Robert C. Shelburne(1)
Abstract
The poor economic performance of the global economy over the last several years is
due significantly to shortcomings in the current design of the international monetary system
(IMS). The economic crisis of the Asian emerging markets has been the most visible and
obvious manifestation of the design defects, but the problems are much more systemic in
nature. The current system 1) fails to adequately distribute global saving in a globally efficient
manner, 2) is prone to "irrational" speculative attacks which wrecks fundamentally sound
economies, and 3) has, at a global level, a deflationary bias which keeps global growth below
its optimal. These design defects have been central factors in a significant number of global
economic problems since the breakdown of the international gold standard during the First
World War; these include the Great Depression, the breakdown of the inter-war gold standard
as well as the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system, the inflation of the 1970s, the high
unemployment rates throughout Europe in the 1990s, and now the current emerging market
economic crises, and the recession in Japan. Global economic integration will ultimately
require a global central bank. However, the public's desire for national autonomy will now
only allow for marginal reforms in current institutions. Section I begins with a discussion of
the "Japanese problem" which has as its source the international financial system's inability
to adequately distribute world savings; the resulting Asian currency crises which have been
created by "irrational" speculation are discussed in Section II. Section III proposes that the
current system has a deflationary bias once disequilibriums occur. Section IV provides a
summary.
I. Japan: (The IMS's Inability to Transfer Saving)
Both the crises in Japan and the Asian emerging markets are the result of financial
problems stemming from complications in transferring savings (or real resources) from one
nation to another. Although it is sometimes assumed by international macroeconomists that
the world financial system can be characterized by perfect capital mobility, a number of
empirical tests beginning with the results of Feldstein and Horioka have found domestic
capital markets to be surprisingly segmented with domestic investment highly correlated with
domestic savings. This outcome, which is inefficient from a global perspective, is the
consequence of the current design of the international monetary system. The decade long
macroeconomic crisis in Japan also has as it's roots this inability of the IMS to transfer savings
from one nation to another. Since 1992 the Japanese economy has turned from being the
world's greatest economic success story into an economy of relatively mediocre performance
on the brink of economic catastrophe. It is somewhat surprising that the problems facing the
Japanese economy have received so little attention by the economics profession since Japan
is the world's second largest economy and the crisis there has been so persistent.
What is Japan's problem? Simply put, it is that Japan saves too much; Japan's gross
savings as a percentage of GDP are nearly twice that of the United States. Japanese savings
are so high due to it's demographics, culture, and highly regulated oligopolistic domestic
markets. Japan's aging population has the highest life expectancy in the OECD(2) and Japan is
projected by 2025 to have a ratio of retires to working age population twice that of the United
States(3). These demographics combined with a Confucian ethic of self reliance and the lack of
a pay-as-you-go social security system results in a high personal savings rate. A decade of
economic malaise which has made the Japanese very cautious has further increased the savings
rate. However, it is the high level of business profits and the high percentage of these that are
kept as retained earnings that is responsible for the truly high rate of business savings which
provides the bulk of private savings. The high profit rate is the result of the highly regulated
and oligopolistic structure of Japanese domestic industry.
During the early post-World War II period, this high savings rate allowed a high
investment rate which was a major, if not the major, component of Japan's remarkable high
growth rate during it's catch-up phase. However, now that Japan has caught up
technologically with the leading industrial nations, has achieved a relatively high capital-worker ratio, and is facing reduced economic growth due to it's demographics, the investment
opportunities are fewer. The surplus of desired savings due to this long-run reduction in
investment needs and the long-run increase in savings has been further enlarged by the
economic stagnation of the current decade. The result of all this excessive savings (relative
to investment) is that there is a persistent shortage of aggregate demand which produces a
typical Keynesian type recession; that the situation has now deteriorated into something much
more sinister like a liquidity trap is a real possibility.
There is the possibility that much of the investment shortfall is due to the recession
itself and if the economy can simply get out of its stagnation, due perhaps to a large monetary
or fiscal injection, that there will be no long-run problem. The situation is reminiscent of the
debates in the 1930s as to whether the U.S. was entering a period of permanent demand
deficiency; in retrospect the answer was probably no although the U.S. did adopt a number
of policy changes after the war that redistributed income to households likely to spend --
perhaps Japan will be so lucky. As long as the savings are not so excess relative to desired
investment, a low interest rate could clear the market without creating any significant
macroeconomic problem for Japan. However, even in this case where Japanese real interest
rates are significantly below world levels, the outcome is less than satisfactory from the global
level since capital is not being optimally distributed.
However, the problem now is possibly much worse and it's not just a misallocation of
capital from high return to low return projects; the failure to invest all of the savings has
created a major decades long recession costing Japan over a trillion dollars in lost output. It
is potentially possible, of course, to solve the macroeconomic problem by creating inflation
so that real interest rates could be negative to the degree necessary to get investment sufficient
to use up the available savings. This is the Band-Aid solution proposed by Krugman, however,
besides questions about feasibility(4) there remains the problem of the global misallocation of
investment. There is also the fiscal expansion solution to the macroeconomic problem but that
solution, like the monetary solution, results in an inferior time profile of consumption and a
misallocation of global capital and, in addition, creates a undesirable future distribution
problem (i.e., taxpayers to bondholders).
Figure 1 illustrates the limitations of the monetary or fiscal solutions to Japans
problem. The full employment level of production is labeled P while the desired level of
consumption is labeled C. The optimal solution is for Japan to achieve the desired level of
consumption, and produce at full employment with the accumulation of foreign assets from
t1 to t2 and the deaccumulation from t2 to t3. The current predicament is that Japan is producing
and consuming along the C line (or even below it), and therefore will be constrained to
consume (and produce) along the P line in the future (t2 to t3). The fiscal or monetary solution
results in consumption throughout along the P line. The point being, that a domestic solution
to Japan's problem is sub-optimal.
Thus the fundamental problem is that the international monetary system is incapable
of transferring saving from one country to another. This is similar to the Keynes-Ohlin transfer
problem regarding German reparations in that the financial system somehow keeps a real
transfer from occurring, but is quite different in form since in the original transfer problem the
financial transfer occurs (although the real transfer does not) while now the financial transfer
can not be accomplished.
Why is a financial transfer not possible? If all the world used one currency, there
would appear to be no problem with making either the financial or real transfer(5). The problem
results from having a multiple currency world where exchange rates are allowed to fluctuate;
with this type of monetary system there is a constraint on the amount which can be profitably
exported. As capital is exported it depreciates the currency, and when it is repatriated it
appreciates the currency.(6) Thus today's capital exports from Japan are likely to turn into
capital imports into Japan over the next ten to twenty years. The result is that a Japanese
investor suffers a capital loss due to the future yen appreciation. Thus, the capital loss sets a
limit to how far the currency can depreciate which then limits the capital outflow to the current
account surplus at that exchange rate. Thus the current exchange rate system limits to a sub-optimal degree the distribution of surplus Japanese savings to investment deficient areas in the
rest of the world.
The problem is the reverse for the capital importing nations, but these nations have had
to deal with another more immediate defect of the current system --it's vulnerability to
"irrational" speculative attacks which have imposed hash constraints on their ability to
maintain internal balance.
II. The Asian Crisis: (The IMS's Inadequacy in Dealing With Speculation)
There were a number of factors which resulted in the collapse of investor confidence
in the Asian emerging markets including the Japanese quagmire, the Chinese depreciation and
the weak regulatory practices in their financial sectors, but the implications of these
developments were compounded by the design defects of the IMS. What happened in Asia was
not fundamentally differ from what happened in Mexico several years before. The failure of
policy makers to correctly understand what happened in Mexico and institute changes to deal
with similar future events is one of the great tragedies of the current crisis. In both cases the
macroeconomic policies in the afflicted economies were reasonably sound.(7) Investors have
come to understand that regardless of the fundamentals, a significant capital outflow can easily
result in a depreciation of a currency since central banks do not have the reserves and the IMF
is unwilling to provide reserves sufficient to maintain an exchange rate under pressure from
capital outflows. In addition, it is not sensible for investors to simply "wait out" the crisis
under the assumption that prices will return to their "fundamental" value since downward
rigidity in prices and wages means that the depreciation will lead to economic changes that
will validate the depreciation. Even real assets which would be immune to depreciation's
inflationary effects are likely to fall in value due to the recessionary after-shocks.
In the case of Mexico, the large provision of foreign exchange by the IMF and the U.S.
Government was sufficient to restore investor confidence. However, when a similar attack
began in Thailand this support was not there. The issue at that time was one of liquidity not
solvency, and had the needed reserves been provided the Asian crisis could have been
contained. Why were reserves not made available? The IMF had the wrong mind set and the
U.S. did not have a sufficient economic interest. The IMF and its programs are ill suited for
the type of speculative crisis which affected the Asian nations. The IMF programs were
designed to deal with nations whose irresponsible policies had produced fundamental current
account crises; IMF programs and resource levels were not designed to deal with capital crises
resulting from speculative attacks. The IMF was unable to shift gears when a new type of
crisis arose (even though they had three years to prepare since Mexico); the new disease
required a new medicine. Instead of providing reserves to soothe the speculative fever, the
IMF imposed contractionary policies which magnified the financial problems by creating
credit crunches, bankruptcies and ultimately recessions.
Although Mexico was also forced to impose contractionary policies, the emphasis in
that crisis, due to U.S. involvement, was more on providing additional reserves. The U.S. did
not have the incentive to help the Asian nations that it had had with Mexico. An economic
crisis in Mexico has more direct implications for the United States in terms of reduced exports,
increased immigration, and investor and commercial bank losses than similar crises in
Southeast Asia. Officials within the U.S. Government also needed to save face for their own
policies since the NAFTA had just been created.
Once it was clear that the needed support for these Asian nations would not be
forthcoming, and depreciation and depression were likely, it become clear to all that any
investment in an emerging market was subject to significant capital loss once the slightest exit
of capital began regardless of the economic fundamentals. The result are irrational and
speculative markets where self-fulling expectations dominant although each investor can be
said to act rationally. Ragnar Nurkse carefully documented that global capital markets had
this characteristic during the world's previous period of global financial freedom in the 1920s
and 1930s. Thus this lesson had been learned before but the free market gurus which have
come to dominate the global institutions and central banks throughout the world came to
believe that things were somehow different now.
These currency crises have now moved through Russia and on to Latin America. The
line has now been drawn in the sand at the shores of Brazil. The fundamentals are not, as is
often stated, better for Brazil --- they are not. The reason for this final stand is that it is now
realized that a severe blunder was made in not providing more liquidity for Southeast Asia,
and Brazil is a last ditch effort to contain the crisis before it truly engulfs the rest of the world.
It is unfortunate that Brazil has been chosen as the site for this battle since it's fundamentals
are so poor.
What is the optimal policy response for a nation experiencing these capital outflows?
As is apparent from the prescribed IMF response as well as alternative suggestions by other
government and academic economists, there really is no "desirable" policy response; all of the
alternatives have some really undesirable consequences for the affected nation. Although this
question must still be addressed since there are a number of countries in this predicament, it
is natural to ask another question as to whether it is possible to avoid the whole situation
altogether with a different set of policies in the years prior to a crisis.
Is it possible to avoid a speculative crisis in the first place? What is remarkable about
the analysis of the current crises is how the arguments concerning banking solvency,
transparency and crony capitalism have dominated the debate, when in fact, these are at most
side issues or consequences instead of causes. If these nations had dollar based economies, it
is unlikely that there would be any crisis at all other a few foreign investors losing some
money. What has turned some insolvent companies into a full fledged global economic crisis
is the foreign currency aspect of the crisis. The fundamental problem is that the assets and
liabilities are denominated in different currencies. Thus the cause of the crisis is in the design
of the international monetary system which allows liberal capital flows but does not provide
a lender of last resort for foreign exchange; the fundamental problem is not, as is often stated,
in the lending and investment practices of these nations' banks and nonfinancial firms.
These currency crises are like a run on a bank. In the banking analogy, the term
structure of the assets and liabilities are significantly different, making a run possible which
can bring down even a sound bank; in the emerging markets, the currency of the assets and
liabilities (as well as the term structure) are different. The result is that sound economies can
be brought down. Just as bank should not allow its term structure of assets and liabilities to
vary if there is no lender of last resort, no country should allow it's assets and liabilities to be
in different currencies if there is no foreign currency lender of last resort. To avoid future
crises, the sensitivity of capital towards speculative outflows needs to be reduced, banks and
firms should be restricted from taking on foreign currency debt, and there needs to be some
mechanism to provide more foreign currency in times of an outflow.
Although all capital is potentially capable of participating in a capital outflow, some
is much more likely to do so than others. The retired school teacher can transfer her life
savings from domestic to foreign accounts in order to avoid a currency depreciation, but that
is far less likely than foreign investors deciding to repatriate their investments. Therefore those
forms of capital that are most subject to rapid outflow should be restricted or at least subject
to outflow constraints. Chile's restrictions on short-run capital inflows appear to be a sensible
policy for other nations to consider. At the global level, a Tobin tax on foreign currency
transactions may also prove beneficial in reducing volatility. In regard to restricting foreign
currency debt, the critical issue is the need to limit debt which would be significantly increased
by a currency depreciation and which could thereby threaten the solvency of domestic firms.
Thus portfolio investment, although subject to the same "irrational" speculative flows may not
have the same devastating consequences as direct bank or firm borrowing. Therefore
restrictions should be concentrated on direct borrowing in foreign currency; it will take time
to determine if an outright ban is required or if disincentives such as eliminating the interest
deductibility of foreign currency loans will be sufficient to keep them to manageable levels.(8)
In regard to providing a foreign currency lender of last resort, there are two
possibilities, each of which has its own problems. The required foreign currency can come
from either the domestic central bank out of its international reserves or it can be borrowed
from external sources such as the IMF or other arrangements with foreign governments. To
have the domestic central bank accumulate international reserves during the inflow period (i.e.,
prior to the crisis) does not appear to be an economically sound policy. If the central bank
intervenes on the foreign exchange market in response to the inflows, the monetary expansion
will have to be sterilized; the higher interest rates will counteract much of the postulated
benefit of the increased foreign investment. In addition, the central bank which accumulates
foreign reserves will invest these in low yield (U.S. or other reserve country) government
securities. Thus from the developing nation's overall perspective, it is borrowing at
commercial rates and reinvesting at U.S. government rates; this hardly seems like a sensible
policy. In addition, it is not sound government finance since the government has to issue it's
own bonds (when it sterilizes) paying high interest rates and then reinvest the money in
foreign bonds paying low interest.(9) In order for some external source to provide the needed
international reserves, the external provider is likely to require that it be given some
supervisory control in order to avoid irresponsible borrowing (the loss of national autonomy
in making economic decisions); the unlimited provision of funds also results in a moral hazard
encouraging the borrowing government to act irresponsibly. Charging market interest rates for
loans could help reduce the moral hazard problem. Of course, simply having access to an
international lender of last resort is likely to significantly reduce the need for one. The
enlargement of IMF resources which was approved by Congress in the fall of 1998 was a step
in the right direction but more will be needed. Current IMF resources were designed to deal
with current account problems, reserve levels needed to address capital account disturbances
will have to be much larger. A solution will probably require reforms on all three fronts:
restrictions on foreign currency loans, larger central banks reserves, and larger and more
automatic reserves from the IMF.
However, over the last decade, policy has been moving in the opposite direction.
Countries have been loosening their restrictions on capital inflows, central banks have not
intervened in the exchange markets but have allowed the capital inflows to appreciate (at least
in real terms) their currencies (which created large current account deficits), and IMF
resources have been allowed to shrink dramatically in terms of their percentage of foreign
exchange activity. Thus emerging markets now find themselves in a situation with significant
foreign currency debt, minimal international reserves, and an IMF unable and unwilling to
lend sufficient amounts to reassure investors. Once a significant currency outflow begins there
are basically four options: 1) stop the currency outflows with exchange controls, 2) raise
domestic interest rates to a level high enough to compensate investors for any depreciation
risks, 3) allow the exchange rate to drop to whatever rate is needed to re-establish
"equilibrium," or 4) obtain more reserves from the "outside world." The ability to carry out
option 4 is not a viable option for most countries (Mexico was a special case). Thus they are
left with the first three and there are major costs to each of these options: for option (1)
transaction and administrative costs and microeconomic inefficiency, and the possibility that
controls may limit future capital inflows needed for development, for option (2) recession and
unemployment, and insolvency for heavily indebted firms, and for option (3) insolvency for
firms with debt denominated in foreign currency, large changes in competitiveness requiring
costly reallocation of capital amongst sectors, and cost-push inflation which could start a
vicious cycle of depreciation and inflation. As can be seen, there is no cost-free or obvious
alternative; clearly these emerging market nations have boxed themselves into a corner and
there is no way out that doesn't entail significant costs. The question is which policy, or which
combinations of policies has the minimum of undesirable effects. In the current situation a
combination of policies is usually advanced but the emphasis differs: Krugman appears
sympathetic to the first, the IMF the second, Sachs the third, while it is argued here that the
fourth option (although not available to an individual country) needs to be given more
consideration.
III. Global Deflation (The IMS's Bias Towards Deflation)
The current design of the IMS biases the world economy towards deflation. This
design flaw was a major contributing cause of the Great Depression, the breakdown of the
inter-war gold standard as well as the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system, the inflation
of the 1970s, the high unemployment rates throughout Europe in the 1990s, and now the
current emerging market crises. This underlying problem was first identified by John M.
Keynes in his assessment of the inter-war monetary system and although he attempted to
correct this defect in his proposed design of the post-World War II Bretton Woods system, his
views on this matter were largely vetoed by the U.S. Treasury. This defect currently persist
in the post-Bretton Woods flexible exchange non-system. This design flaw can be stated
several ways. Most simply, global liquidity needs to be determined by some form of
centralized mechanism that determines liquidity based upon the needs of the global economy;
however in the current system global liquidity is determined by default and in most
disequilibrium situations, is below the optimal level.
More specifically, the design flaw is that when a disequilibrium develops in the global
economy due to a change in either real conditions or investor sentiment, the region from
which capital is flowing out of is required to adjust by contracting while the regions to which
this capital is flowing into have the luxury of pursuing their own self interest by neutralizing
these inflows to maintain their desired domestic conditions. The result is a deflationary bias
to the world economy. This results from the fact that foreign exchange reserves have
asymmetric bounds, they have a minimum of zero but an unbounded maximum. Of course,
the current monetary system has attempted to lower the minimum bound below zero with
borrowing from private commercial sources, IMF lending, and government swap agreements,
and the IMF briefly created a meager amount of Special Drawing Rights. However, the
situation remains asymmetric in that losses of foreign exchange are fundamentally different
from gains. The result of a disequilibrium is that deficit nations are required to restrict demand
which results in recessions and deflation while surplus nations need not increase demand since
they can neutralize these capital inflows. Once deflation takes hold in the deficit nations,
however, history shows that the economic turmoil in the deficit nations ultimately spreads in
a perverse matter through financial contagion and trade flows and ultimately brings crisis even
to the fortunate nations spared from the original pain. As the surplus nations' exports fall, and
as their investors lose confidence due to accumulating losses on foreign loans, demand falls.
The fall in demand and the appreciating currency results in deflationary pressures even in the
surplus nations. The surplus nations' central banks generally do too little, too late.
In the current global financial crisis the emerging markets have had to initiate
draconian deflationary policies in order to keep capital from fleeing. Meanwhile the capital
inflow nations (mainly the U.S. and Europe) continue to conduct monetary policy towards
domestic considerations. If there is no global mechanism (e.g., central bank) to provide liquidity, then a hegemonic national central bank must do so. As is usual, unlike the Europeans, the United States has at least given
minor consideration to its global responsibilities by lowering interest rates; however, the Fed
was primarily motivated out of concern about a domestic slowdown due to falling exports and
errant financial markets. The Bundesbank's (and now ECB's) continued monetary tightness despite Europe's
high unemployment rates is especially fragrant. Thus the U.S. and Europe have largely
neutralized the capital inflows and maintained stable conditions in their regions; globally,
however, the overall effect has been the destruction of liquidity which has biased the world
towards deflation. It is somewhat cynical for the U.S. to be preaching to Japan about it's
global responsibilities in regard to macroeconomic policy while the U.S. maintains it's own
self-centered macroeconomic policy.
This pattern has been repeated numerous times this century. The Great Depression was
largely the result of surplus nations sucking liquidity out of the global economy. As Kindleberger
has argued, the U.K. was unable and the U.S. was unwilling to accept the role of global central bank. During the
late 1920s, first it was France that drained gold from the rest of the world by running surpluses
due to an undervalued currency; they further reduced reserves by demanding gold instead of
holding British pounds. These actions compounded an already low level of world reserves
which existed due to the attempt by many nations to return to pre-war parities after the
inflation of the First World War. These developments prompted monetary tightness in the
deficit nations including the United States during 1928 and 1929; France failed to provide an
equivalent stimulus and the result was a recession in the U.S. in the summer of 1929. After the
U.S. recession began, the United States also became a surplus nation and also began draining
gold reserves from much of the rest of the world. Once again, the surplus nations including
the U.S. failed to provide any counteracting stimulus and as a result the depression ultimately
became global.
An even more recent parallel, abet on a smaller scale, that is instructive has been the
high unemployment rates in Europe experienced throughout the 1990s. After the fall of the
Berlin Wall, the German government, in order to revitalize the East, went from a budget
surplus in 1989 to fiscal deficits of around 3 percent of GDP for the next 7 years.(10) The result
was higher interest rates which had the effect of sucking capital out of the rest of the EU.
Those nations that attempted to maintain their exchange rates with the mark were forced to
raise their interest rates to keep capital at home. The result was low growth and, due to
particularly inflexible labor markets, increases in unemployment in all the periphery EU
countries. The Bundesbank, however, did not allow the fiscal stimulus to inflate the German
economy, monetary policy was kept sufficiently tight in order to counter the fiscal stimulus.
Thus once again, the same pattern emerges, the capital outflow nations experience recession
while the inflow nation has the luxury of selfishly maintaining stability. The overall result is
a deflationary bias. And once again, the same long-run pattern emerges, the deflationary
effects ultimately find their way to the capital importer as unemployment in Germany (the
western Landers) increased slowly from 5 percent in 1991 to almost 10 percent by 1997.
Throughout Europe the cyclically unemployed have now become structurally unemployed
through the process called hysteresis whereby human capital is depreciated by periods of
unemployment.
The EU members of this currency arrangement clearly realized that it was undesirable
to be part of a monetary system where the central bank (the Bundesbank was in effect the
central bank of Europe) made decisions not on the economic conditions of the entire region
but only on the economic conditions in a sub-part of the region, e.g., Germany. It would be
equivalent to the U.S. Federal Reserve making monetary policy based on conditions only in
New York state instead of the entire country. Thus the Europeans decided to replace this
arrangement with the Euro controlled by a European Central Bank which would base monetary
decisions on EU-wide economic conditions and not just conditions in Germany. The
Europeans have clearly recognized the basic problem -- economic stability requires that
monetary policy be determined by a centralized authority which determines liquidity based
on the economic conditions of the entire region.
Paradoxically, even the inflationary episode experienced by the world during the latter
part of the 1970s resulted from the same defect. Firstly, although there is a deflationary bias
in the design of the monetary system, the deficit nation generally experiences inflation in
domestic currency; thus, for example, although deflation is said to exist throughout Asia now,
there has actually been significant inflation in these Asian nations in terms of their domestic
currency. In the 1970s, the deficit nations (oil importers) turned out to be the industrialized
nations; thus inflation in dollar or mark terms is consistent with the pattern. Also, the surplus
nations chose not to neutralize their surpluses (which is the usual pattern) but instead to
recycle them. This was possible because the deficit countries were, in this unique instance,
the creators of the international reserves, and therefore unlike the usual case were reserves are
limited, had basically unlimited reserves since they were able to simply print them. Thus
although the inflation of the 1970s would at first appear to be an exception to a world biased
towards deflation, properly interpreted it was a result of the same design flaw. Instead of the
deficit nations having to deflate to conserve reserves, the deficit nations were able to print the
needed reserves which ultimately produced global inflation in terms of those currencies. The
United States has been the great defender of the current architecture because it has this luxury
of being able to print international reserves and is therefore free from ever having to be the
economy required to deflate.
Conclusion
The current international monetary system is deficient in a number of ways. Three
areas are readily apparent from the global economy's current situation. The current system is
unable to transfer savings from nations that "over" save to those in need of the savings. The
current system is susceptible to "irrational" hot money movements that are wrecking havoc
on basically sound economies, and the current design is such that these capital flows do not
just redistribute demand from one area to another but actually result is an overall decrease in
global demand which imparts a deflationary bias on the global economy. The economic
recession in Japan, the Asian currency crises, and the spreading global recession are all
significantly connected to these design defects. The problem is that economies that are highly
integrated need a central bank to facilitate the transfer of resources, act as a lender of last
resort, and control the level of liquidity. Keynes recognized this a half century ago; however,
because of the public's desire for national autonomy, a patchwork of institutions and programs
have had to oversee the operation of international monetary affairs. The shortcomings of the
current approach will continue to become more apparent as economic integration proceeds.
The history of the economic integration of the United States and Europe clearly bear this out.
Currently Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are talking about a new Bretton Woods
conference to provide bold initiatives to prepare the world economy for the 21st century.
However, it is extremely unlikely that anything bold will be proposed, instead the proposals
will likely be small and make very marginal changes in the current design of the international
monetary system. Certainly the real issue of a global central bank will not be seriously
discussed. The sacrifices of national autonomy to a global institution is well beyond serious
consideration at this time. However, what can be hoped for are marginal changes in the design
of the international monetary system that can partially alleviate some of the shortcomings.
What is likely are increased funding for the IMF, with perhaps addition emergency funds from
various sources such as the regional banks or more swap agreements. Increased financial
regulation and oversight of banking and commercial lending are likely. Capital controls of
some form may be adopted. The need for monetary policy in the reserve currency nations to
be more oriented towards global conditions must be accepted. This Band-Aid patchwork,
which is better than nothing, may keep the system going another decade or two. At some
point, however, the basic design flaws pointed out by Keynes fifty years ago will have to be
squarely addressed.
The basic problem with the international monetary system is similar to the basic
problem confronting the international trading system and the WTO. Despite all the desirable
properties of a capitalist market economy, for optimal performance, an economy requires
centralized control. As global economic integration proceeds, the patchwork of agreements
amongst sovereign states become less effective. In the trading regime the issues are the use of
common property resources, labor standards, transboundry pollution and other externalities,
environmental dumping, intellectual property rights, and the provision of global public goods.
The states of the United States and now the nations of the European Union have recognized
that these trade issues as well as the monetary issues discussed here require centralized
decision making; at some future date, an integrated global economy will realize that as well.
References
Feldstein, Martin and Charles Horioka, "Domestic Saving and International Capital Flows,"
The Economic Journal, Vol. 90, 1980, pp. 314-329.
Krugman, Paul, "It's Back! Japan's Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap," mimeo,
1998.
Nurkse, Ragnar, International Currency Experience, League of Nations, 1944.
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, various country reports for Japan,
1997 and Germany, 1998.
Rodrick, Dani, "Who Needs Capital-Account Convertibility?," Princeton Essay in
International Finance, forthcoming.
Salvatore, Dominick, "Capital Flows, Current Account Deficits, and Financial Crises in
Emerging Market Economies, The International Trade Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring
1998, pp. 5-22.
Footnotes
1. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the official
positions of the Department of Labor or the U.S. Government.
2. (OECD-Japan-1997-p.112)
3. (OECD-Japan -1997-p.140)
4. How does central bank create inflation if it can't increase aggregate demand?
5. Theoretically there could still be a real problem but the required elasticities for such an
outcome are unlikely.
6. The expected reversal (due to demographics) is a critical component of the problem,
some transfers such as the German reparations would not have that characteristic.
7. For example both Stiglitz and Salvatore conclude that even with the benefits of
hindsight, it is difficult to predict which countries would be subject to capital outflows.
8. The degree to which restrictions on foreign investment may negatively impact growth
will have to be compared to the growth debilitating effects of macroeconomic crises. However
even at a general level, Rodrick finds no evidence that liberalized capital accounts have been
associated with higher economic growth.
9. Many commentators seem to imply that countries which have run significant current
account deficits have acted irresponsibly, but they usually don't articulate exactly what should
have been done otherwise. The only alternatives are capital controls and sterilized intervention.
10. (OECD, Germany-1998, p.16)