![èŠåºãç»å](https://assets.st-note.com/production/uploads/images/119489289/rectangle_large_type_2_2483671f28c3552dbd29c92a6c488b93.png?width=1200)
ðŽ2003~04幎ã®å€§èŠæš¡ä»å ¥ðµ Foreign exchange intervention and monetary policy in Japan, 2003â04 å è¡ç 究èŠçŽ 2023/10/21
åæ¥è«æã«ãã ããããð
ç§ãããããåæ¥è«æã®å·çã«
åããããææããã£ãŠåããŸããð
äœäºãã¢ãŠããããåæã®ã€ã³ãããã
倧äºã§ãããšãnoteã§æ¯æ¥çºä¿¡ããŠããŸãã
ããã¯ãã©ã®ãããªå
容ã§
ãã£ãŠãåœãŠã¯ãŸããŸãð
è«æãäžæŠã«èªãã§ã
èšæ¶ã«æ®ã£ãŠããªãã£ãã
倧åãªèŠ³ç¹ãå¿ããŠããŸã£ãŠãããããã
åæ¥è«æã®é²æã¯æ»ã£ãŠããŸããšæããŸã
ã ããããããã®ãnoteãããã«æŽ»çšããŠ
åæ¥è«æã1ïŒ
ã§ã
å®æã«åããŠé²ããŠãããããšæããŸã
åçåãããããšã¯ãªããå
è¡ç 究ãªã©ã®ã³ã³ãã³ããæ£ããåŒçšããé©åãªçºä¿¡ãã§ããããã«åªããŸãð
ç§ã®åè«å·çãžã®è»è·¡ã
ã©ããæåŸãŸã§ãæèªãã ããð
ä»åã®èŠçŽããå è¡ç 究ð¥
ä»åãèªã¿é²ããŠããè«æã¯
ãã¡ãã«ãªããŸãð
Foreign exchange intervention and monetary policy in Japan, 2003â04
Rasmus Fatum, Michael M. Hutchison
Published online: 5 November 2005
ãã®å è¡ç 究ããåŸãããææ
Conclusions
This paper has examined the rationale behind the massive increase in Japanese foreign exchange market intervention operations in 2003â04, and has evaluated its effectiveness both in limiting yen exchange rate appreciation and influencing the direction of monetary policy.
We find intervention is somewhat effective over short periods of time (several days), but less so in the recent period of very heavy intervention compared to previous episodes.
We attribute this to the predictability of intervention in 2003, and especially 2004 (due in turn to the intensity and frequency of operations), which in turn allows the market to anticipate these operations and accordingly formulates expectations into the level of the exchange rate.
Limited effectiveness of intervention in the most recent period, however, may also be associated with a high degree of sterilization.
We consider institutional factors (how intervention is financed) and also statistically investigate whether current-account balances set by the BOJ are influenced by daily intervention operations.
This analysis suggests that from a technical perspective the BOJ has not allowed MOF intervention decisions to influence the day-to-day conduct of monetary policy.
ãã®è«æã¯ã2003幎ãã2004幎ã«ãããŠæ¥æ¬ã®å€åœçºæ¿åžå Žä»å
¥ãªãã倧å¹
ã«å¢å ããèåŸã«ããçè«çæ ¹æ ãæ€èšŒããåçºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã®å¢äŸ¡(yen exchange rate appreciation)ãå¶éããéèæ¿çã®æ¹åæ§ã«åœ±é¿ãäžãããšããç¹ã§ã®å¹æãè©äŸ¡ããŠããŸã
ä»å
¥ã¯çæéïŒæ°æ¥éïŒã§ã¯ããçšåºŠå¹æçã§ãããæè¿ã®éåžžã«å€§èŠæš¡ãªä»å
¥æéã§ã¯ä»¥åã®ãšããœãŒãã«æ¯ã¹ãŠããã»ã©å¹æçã§ã¯ãªãããšãããããŸãã
ããã¯ã2003幎ãç¹ã«2004幎ã®ä»å
¥ã®äºæž¬å¯èœæ§ (ãªãã®åŒ·åºŠãšé »åºŠã«ãã) ã«ãããã®ã§ãããšèããŠããããã®çµæãåžå Žã¯ãããã®ãªããäºæž¬ããããšãã§ããããã«å¿ããŠæåŸ
ãçºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã®æ°Žæºã«åæ ãããããšãã§ããŸã
ããããæè¿ã®ä»å
¥ã®æå¹æ§ãéå®çã§ããããšããé«åºŠãªäžåŠæè¡ã«é¢é£ããŠããå¯èœæ§ããããŸã
ãã®ç 究ã§ã¯ãå¶åºŠçèŠå ïŒä»å
¥ã®è³é調éæ¹æ³ïŒãèæ
®ãããŸããæ¥éãèšå®ããåœåº§é éæ®é«ãæ¥ã
ã®ä»å
¥ãªãã«ãã£ãŠåœ±é¿ãåãããã©ãããçµ±èšçã«èª¿æ»ããŠããŸã
ãã®åæã¯ãå¶åºŠçãªèŠ³ç¹ãããæ¥éã財åçã®ä»å
¥æ±ºå®ãæ¥ã
ã®éèæ¿çéå¶ã«åœ±é¿ãäžããããšãèš±å¯ããŠããªãããšã瀺åããŠããã
In addition, we do not find statistical evidence that the BOJ has changed the direction of policy in response to large intervention operations in 2003â04. Basemoney growth was very rapid during this period, but it was not associated with foreign asset purchases by the BOJ.
Moreover, cumulative foreign currency purchases by the MOF were more than twice as large as the increase in base money. Earlier episodes of intensive intervention were much more closely matched by base-money increases than in the 2003â04 period.
We also considered structural breaks in the money-base equation and out-ofãsample forecasts.
We found that a structural break towards more expansionary base-money expansion occurred in 2001, but not in 2003 when the shift in intervention policy occurred.
Reflecting this structural break point, out-of-sample forecasts starting in 2001 (with the equation estimated through 2000) greatly underestimated base-money growth over the 2001â04 period.
However, out-ofsample forecasts starting in 2003âwith the equation estimated through 2002 and hence incorporating the structural break and expansionary base-money growth that had already been underway for 2 yearsâtracked observed base-money growth very closely.
We found no evidence that the BOJ responded to intervention actions by the MOF in 2002â04 by increasing base money at a rate faster than it otherwise would have done.
The BOJ on its own was attempting to stimulate the economy in 2001â 04 through rapid base money growth, but this was apparently not influenced by the âactivistâ intervention policy of the MOF during the latter part of this period.
ããã«ã2003幎ãã2004幎ã«ãããŠã®å€§èŠæš¡ä»å
¥ãªãã«å¿ããŠæ¥éãæ¿çã®æ¹åæ§ãå€æŽãããšããçµ±èšç蚌æ ã¯èŠã€ãããŸãã
ãã®æéãããŒã¹ãããŒã®äŒžã³ã¯éåžžã«æ¥éã§ããããæ¥éã«ããæµ·å€è³ç£è³Œå
¥ãšã¯ç¡é¢ä¿ã ã£ããšãããŠããŸã
ããã«ã財åçã«ãã环ç©å€è²šè³Œå
¥é¡ã¯ããŒã¹ãããŒã®å¢å é¡ã®2å以äžãšãªã£ãã®ã§ã
ãŸããéäžä»å
¥ã®åæã®ãšããœãŒãã§ã¯ã2003ïœ2004幎ã®æéãããããŒã¹ãããŒã®å¢å ãã¯ããã«å¯æ¥ã«äžèŽããŠããŸãã
ãŸãããããŒããŒã¹æ¹çšåŒã®æ§é 転æ(structural breaks)ãšãµã³ãã«å€ã®äºæž¬ãèæ
®ããŸãã
ãã®å
è¡ç 究ã§ã¯ãããæ¡åŒµçãªããŒã¹ãããŒæ¡å€§ã«åããæ§é å€æã2001幎ã«èµ·ãã£ãããä»å
¥æ¿çã®è»¢æãèµ·ãã£ã2003幎ã«ã¯èµ·ãããªãã£ãããšãçºèŠããŠããŸã
ãã®æ§é çãã¬ãŒã¯ãã€ã³ããåæ ããŠã2001幎ããå§ãŸã£ããµã³ãã«å€ã®äºæž¬ (2000 幎ãŸã§æšå®ãããæ¹çšåŒã䜿çš) ã¯ã2001幎ãã2004幎ã®æéã«ãããããŒã¹ãããŒã®äŒžã³ã倧å¹
ã«éå°è©äŸ¡ããŸãã
ãããã2003幎ããå§ãŸã£ããµã³ãã«å€äºæž¬ã¯ã2002 幎ãŸã§ã®èšç®åŒãçšããŠããã§ã«2幎éé²è¡ããŠããæ§é å€æãšæ¡å€§çãªããŒã¹ãããŒã®å¢å ãçµã¿èŸŒãã§ããã芳枬ãããããŒã¹ãããŒã®å¢å ãéåžžã«å³å¯ã«è¿œè·¡ããŠããŸãã
ãªãããã®ç 究ã§ã¯ãæ¥éã2002幎ãã2004幎ã«ãããŠè²¡åçã«ããä»å
¥æªçœ®ã«å¯ŸããéåžžãããéãããŒã¹ã§ããŒã¹ãããŒãå¢é¡ããããšã§å¯Ÿå¿ãããšãã蚌æ ã¯èŠã€ããããŸããã§ãã
æ¥éã¯ç¬èªã«ã2001幎ãã2004幎ã«ãããŠããŒã¹ãããŒã®æ¥éãªæé·ãéããŠçµæžãåºæ¿ããããšããŠããŸããããããã¯ãã®æéã®åŸåã«ããã財åçã®ãã¢ã¯ãã£ãã¹ããä»å
¥æ¿çã®åœ±é¿ãåããªãã£ãããã§ãð
æ¥æ¬ã§ã®çºæ¿ä»å ¥æ¿çã¯æå¹ãªã®ãïŒïŒ
3 Has intervention been effective in Japan?
3.1 Recent studies on effectiveness of BOJ intervention
Several recent studies of intervention find support for the effectiveness of intervention operations (for surveys of the literature see Dominguez 2003; Dominguez and Frankel 1993; Edison 1993; and Sarno and Taylor 2001).
In the context of this paper, recent studies by Dominguez (2003), Ito (2003, 2004) and Fatum and Hutchison (2004, 2003) are of particular interest as all investigate official BOJ intervention data at daily frequencies, employ very different methodologies in order to do so, yet arrive at quite similar conclusions.10
10:See, for example, Galati et al. (2003) and Truman (2003) for studies questioning the effectiveness of intervention.
3 æ¥æ¬ã§ã¯ä»å
¥ã¯å¹æçã ã£ãã®ã?
3.1 æ¥éä»å
¥ã®æå¹æ§ã«é¢ããæè¿ã®ç 究
ããã€ãã®æè¿ã®ä»å
¥ç 究ã§ã¯ãä»å
¥ãªãã®æå¹æ§ãè£ä»ããããŠããŸã
(æç®èª¿æ»ã«ã€ããŠã¯ãDominguez 2003; Dominguez and Frankel 1993; Edison 1993; and Sarno and Taylor;2001ãåç
§ïŒ
ãã®è«æã«é¢é£ããŠãDominguez (2003)ãIto (2003ã2004)ãFatum and Hutchison (2004ã2003) ã«ããæè¿ã®ç 究ã¯ãããããæ¥éã®å
ŒΊȌ
¥ããŒã¿ãæ¯æ¥ã®é »åºŠã§èª¿æ»ããŠãããéåžžã«ç°ãªãæ¹æ³è«ãæ¡çšããŠãããããç¹ã«èå³æ·±ããã®ã§ã(泚10)
10: äŸãã°ãGalati et al.(2003)
ä»å
¥ã®æå¹æ§ãçåèŠããç 究ã«ã€ããŠã¯ãTruman(2003)ãåç
§
Table 3 provides a brief overview of these studiesâ results on the effectiveness of BOJ intervention.
In order to assess the impact of BOJ intervention over the January 1991 through June 2002 time-period, Dominguez (2003) analyzed the full sample as well as five separate sub-samples.
Focusing first on short-term effects of intervention, she shows, for the full sample, that intervention had significant effects in the appropriate direction on 4-h exchange rate returns, while short-term effects on 8-h exchange rate returns were insignificant.
When addressing the issue of success during intervention, Dominguez (2003) found that for only two of the five episodes was it the case that the JPY/USD exchange rate moved in the appropriate direction over the period in which the intervention took place.
Turning the focus to long-term effects, she found evidence that the JPY/USD exchange rate moved in the appropriate direction within three months of the last intervention operation of the episode (or longer) for all five sub-samples.
è¡š3ã¯ãæ¥éä»å ¥ã®æå¹æ§ã«é¢ãããããã®ç 究çµæã®æŠèŠã瀺ããŠããŸã
![](https://assets.st-note.com/img/1697788422367-ah80MiyIvg.png)
1991幎 æãã2002幎6æãŸã§ã®æéã«ãããæ¥éä»å
¥ã®åœ±é¿ãè©äŸ¡ããããã«ãDominguez(2003)ã¯å®å
šãªãµã³ãã«ãš5ã€ã®åå¥ã®ãµããµã³ãã«ãåæããŸãã
ãŸãä»å
¥ã®çæçãªå¹æã«çŠç¹ãåœãŠãDominguez(2003)ã¯æ¬¡ã®ããã«ç€ºããŠããŸã
å
šãµã³ãã«ã«ãããŠãä»å
¥ã¯ 4 æéã®çºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã®ãªã¿ãŒã³ã«å¯ŸããŠé©åãªæ¹åã«å€§ããªå¹æããããããŸãããã8æéã®çºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã®ãªã¿ãŒã³ã«å¯Ÿããçæçãªåœ±é¿ã¯ãããã§ãã
Dominguez(2003)ã¯ãä»å
¥äžã®æåã®åé¡ãæ±ãéã«ã5 ã€ã®ãšããœãŒãã®ãã¡ãä»å
¥ãè¡ãããæéäžã« JP/USD çºæ¿ã¬ãŒããé©åãªæ¹åã«åããã®ã¯2ã€ã ãã§ããããšãçºèŠããŸãã
é·æçãªåœ±é¿ã«çŠç¹ãåœãŠãDominguezã¯ã5 ã€ã®ãµããµã³ãã«ãã¹ãŠã«ã€ããŠããšããœãŒãã®æåŸã®ä»å
¥æäœãã 3 ãæ以å
(ãŸãã¯ãã以äž) ã«ãJPY/USD çºæ¿ã¬ãŒããé©åãªæ¹åã«åãããšãã蚌æ ãçºèŠããŸããð
Fatum and Hutchison (2003) note that intervention in the JPY/USD exchange rate tended to come in clusters interspaced by prolonged periods of no intervention, and suggested an event study as a particularly fitting methodology for analyzing the BOJ intervention data.
Defining an event as a period of days with official intervention in the JPY/USD exchange rate in one direction (in terms of purchases or sales), conducted by the BOJ, the U.S. Federal Reserve, or both, and possibly including five consecutive days of no intervention, they identified 43 intervention events over the 10-year (April 1991 to March 2001) period.
Applying three different criteria for what may constitute effectiveness, Fatum and Hutchison found strong evidence that intervention systematically affected the exchange rate in the short-run.
This main result held even when intervention was not associated with (same-day) interest rate changes, and regardless of whether or not intervention was âsecretâ or reported in the news-wires. They also found that intervention was most likely to succeed when it was coordinated and large scale (amounts over USD 1 billion).
Fatum and Hutchison (2003)ã¯ãJPY/USD çºæ¿ã¬ãŒããžã®ä»å
¥ã¯ãé·æã«ãããä»å
¥ã®ãªãæéãæãã ã¯ã©ã¹ã¿ãŒã§è¡ãããåŸåããããšææããæ¥éä»å
¥ããŒã¿ãåæããããã®ç¹ã«é©åãªæ¹æ³è«ãšããŠã€ãã³ãç 究ãææ¡ããŸãã
ãããŠãã€ãã³ãã次ã®ããã«å®çŸ©ããŸã
æ¥éãç±³åœé£éŠæºåå¶åºŠçäºäŒããŸãã¯ãã®äž¡æ¹ã«ãã£ãŠè¡ããããJPY/USD çºæ¿ã¬ãŒããžã®äžæ¹åïŒè³Œå
¥ãŸãã¯å£²åŽã®èŠ³ç¹ããïŒã®å
¬çä»å
¥ãè¡ãããæ¥æ°ã§ãããå Žåã«ãã£ãŠã¯é£ç¶ 5 æ¥éã®ä»å
¥ãªããå«ãŸããŸã
Fatum and Hutchisonã¯ã10幎éïŒ1991幎4æãã2001幎3æãŸã§ïŒã®æéã§43ã®ä»å
¥ã€ãã³ããç¹å®ããŸãã
äœãæå¹æ§ãæ§æãããã«ã€ããŠ3ã€ã®ç°ãªãåºæºãé©çšãããšãFatum and Hutchisonã¯ãä»å
¥ãçæçã«çºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã«çµç¹çã«åœ±é¿ãäžãããšãã匷åãªèšŒæ ãçºèŠããã®ã§ãð
ãã®äž»ãªçµæã¯ãä»å
¥ãïŒåæ¥ã®ïŒéå©å€åãšé¢é£ããŠããªãå Žåã§ãããŸãä»å
¥ããç§å¯ãã§ãã£ããã©ããããããã¯ãã¥ãŒã¹é»ä¿¡ã§å ±éããããã©ããã«é¢ä¿ãªããåœãŠã¯ãŸããŸã
Fatum and Hutchisonã¯ãŸããä»å
¥ã調æŽãã倧èŠæš¡ïŒéé¡ã10åç±³ãã«ãè¶
ããïŒã§ããå Žåã«æåããå¯èœæ§ãæãé«ãããšãçºèŠãããšãããŸã
Using a time-series framework with GARCH(1,1) specifications for addressing the issue of effectiveness, Ito (2003) investigated the April 1991 through March 2001 time-period. He showed that intervention was more frequent and more predictable during the April 1991 to 20 June 1995 period, and found that intervention was ineffective during this sub-sample.
In fact, his results for this subsample suggested that intervention was systematically associated with exchange rate changes in the opposite direction of what was presumably intended (i.e., BOJ purchases of USD were associated with USD depreciations).
For the second subsample, 21 June 1995 through March 2001, Ito (2003) found that intervention was effective (i.e., the estimated coefficients were significant and of the âcorrectâ sign).
Additionally, he showed that coordinated intervention (by both the Fed and the BOJ) was more effective than unilateral intervention (BOJ only).
æå¹æ§ã®åé¡ã«å¯ŸåŠããããã«GARCH(1,1)ã¢ãã«ã®æç³»åãã¬ãŒã ã¯ãŒã¯ã䜿çšããŠãIto (2003) ã¯1991幎4æãã2001幎3æãŸã§ã®æéã調æ»ããŸãã
Ito(2003)ã¯ã1991幎4æãã1995幎6æ20æ¥ãŸã§ã®æéã§ã¯ä»å
¥ãããé »ç¹ã§ãããäºæž¬å¯èœã§ããããšã瀺ãããã®ãµããµã³ãã«ã§ã¯ä»å
¥ãå¹æããªãã£ãããšãçºèŠããŸãã
å®éããã®ãµããµã³ãã«ã«å¯Ÿãã圌ã®çµæã¯ãä»å
¥ãçºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã®å€åãšäœç³»çã«é¢é£ããŠããããšã瀺åããŸãã
ããããæå³ããŠããã®ãšã¯éã®æ¹åã«ïŒã€ãŸããæ¥éã«ããç±³ãã«ã®è³Œå
¥ã¯ç±³ãã«ã®äžèœãšé¢é£ããŠããïŒ
2 çªç®ã®ãµããµã³ãã« (1995幎6æ21æ¥ãã2001幎3æãŸã§) ã«ã€ããŠãIto (2003) ã¯ä»å
¥ãå¹æçã§ããããšãçºèŠããŸãã
(ã€ãŸããæšå®ãããä¿æ°ã¯ææã§ããããæ£ããã笊å·ã§ãã)
ããã«åæ°ã¯ãäžæ¹çãªä»å
¥ïŒæ¥éã®ã¿ïŒãããå調ä»å
¥ïŒFRBãšæ¥éã®äž¡æ¹ã«ããïŒã®æ¹ãå¹æçã§ããããšã瀺ããã®ã§ãð
More recently, Ito (2004) investigated BOJ intervention during the January 2003 through March 2004 time-period.
Using a time-series methodology consistent with Ito (2003), he found that the 2003â2004 interventions were effective, but his coefficient estimates suggested that the degree of impact declined to the level of 1/5 when compared to intervention carried out during the 1995â2003 subsample.
Additionally, he found initial interventions (i.e., intervention that was not preceded by intervention for five days) to be more effective than subsequent interventions (i.e., intervention following days of intervention).
æè¿ã§ã¯ãIto(2004)ã2003幎1æãã2004幎3æãŸã§ã®æéã«ãããæ¥éä»å
¥ã調æ»ããŸãã
äŒè€(2003)ãšäžèŽããæç³»åã®æ¹æ³è«ã䜿çšããŠã2003幎ãã 2004 幎ã®ä»å
¥ãå¹æçã§ããããšãçºèŠããŸããããã¢ãã«ã«ãããä¿æ°æšå®å€ã¯ãçºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã«äžãã圱é¿ã®çšåºŠã1995~2003 幎ã®ãµããµã³ãã«ãš2003幎ãã2004幎ã®ä»å
¥ã«æ¯ã¹ãŠ1/5ã®ã¬ãã«ã«äœäžããããšã瀺åããŸãã
ããã«Ito(2004)ã¯ãæåã®ä»å
¥ (ã€ãŸãã5 æ¥éä»å
¥ãè¡ãããªãã£ãä»å
¥) ãããã®åŸã®ä»å
¥ (ã€ãŸããæ°æ¥éã®ä»å
¥ã«ç¶ããŠä»å
¥) ãããå¹æçã§ããããšãçºèŠããã®ã§ãð
æ¬æ¥ã®è§£èª¬ã¯ãããŸã§ãšããŸãð
å
è¡ç 究ã®æéãæ¡åŒµããããšã
ãŸã ç 究ãããŠããªã芳ç¹ããã®èå¯ãåãå
¥ããŠããããã§ã
èªã¿çµããå è¡ç 究ð
ãæ¥æ¬ã®çºæ¿ä»å
¥ã®åæã
äŒè€éæã»è
çµæžç 究ãVol.54 No.2 Apr. 2003
ãEffects of the Bank of Japanâs intervention on yen/dollar exchange rate volatilityã21 November 2004
Toshiaki Watanabe (a), Kimie Harada(b)
ãThe Effects of Japanese Foreign Exchange Intervention: GARCH Estimation and Change Point Detectionã
Eric Hillebrand Gunther Schnabl Discussion
Paper No.6 October 2003
Author/Editor:Jaromir Benes ; Andrew Berg ; Rafael A Portillo ; David Vávra
Publication Date: January 14, 2013
Official Japanese Intervention in the JPY/USD Exchange Rate Market: Is It Effective and Through Which Channel Does It Work?
Rasmus Fatum*
IMES Discussion Paper Series
2009-E-12 March 2009
Official Intervention in the Foreign Exchange Market: Is It Effective and, If So, How Does It Work?
Lucio Sarno,Mark P. Taylor
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE
VOL. 39, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2001(pp. 839-868)
The relative effectiveness of sterilized and non sterilized foreign exchange market interventions
Keith Pilbeamâ
Department of Economics, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK Available online 19 January 2005
ç§ã®ç 究ããŒãã«ã€ããŠð
ç§ã¯ãçºæ¿ä»å
¥ã®å®èšŒåæããããŒãã«
åæ¥è«æãå·çããããšèããŠããŸãð
æ¥æ¬çµæžãèãããšãã«ãçºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã«ãã£ãŠ
貿æååŒãçµåžžåæ¯ãå€åããã
æ ªã蚌åžãåµæš©ãšãã£ãéèè³ç£ã®åççã
å€åããããšæ¥æ¬çµæžãšçºæ¿ã¬ãŒããšã¯
åã£ãŠãåããªãçžãããã®ã§ãð
ïŒåðŽã ãã«ïœ¥ïœ¥ïœ¥ïŒ
çµæžã·ã§ãã¯ã«ãã£ãŠ
çºæ¿ã¬ãŒããå€åãããš
ãã®åœ±é¿ã¯ç§ãã¡ã®ç掻ã«å€§ãã圱é¿ããŸã
ã ãããããçºæ¿ã¬ãŒãã®å®å®æ§ã
æ
ä¿ãããããªçºæ¿ä»å
¥ã¯ãã¯ãçµæžæ¿çã«
ãããŠãéåžžã«éèŠãªæ矩ãæã£ãŠãããš
æšæž¬ããŠããŸã
決ããŠåŠéšçã楜ããŠå·çã§ãã
ç°¡åãªããŒããéžæããŠããããã§ã¯ç¡ããšä¿¡ããŠããŸã
ãã ããã®åæ¥è«æãããåãããšã
ç§ã®åŠçç掻ã®é倧æãšãªãããšã¯äºå®ãªã®ã§
æåŸãŸã§ã³ãã³ããšåãçµãã§åããŸãð¥
æ¬æ¥ã®è§£èª¬ã¯ã以äžãšããŸãð
ä»åŸãçµæžåŠçè«éãªãã³ã«
瀟äŒèª²é¡ã«å¯ŸããçµæžåŠçèŠç¹ã«ãã説æãªã©
ææ矩ãªå
容ãçºä¿¡ã§ããããã«
åªããŠãŸãããŸãã®ã§
ä»åŸãšãå®ãããé¡ãããŸãð¥º
ãã¬ãžã³ã®ã玹ä»ð
ãã¡ãã®ãã¬ãžã³ã«ãŠ
åæ¥è«æå·çãžã®è»è·¡
ãšãã»ã³ã·ã£ã«çµæžåŠçè«éããªãã³ã«
ãåœéçµæžåŠðãã®åºç€çè«ããŸãšããŠããŸã
ä»åŸãããã«ã³ã³ãã³ããæ¡å
ã§ããããã«åªããŠåããŸãã®ã§äœåãããããé¡ãç³ãäžããŸãð
æåŸãŸã§ãæèªããã ãèª ã«æé£ãããããŸããïŒ
ãããŸã§ãç§ã®èŠè§£ãæã£ãããšã
ãŸãšããããŠããã ããŠãŸãã
ãã®ç¹ã«é¢ããŸããŠããäºæ¿ãã ããð
ãã®æçš¿ãã¿ãŠãã ãã£ãæ¹ã
ã»ãã®å°ããªäºã§ãåŠã³ããã£ãïŒ
èãæ¹ã®åŒãåºããå¢ããïŒ
èªæžããåŠã¹ãããšãå€ãïŒ
ãªã©ãªã©ããã©ã¹ã®åç©«ããã£ãã®ã§ããã°
倧å€å¬ããæããŸãããæçš¿äœæã®å¥å©ã«å°œããŸãïŒïŒ
ãæ°è»œã«ã³ã¡ã³ããããããã¹ããð
ãããŠããå·®ãæ¯ããªããã°
ãã©ããŒïŒã·ã§ã¢ããé¡ããããã§ãð
ä»åŸãšãäœåãããããé¡ãããããŸãïŒ
ãã®èšäºãåå ããŠããåé
ãã®èšäºãæ°ã«å ¥ã£ãããµããŒããããŠã¿ãŸãããïŒ