Did doubling reserve requirements cause the 1937–38 recession? New evidence on the impact of reserve requirements on bank reserve demand and lending
Charles W. Calomiris,
Joseph R. Mason and
David Wheelock
Journal of Financial Intermediation, 2023, vol. 56, issue C
Abstract:
In 1936–37, the Federal Reserve doubled member banks’ reserve requirements. Friedman and Schwartz (1963) famously argued that the doubling increased reserve demand and forced the money supply to contract, which they argued caused the recession of 1937–38. Using a new database on individual banks, we find that higher reserve requirements did not generally increase banks’ reserve demand or contract lending because reserve requirements were not binding for most banks. Aggregate effects on credit supply from reserve requirement increases were therefore economically small and statistically zero.
Keywords: Reserve requirements; Reserve demand; Excess reserves; Money multiplier (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: E51 E58 G21 G28 N12 N22 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)
Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1042957323000396
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
Related works:
Working Paper: Did Doubling Reserve Requirements Cause the 1937-38 Recession? New Evidence on the Impact of Reserve Requirements on Bank Reserve Demand and Lending (2023) 
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jfinin:v:56:y:2023:i:c:s1042957323000396
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfi.2023.101056
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Financial Intermediation is currently edited by Elu von Thadden
More articles in Journal of Financial Intermediation from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().