摘要
本文將討論Tobin, Brunner和Meltzer, Bernanke三者之貨幣傳導機制，其次探討造成各不同學派差異之原因以及此差異對經濟活動之影響。最後由三者之實證方法，以Morrison and Morgan (1999) 之觀點討論理論、模型與經驗事實之關係，並且分析三者實證因果關係之論證。
本文發現在貨幣傳導機制之理論中，Tobin與Bernanke可視為是凱因斯學派之理論，前者繼承傳統凱因斯學派價格僵固性之假說與強調資金成本傳遞管道之主要精神；而後者所提倡之信用學派中信用仲介成本之傳遞管道則可視為凱因斯學派在考慮信用市場後之資金成本傳遞管道。而Brunner和Meltzer主張之相對價格傳遞管道之貨幣學派傳導機制理論，則被認為是凱因斯學派之競爭理論。
此外，在分析理論、模型與經驗事實之關聯中，發現Tobin與Bernanke之實證模型較偏重於檢驗其理論與經驗事實是否一致，但差別在於Tobin之實證模型為Tobin’s q與其解釋變數關係之測量工具；而Bernanke之實證模型則另可作為發現或精鍊理論之工具。相較之下，Meltzer之實證模型較偏向透過陳述與說明的方式來驗證其傳導機制理論，較不關注於利用實證模型檢定理論與經驗事實是否一致。
最後，在因果關係的論證上，Tobin之因果論證是結合經濟計量方法與經濟理論以進行因果推論，時間轉折點之研究方式則非其評斷因果關係之證據；而Meltzer與Bernanke則倚賴循環轉折點之時間領先指標作為其因果關係論證之依據，兩者之差異在於Bernanke是利用Granger Causality作為整個因果關係解釋的主要依據，透過衝擊反應函數來達到時間點轉折之研究，而Meltzer僅是由經驗事實中顯示經濟變數時間點轉折之先後順序。

Abstract
This thesis investigates the history of the development of the monetary transmission mechanism. The theories of Tobin, Brunner and Meltzer, and Benanke are taken as case studies. The differences between these channels of monetary transmission mechanism are discussed historically and methodology. Historically, Tobin’s capital-cost channel and Benanke’s credit channel are regarded as Keynesian, while Brunner and Meltzer’s relative-price channel is more close to monetarist tradition. Methodologically, as long as the relationships between theory, model and data are concerned, Tobin’s, Brunner and Meltzer’s, and Bernanke’s empirical models perform various functions. The issues of testing and causality are studied.

參考文獻
一、中文部分
Gordon, R. J. 編，侯家駒譯 (民國67年)，『佛瑞德曼貨幣理論架 構—爭論與其批判』，台北：黎明。
劉孟奇 (民國88年)，Lakatos之科學哲學與經濟學方法論，『經濟論文叢刊』，27：1，pp.101-142。
Kuhn, T. S. 著，程樹德、傅大為、王道環與錢永祥譯 (民國83年)，『科學革命的結構』，台北：遠流。
二、英文部分
Bernanke, Ben S. (1983), “Nonmonetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression,” American Economic Review, June 1983, 73, pp.257-76.
Bernanke, Ben S. and Alan Blinder (1988), “Credit, Money, and Aggregate Demand,” American Economic Review, May 1988, 78,pp.435-39.
Bernanke, Ben S. (1992,93), “Credit in the Macroeconomy,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review, Spring 1992-93, pp.50-70.
Bernanke, Ben S. and Alan Blinder (1992), “The Federal Funds Rate and the Channels of Monetary Transmission,” American Economic Review, September 1992, 82, pp.901-21.
Bernanke, Ben S., and Mark Gertler (1995), “Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 4 (Fall), pp.27-48.
Brunner, Karl, and Allan H. Meltzer (1993), Money and the Economy: Issue in Monetary Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Universality Press, pp.53-103.
Cechetti, Stephen G. (1995), “Distinguishing Theories of the Monetary Transmission Mechanism,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review (May/June), pp.83-100.
Dimand, Robert W. (2003), “James Tobin and the Transformation of the IS/LM Model,” Presented at the History of Political Economy conference on “The IS/LM Models: Its Rise, Fall and Strange Persistence,” at Duke Unversity, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Fisher, Irving (1933), “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,” Econometrica, vol. 1, pp.337-357.
Friedman, Milton (1970), “A Theoretical Framework for Monrtary Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy, 78 (March/April), pp.193-238.
Friedman, Milton, and Anna J. Schwartz (1963), A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Gertler, Mark, and Simon Cilchrist (1991,1992), “Monetary Policy, Business Cycles, and the Behavior of Small Manufacturing Firms,” NBER working paper no.3892, November 1991.
Granger, Clive W. J. (1998), “Granger Causality,” in J. B. Davis, D. W. Hands and U. Maki (eds.), The Handbook of Methodology, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.214-216.
Hoover, K. D. (2001), Causality in Macroeconomics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-28.
Kuttner, Kenneth N., and Patricia C. Mosser (2202), “The Monetary Transmission Mechanism: Some Answers and Further Questions,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, May, pp.15-26.
Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.91-196.
McCallum, Bennett T. (1999), “Recent Developments in Monetary Policy Analysis: The Roles of Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Economic Methodology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.171-198.
Meltzer, Allan H. (1995), “Monetary, Credit and (Other) Transmission Processes: A Monetarist Perspective,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 4 (Fall), pp.49-72.
Mishkin, Frederic S. (1995), “Symposium on the Monetary Transmission Mechanism,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 4 (Fall), pp.3-10.
Morrison, M., and Morgan, M. S. (1999), “Models as Mediating Instruments,” in M. Morrison and M. S. Morgan (eds.), Models as Mediators, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.10-37.
Romer, Christina D., and David H. Romer (1990), “New Evidence on the Monetary Transmission Mechanism,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , 1, pp.149-213.
Taylor, John B. (1995), “The Monetary Transmission Mechanism: An Empirical Framework,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 4 (Fall), pp.11-26.
Taylor, John B. (2000), “The Monetary Transmission Mechanism and the Evaluation of Monetary Policy Rules,” Central Bank of Chile Working Papers, no. 87.
Tobin, J. (1958), “Liquidity Preference As Behavior Toward Risk,” The Foundations of Monetary Economics, vol. 1, pp.358-376.
Tobin, J. (1969), “A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, vol. 1, February, pp.15-29.
Tobin, J. (1972), “Money and Income: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 84, no. 4 (May), pp.301-317.
Tobin, J. (1978), “Monetary Policies and the Economy: The Transmission Mechanism,” Southern Economic journal, January, 44, pp.421-31.
Tobin, J. and Walliam C. Brainard (1977), “Asset Markets and the Cost of Capital,” in R. Nelson and B. Balassa (eds.), Economic Progress: Private values and Public Policy, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp.235-262.