear and balanced, but rather short essay on "Business Cycles" by Steven Sheffrin. I used the cross-references at the end of this essay to find a much longer, and also well written survey of "Rational Expectation Business Cycle Models" by Michael Dotsey and Robert King. But the other cross-references in Sheffrin's article are decidedly mixed. They include a very short article on "Co-Movements" by Jean-Pierre Danthine, an interesting essay on "Complexity and Chaos in Finance" by W.A. Brock which is entirely unconnected to business cycles, an old-fashioned discussion of "Inventory Cycles" by Michael Lovell, a good review of "Menu Costs" by Andrew Caplin, and the two articles on the stock market crashes of 1929 and 1987 referred to earlier in this review essay. Following these cross-references leads to serendipitous discoveries, but it is not an efficient use of time for a reader who wants a quick introduction to alternative views of business cycles. The problem with the coverage of these controversial topics is that the editors of the New

673

taking. In the midst of revolutionaryfinancial change the dictionary'seditors have compiled a reference work that both explores the surface details of financialmarketsand institutionsand, with the aid of economic theory, reveals some of their hidden structure. The dictionarybuilds on the earlier New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, but for several reasons I believe it is ultimately more successful. First, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance meets a real need for a reference work on the terminologyand institutions of modern finance. Second, it covers topics that are more consistentlyrelevant for mainstream practitionersand researchersin finance and monetaryeconomics. George Stigler (1988) complained that the New Palgrave Economics devoted too much space to Marxian Sraffian and topics that are remote from mainstream concerns, but this certainly does not apply to the New Palgrave Money and Finance. Third, the contributions are of high average quality. Whether this is because the more narrowly defined subject matterhelped the editors locate the best people in the field, or because the success of the earlier work helped them persuade the best people to contribute, I am impressed by the number of first-rateresearchers who have written for the dictionary. Finally', the New Palgrave Money and Finance includes a great deal of valuable empirical materialof a sort that was missing from the earlier dictionary.
REFERENCES

PalgraveMoneyand Financehave tried to make

sure that alternative views are expressed, but they have not given the reader enough help in finding these views and contrasting them. Part of the problem is that a dictionary emphasizes keywords rather than opposing views of a topic; but the editors have made matters worse by commissioning too many short articles which tend to clutter the cross-references. This helps to explain why monetary economics seems so much weaker than financial economics
BERNSTEIN, PETER

L. Capital ideas: The improbable

JEAN AND FISCHER, STANLEY.

origins of modern wall street. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1992.
BLANCHARD, OLIVIER

Lectures on macroeconomics. MIT Press, 1989.

EATWELL, JOHN; MILGATE,

Cambridge,
AND

MA:

MURRAY

NEWMAN,

PETER,
NEWMAN,

eds. The new Palgrave:A dictionaryof ecoPETER; MILGATE, MURRAY AND EATWELL,

nomics. New York, NY: Stockton Press, 1987.

JOHN,

in the New PalgraveMoneyand Finance. There

are more controversial topics in monetary economics, and thus the field is less well-suited to the format of the dictionary.

eds.: The new Palgravedictionaryof money

andfinance. New York, NY: Stockton Press, 1992. Ross, STEPHEN A. "The Interrelations of Finance and Economics: Theoretical Perspectives," Amer.

Econ. Rev., May 1987, 77(2), pp. 29-34.

STIGLER, GEORGE J. "Palgrave's Dictionary of Economics,"J. Econ. Lit., Dec. 1988, 26(4), pp. 1729-

III. Conclusion
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and
Finance is an extraordinarily ambitious under-

36.
SUMMERS, LAWRENCE

H. "On Economics and Fi-

nance," J. Finance, July 1985, 40(3), pp. 633-35.