Do Monetary Handcuffs Restrain Leviathan? Fiscal Policy in Extreme Exchange Rate Regimes

This paper studies fiscal policy in countries that have chosen an extreme monetary stance. We think of a country as having an extreme monetary policy if it is in either a currency board or a common currency area. In much of our analysis, we distinguish between multilateral currency unions (such as the East Caribbean Currency Area, or ECCA) and countries that have unilaterally adopted the currency of an anchor country (such as Panama).

It is possible to motivate our analysis in several ways. A number of countries are considering whether to abandon national monetary sovereignty and unilaterally adopt the money of another country, including Mexico and Argentina; Ecuador, Guatemala, and El Salvador are already proceeding with dollarization. In Europe, 12 countries have already abandoned national monetary discretion within the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). More generally, there has been much discussion of the “disappearing center” of exchange rate regimes; countries are said to have a choice of either freely floating or going to an extreme monetary stance.

» Read more: Do Monetary Handcuffs Restrain Leviathan? Fiscal Policy in Extreme Exchange Rate Regimes

Related posts

Has Monetary Policy Been So Bad That It Is Better to Get Rid of It? The Case of Mexico

MANY LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES are considering adopting the U.S. dollar as legal currency, and some, like Ecuador, have taken concrete steps in that direction. Proponents of dollarization generally hold the view that domestic monetary policy has been the primary cause for the economic instability experienced by these countries in the past three decades. Yet, at least for Mexico, very few empirical studies have tried to identify the role of monetary policy.

The existing empirical literature on Mexican monetary policy consists mainly of single equation estimations (see Calvo and Mendoza 1996 and Kamin and Rogers 1996), or of reduced-form vector autoregressions (see Copelman and Werner 1995 and Hernandez 1999).(1) The first class of models is silent on the impact of monetary policy on the rest of the economy. The second class of models, by definition, cannot identify monetary policy. In addition, all previous literature has either ignored the issue of changes in regime, or has confined itself to the study of monetary policy within regimes. This despite the fact that some of Mexico’s major crises occurred during the passage from one regime to another. A proper evaluation of the impact of monetary policy on the Mexican economy requires that these critical transition periods are considered.

» Read more: Has Monetary Policy Been So Bad That It Is Better to Get Rid of It? The Case of Mexico

Related posts

Thinking Positively About Monetary Policy – How “Quantitative Easing” Can Serve The Public Good

Nervous pundits are predicting the end of American life as we know it, after Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced on March 18 that he would be dropping yet another trillion dollars in helicopter money – up to $300 billion to buy long-term government bonds and an additional $750 billion to buy private debt, with the Term Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) to be opened up for the sake of consumers and small businesses. The dollar immediately experienced its worst drop in 25 years, amid worries that the Fed’s intervention would spur hyperinflation. Typical of the concerned commentators expressing these sentiments was Mark Larson, who wrote in “Money and Markets” on March 20:

“This is Banana Republic-type stuff! And I’m not talking about the clothing store. Printing money out of thin air at the central bank, only to turn around and buy debt securities issued by your Treasury, is the kind of practice you typically see in emerging market regimes. We’re essentially monetizing our country’s debt and deliberately devaluing our country’s currency.”

» Read more: Thinking Positively About Monetary Policy – How “Quantitative Easing” Can Serve The Public Good

Related posts