To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter analyses the Federal Reserve’s mandate and statutory objectives and how they have evolved since the Fed was established in 1913, and considers the mandate in the context of environmental and social sustainability challenges. The chapter argues that the Fed’s mandate and statutory objectives historically were interpreted broadly to allow discretion for the Fed and its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to manage monetary policy in support of Government policy. The chapter further argues that the legislative history behind the adoption of the dual mandate to achieve price stability and full employment allows the FOMC and the Board of Governors discretion to use their powers to mitigate the risks emanating from the broader economy and society that might impact the price stability and full employment objectives. Despite the conventional interpretation by Fed officials that the Fed ‘should stick to its knitting’ by focusing on short-to-medium term risks to price stability, the chapter concludes that the economic evidence is compelling that climate finance risks and other sustainability challenges can undermine price stability and full employment and therefore should be factored into the Fed’s monetary policy and financial stability strategy.
Recovering Senator Robert Owen’s role in creating the Federal Reserve System, this article reclaims the original vision of the Federal Reserve as an institution in which state democratic power checked private expertise. Populist-minded Southern farmers and country bankers embraced the Reserve as a politically palatable vehicle to ease credit, protect against bank runs, and ensure seasonal liquidity. However, the perception of a “populist Federal Reserve” eroded with the onset of the 1920 postwar recession and the ensuing agricultural depression. We show that Federal Reserve officials prioritized combating inflation and made several decisions between 1920 and 1921 that aggravated the agricultural crisis by artificially contracting rural credit access, alienating farmers and country bankers from “their” central bank. This estrangement was further compounded by Reserve failures during the Great Depression, which encouraged Southern farmers and their representatives to re-embrace old populist nostrums that would become centerpieces of the New Deal.
This chapters describes the changes in monetary technology that occurred in the twentieth century. We start with a description of the Gold Standard, the global monetary system in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We characterize that system as a “mountain of paper on a plinth of gold”: gold has fundamental value but is rarely seen in circulation, whereas paper has no fundamental value, but represents it and circulates widely. Scientific discoveries and technological advances in that period resulted in the application of telecommunication to payment transfers and messaging. The first remarkable application was Fedwire, the interbank payment and settlement system created in the United States by the Federal Reserve shortly after its founding. We show how Fedwire worked and how it gave rise for the first time to a single US monetary system based in the dollar, where payments were “final” and irrevocable. The great step to digitalization occurred in the 1950s, with the computerized ledgers first introduced in the United States by Bank of America to handle checks, an arrangement soon adopted by all banks. This gave rise to an explosion of new payment means: credit and debit cards, and, after the rise of the internet in the 1990s, online banking and payment platforms and applications. We note that these new technologies have a common characteristic: They settle in bank books and ultimately in central bank books.
Daniel Carpenter and Brian Libgober conclude Part IV by examining policymaking that originates in the bureaucracy, focusing on debit card regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act. Here, key interest groups precisely understood the stakes and process of bureaucratic policymaking, rendering it highly traceable. In addition, the stakes were quite zero-sum. The authors argue that these conditions encourage more intense and effective interest group activity than is the case in typical administrative policymaking. To assess this argument, the chapter provides a detailed narrative of the rule’s development, integrating quantitative evidence about the impact of the rule’s evolution on stakeholder firms. Consistent with expectations, the analysis suggests that debit card regulation attracted more lobbying and of a more diverse kind than other Dodd-Frank regulations, including ones such as the Volcker Rule where the aggregate impact was far higher but with less readily traceable policy effects. These findings highlight that even in administrative policymaking, the traceability of policy outcomes to government officials’ decisions will affect how private interests act to shape these decisions.
The Fed was keen the cooperate with the Bank from early in the 1960s. The Bank on the other hand took time to warm up and share information with colleagues at the Fed. But progressively swaps became a key feature of the United Kingdom's exchange management strategy. They offered cheap and discreet short-term dollar loans. The Bank started to use and abuse these loans to manage sterling.
Choosing the optimum supervisory model to manage financial stability requires a consideration of country-specific preferences based on the level of market development and the configuration of the financial system. The choice of model, its structural design, and the regulatory mandates will influence a supervisor’s effectiveness for managing financial stability. This Chapter analyzes the sectoral models in Mainland China, the United States, and Hong Kong to showcase institutional design elements and variations across different financial systems. The chapter assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the unified central bank and banking supervisory design of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Understanding how monetary policies affect banking institutions can be critical for maintaining banking sector stability. A unified structure creates a supervisory synergy when calibrating the lender of last resort and unconventional liquidity tools because coordination tensions are eliminated. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority is compromised because of the Linked Exchange Rate System and the Interest Rate Adjustment Mechanism inhibits its ability to set and control interest rates which can destabilize the banking sector.
After his formal PhD, from 1936-1942 Kindleberger continued his education as a central bank staffer, absorbing the key currency approach of John H. Williams at the New York Fed, critically engaging the monetarist approach of Per Jacobsson at the BIS, and then enthusiastically signing on for the globalist vision of Alvin Hansen at the Board of Governors.
What role did J.P. Morgan & Co. play at home and abroad in the 1920s? Answering this question is at the core of Chapter 2. Progressivism saw in the Morgan bank the directing agency of the Money Trust, wielding tremendous power in American life. Power there was, but the chapter argues that notions of a Money Trust directed by the Corner are without foundation. Reality, however, did not matter; what mattered for many Americans was belief in hidden, untrammelled authority. Through the postwar decade the Progressive critique was dampened by prosperity. The chapter argues that, while the Morgan bank was the most important financial institution in American life, its influence was tempered by challengers and by structural changes that were remaking American banking in the 1920s. If Morgan supremacy was under assault, Morgan authority was buttressed by close ties with the victors of World War I, Britain and France. This identification was apparent in the firm’s willingness to participate in the task of assisting postwar European reconstruction, especially Western European redevelopment. The outcome was sustained Morgan involvement in issues such as reparations, war debts, and economic reconstruction in concert with central banks and governments.
We provide an overview of the monetary policy failures that resulted in the 2007–2008 financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession, focusing on the United States. Before the crisis, monetary policy was too loose, which fueled the bubble. After the bubble burst, monetary policy became too tight, hindering the recovery. These failures are fundamentally due to the Federal Reserve’s discretionary monetary policy. Furthermore, the popular approach of “constrained discretion” is really just discretion. Hence, it is sensitive to all the usual problems with discretionary monetary policy. Only firm monetary rules, ones that actually bind, can maintain macroeconomic stability and prevent crises.
We conclude by situating the theory and practice of monetary policy within liberal political economy more generally. As we have seen, there are significant tensions between existing monetary institutions (discretionary central banking) and liberal ideals. This has been made even clearer by the Federal Reserve’s response to COVID-19. In brief, the Fed is now engaging in not only monetary policy but fiscal policy as well. This represents an immense expansion in its mandate, one that poses serious challenges for general and predictable monetary policy. The way out of this mess is embracing a comparative institutions approach to monetary policy. We cannot be satisfied with technical refinements to existing models and data. We need to explore alternative monetary policy rules, ones that are effective at providing macroeconomic stability while also respecting the requirements of democracy.
Contemporary monetary institutions are flawed at a foundational level. The reigning paradigm in monetary policy holds up constrained discretion as the preferred operating framework for central banks. But no matter how smart or well-intentioned are central bankers, discretionary policy contains information and incentive problems that make macroeconomic stability systematically unlikely. Furthermore, central bank discretion implicitly violates the basic jurisprudential norms of liberal democracy. Drawing on a wide body of scholarship, this volume presents a novel argument in favor of embedding monetary institutions into a rule of law framework. The authors argue for general, predictable rules to provide a sturdier foundation for economic growth and prosperity. A rule of law approach to monetary policy would remedy the flaws that resulted in misguided monetary responses to the 2007-8 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the case for true monetary rules is the first step toward creating more stable monetary institutions.
Little has contributed more to the emergence of today's world of financial globalization than the setup of the international monetary system. In its current shape, it has a hierarchical structure with the US-Dollar (USD) at the top and various other monetary areas forming a multilayered periphery to it. A key feature of the system is the creation of USD offshore – a feature that in the 1950s and 60s developed in co-evolution with the Bretton Woods System and in the 1970s replaced it. Since the 2007–9 Financial Crisis, this ‘Offshore US-Dollar System’ has been backstopped by the Federal Reserve's network of swap lines which are extended to other key central banks. This systemic evolution may continue in the decades to come, but other systemic arrangements are possible as well and have historical precedents. This article discusses four trajectories that would lead to different setups of the international monetary system by 2040, taking into account how its hierarchical structure and the role of offshore credit money creation may evolve. In addition to a continuation of USD hegemony, we present the emergence of competing monetary blocs, the formation of an international monetary federation and the disintegration into an international monetary anarchy.
In the wake of the recent financial crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke argued repeatedly that fostering healthy growth and job creation required legislative action. He warned that continued political battles over fiscal and monetary policy, financial regulation and the debt ceiling were “deeply irresponsible” and would have “catastrophic consequences for the economy that could last for decades.” At the same time, like Alan Greenspan before him, Bernanke joined secretaries of the Treasury and other technocrats in guiding and enabling legislation, helping presidents outmaneuver critics and compensating for political uncertainty when political battles between the President and Congress stalled economic legislation. Far from being apolitical actors, these technocrats manipulated authority, exploited deference from politicians and business leaders, and alternately bolstered and challenged national politicians in order to shape US economic policy, manage market behavior and coordinate global activities before, during and after the recent financial crises.
What factors explain U.S. participation in multilateral forums that govern finance? Current literature misses the key features of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress that result in their distinct manners of support for various multilateral arrangements. I revisit the archival record and apply a new understanding to American participation in the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) as the financial regime has evolved since the collapse of fixed parity in the IMF after 1971. I thus explain the puzzle of American ambivalence through an exploration of the fragmented U.S. regulatory system, which inhibits the United States from acting as a unitary, lead actor of multilateral negotiations. Hence, American coordination must take place both domestically and internationally for an agreement to emerge.
This article examines the ongoing conflict in the global monetary system as a struggle over norms of recognition between the US Federal Reserve and the emerging market economies. The analysis demonstrates that the Fed, though dominant actor in the global monetary system, adopts a US-centric perspective and relies upon inadequate economic constructs that misrecognise periphery members and justify a dismissal of criticisms of its monetary policy actions. The article shows how the adoption of recognition principles in reconstituting the monetary rules of the game would provide the Fed with an understanding of the political economic essentials of member countries, a greater awareness of potential harms of its monetary policy actions and the importance of cooperation in reducing conflict and mitigating episodes of monetary instability.
Since the onset of the Federal Reserve's unconventional programme of large-scale asset purchases, known as quantitative easing (QE), some economists and financial practitioners have feared that the consequent buildup of the Fed's balance sheet could lead to a large expansion of the money supply, and that such an increase could cause a sharp rise in inflation. So far fears about induced inflation have not been validated. This article examines the basis for the original concerns about inflation in terms of the classic quantity theory of money, which holds that inflation occurs when the money supply expands more rapidly than warranted by increases in real production. The article first reviews the US experience and shows that whereas rapid money growth might have been a plausible explanation of inflation in the 1960s through the early 1980s, subsequent data have not supported such an explanation. It then shows that the quantity theory of money has not really been put to the test after the Great Recession, because a sharp increase in banks’ excess reserves and corresponding sharp decline in the ‘money multiplier’ has meant that the rise in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet has not translated into increased money available to the public in the usual fashion. The most likely aftermath of quantitative easing remains one of benign price behaviour. However, if nascent inflationary conditions materialise, the Federal Reserve will need to manage adroitly the large amounts of banks’ excess reserves that have accumulated as a consequence of QE in order to limit inflationary pressures.
The recession of 1937–8 is often cited as illustrating the dangers of withdrawing fiscal and monetary stimulus too early in a weak recovery. Yet our understanding of this severe downturn is incomplete: existing studies find that changes in fiscal policy were small in comparison to the magnitude of the downturn and that higher reserve requirements were not binding on banks. This article focuses on a neglected change in monetary policy, the sterilization of gold inflows during 1937, and finds that it exerted a powerful contractionary force during this period. The transmission of this monetary shock to the real economy appears to have worked through lower asset (equity) prices and higher interest rates.
We investigate how central bank forecasts of GDP growth evolve through time, and how they are adapted in the light of official estimates of actual GDP growth. Using data for 1988–2005, we find that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has typically adjusted its forecast for growth over the coming four quarters by about a third of the unexpected component of estimated growth in the four quarters most recently ended. We were unable to find any clear signs of systematic errors in the FOMC's forecasts. UK data for 1998–2005 suggest that the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) did not adjust its forecasts in this way, and that there were systematic forecast errors, but the evidence from the latter part of the period 2001–5 tentatively shows a behaviour pattern closer to that of the FOMC, with no clear signs of systematic errors.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.