+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com


Briefly describe the hegemonic stability theory (HST). Examine the HST from the competing perspectives (e.g., from the realist and liberal perspectives). Discuss its relevance to some major questions of International Political Economy (500-800 words).

Please include references to your answer.

Other Requirements:

1. Try to use the weekly assigned journal articles to answer the essay questions.

2. Make sure to refer to the related important scholarly arguments (and scholars) in your discussion.


Don’t use direct quotations in your answers. Paraphrase the arguments from other sources.

4. Make sure the Turnitin similarity percentage is lower than 20% (You will get zero if the similarity rate is higher than 20%).



April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001. 4:317–43
c 2001 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
Copyright °
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
J. Lawrence Broz1 and Jeffry A. Frieden2
1Department of Politics, New York University, New York, New York 10003;
e-mail: lawrence.broz@nyu.edu
2Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138;
e-mail: jfrieden@harvard.edu
Key Words exchange rates, currency policy, monetary policy, international capital
mobility, monetary regimes
â–  Abstract The structure of international monetary relations has gained increasing
prominence over the past two decades. Both national exchange rate policy and the character of the international monetary system require explanation. At the national level,
the choice of exchange rate regime and the desired level of the exchange rate involve
distributionally relevant tradeoffs. Interest group and partisan pressures, the structure of political institutions, and the electoral incentives of politicians therefore influence exchange rate regime and level decisions. At the international level, the character
of the international monetary system depends on strategic interaction among governments, driven by their national concerns and constrained by the international environment. A global or regional fixed-rate currency regime, in particular, requires at least
coordination and often explicit cooperation among national governments.
The study of international monetary relations was long the domain of economists
and a few lonely political scientists. It was routinely argued that, unlike international trade, debt, or foreign investment, exchange rates and related external
monetary policies were too technical, and too remote from the concerns of either the mass public or special interests, to warrant direct attention from political economists (Gowa 1988). This was never really accurate, as demonstrated
historically by the turbulent politics of the gold standard and more recently by
the attention paid to currency policy in small, open economies such as those of
Northern Europe and the developing world. But the tedious predictability of currency values under the Bretton Woods system lulled most scholars into inattention
(exceptions include Cooper 1968, Kindleberger 1970, Strange 1971, Cohen 1977,
Odell 1982, and Gowa 1983).
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
The collapse of Bretton Woods increased the interest of political scientists in the
issue, and in the 1980s, international monetary affairs took so prominent a place in
domestic and international politics as to warrant widespread scholarly attention.
The 50% real appreciation of the US dollar and the domestic and international
firestorm of concern it prompted, dramatic currency collapses in many heavily
indebted developing countries, and the controversial attempts to fix European
exchange rates all drew researchers toward the topic.
Since 1990, international monetary relations have become extremely prominent
in practice, and the study of their political economy has accordingly increased in
importance. Exchange rate policies have been at the center of what are arguably the
two most striking recent developments in the international economy: the creation
of a single European currency and the waves of currency crises that swept through
Asia, Latin America, and Russia between 1994 and 1999.
Although most research on the political economy of international monetary
relations is relatively recent, it has already given rise to interesting and important
theoretical approaches, analytical arguments, and empirical conclusions. We summarize this work without attempting to cover exhaustively a complex and rapidly
growing literature. In this section, we outline the analytical problem, delineating
the range of outcomes in need of explanation. The next section focuses on one set
of things to be explained, the policy choices of national governments, surveying
work on the domestic political economy of exchange rate choice. The third section
looks at the second set of things to be explained, the rise and evolution of regional
and global exchange rate institutions.
Two interrelated sets of international monetary phenomena require explanation.
The first is national: the policy of particular governments towards their exchange
rates. The second is global: the character of the international monetary system.
These two interact in important ways. National policy choices, especially of large
countries, have a powerful impact on the nature of the international monetary
system. The United Kingdom and the United States were essentially the creators
of the classical gold standard and the Bretton Woods monetary order, respectively,
and their decisions to withdraw from these systems effectively ended them. By
the same token, the global monetary regime exercises a powerful influence on
national policy choice. A small country, such as Belgium or Costa Rica, is much
more likely to fix its exchange rate—to gold before 1914, to the dollar or some
other currency since 1945—when most of its neighbors have done so. The national
and the international interact in complex ways, but for ease of analysis it is useful
to look at separate dependent variables: the national policy choices of governments
and the character of the international monetary system.
National Exchange Rate Policy
Each national government must decide whether to fix its currency—to the dollar, to
another national currency, or to gold (in earlier periods)—or to allow it to float. If
it chooses to let its currency float, it must decide whether it intends to let currency
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
markets freely set the currency’s value or whether it intends to target a particular
range of exchange rates. If the latter, the government needs to determine the desired
level of the currency’s value—whether, generally speaking, it prefers the exchange
rate to be “strong” (relatively appreciated) or “weak” (relatively depreciated).
In specific instances, governments may be faced with more immediate choices,
such as whether to defend or devalue a currency under attack. There are, roughly
speaking, two kinds of national decisions to be made. One concerns the regime
under which the currency is managed (fixed or floating, for example), and the other
concerns the level of the currency (strong or weak).
These choices have significant economic and political implications, and there
is no reigning economic argument as to the optimal national exchange rate policy.
In this, international monetary policy differs from trade policy. There are powerful economic arguments for the welfare superiority of free trade, and free trade
can usefully be considered a baseline from which national policies deviate, with
the “distance” from free trade a measure worth explaining. In currency policy,
there is no clear economic-efficiency argument for or against any particular level
of the real exchange rate. A strong (appreciated) currency is one that is valuable
relative to others; this gives national residents greater purchasing power. However,
a strong currency also subjects national producers of tradable products (goods and
services that enter into international trade) to more foreign competition, for the
strong currency makes foreign products relatively cheaper. Although politicians
certainly care about these effects—weighing the positive effects of increased mass
incomes versus the negative effects of increased foreign competition—there is no
purely economic reason to opt for one or the other. There is a reigning economic
approach to currency unions (and, somewhat by extension, to fixed exchange rates),
drawn from the literature on optimal currency areas. But this literature is by no
means conclusive, so even here there are few purely economic factors that could
explain national government policy.
This means that national exchange rate policy must be made with an eye toward
its political implications, since the tradeoffs governments must weigh are largely
among values given different importance by different sociopolitical actors. Governments must evaluate the relative importance of the purchasing power of consumers,
the competitiveness of producers of tradable products, and the stability of nominal
macroeconomic variables. Below we survey the political considerations that affect policy, but first we describe the international level of analysis in international
monetary affairs.
International Monetary Systems
There are effectively two ideal types of international monetary regime, with actual systems tending toward one or the other. One is a fixed-rate system, in which
national currencies are tied to each other at a publicly announced (often legally
established) parity. Some fixed-rate systems involve a common link to a commodity such as gold or silver; others use a peg to a national currency such as
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
the US dollar. The other ideal-typical monetary regime is is a free-floating system, in which national currency values vary according to market conditions and
national macroeconomic policies. There are many potential gradations between
these extremes.
In the past 150 years, the world has experienced three broadly defined international monetary orders. For about 50 years before World War I, and again in
substantially modified form in the 1920s, most of the world’s major nations were
on the classical gold standard, a quintessential fixed-rate system. Under the gold
standard, national governments announced a fixed gold value for their currencies and committed themselves to exchange gold for currency at this rate. From
the late 1940s until the early 1970s, the capitalist world was organized into the
BrettonWoods monetaryorder, a modified fixed-rate system. Under Bretton Woods,
national currencies were fixed to the US dollar and the US dollar was fixed to
gold. However, national governments could and did change their exchange rates
in unusual circumstances, so that currencies were not as firmly fixed as under the
classical gold standard. From 1973 until the present, and briefly in the 1930s, the
reigning order has been one in which the largest countries had more or less freely
floating national currencies with no nominal anchor, whereas smaller countries
tended either to fix against one of the major currencies or to allow their currencies
to float with varying degrees of government management.
Monetary regimes can be regional as well as global. Within the international
free-for-all that has prevailed since 1973, a number of regional fixed-rate systems
have emerged or been contemplated. Some have involved simply fixing the national
currencies of relatively small countries to the currency of a larger nation; for
instance, the CFA (African Financial Community) franc zone ties the currencies
of 12 African countries to each other and to the French franc (and now to the
euro). Several countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have similarly tied
their currencies to the US dollar, and others are considering this link. Another
type of regional fixed-rate system involves the linking of a number of regional
currencies to one another, often as a step toward adoption of a common currency.
This has been the case with European monetary integration, which began with
a limited regional agreement, evolved into something like a Deutsche mark link,
and eventually became a monetary union with a single currency and a common
European central bank. Countries in the Eastern Caribbean and southern Africa
have also developed monetary unions.
Our dependent variables, then, are (a) the national exchange rate policies of
particular national governments, especially their choice of the level and regime of
their currencies; and (b) the international monetary regime, especially the degree
to which currencies are fixed against one another. To be sure, these two dependent
variables are jointly determined. National policy choices depend on the character of the international monetary system, and the evolution of global monetary
relations is powerfully affected by the decisions of the major trading and investing nations. By the same token, international monetary relations interact with
other economic policies. Currency misalignments have often led to protectionist
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
pressures and even trade wars, just as the evolution of trade relations affects exchange rate policy choices. Policies toward international financial and investment
flows are similarly affected by, and affect, exchange rate movements. These complex interactive effects are important, but we do not know how to think about them
in an integrated and systematic way. This essay focuses on the political economy
of international monetary policy in and of itself, emphasizing potential answers to
our two more narrowly defined explanatory questions.
Cognate literatures on the political economy of other important international
economic policies are useful to the analysis of international monetary policy. Analyses of international trade and investment begin with a prior notion of the distributional interests at stake—factoral, sectoral, and firm-specific—derived either from
theory or from empirical investigation. They then explore how these interests are
aggregated and mediated by such sociopolitical institutions as labor unions and
business associations, political parties, electoral systems, legislatures, and bureaucracies. Finally, they explore the interactions between these nationally derived
policies and those of other countries, especially in contexts in which interstate
strategic interaction is likely to be important, such as where national government
policies depend on the responses of other governments. The emerging structure
of analysis and explanation of international monetary and financial politics follows this pattern. In the next section, we summarize the domestic level of analysis, especially how interests and institutions interact in the formation of national
National policy makers make decisions about the exchange rate regime and the
desired level of the currency. The regime decision is whether to allow the currency
to float freely or to fix it against some other currency. Pure floats and irrevocably
fixed regimes are, of course, only two possible options. There are at least nine
existing regimes on a continuum that runs from a full float to a currency union—
an extreme kind of fixed-rate system (Frankel 1999). For all regimes between the
two extremes of this continuum, policy makers also confront choices related to the
level of the exchange rate. Level decisions involve policies that affect the price at
which the national currency is valued in foreign currencies. The exchange rate may
itself be a target for policy, with a definite rate being set or a clearly observable
formula applied. Alternatively, the exchange rate may be actively managed in conjunction with other components of monetary policy. Some governments announce
a band within the currency will be allowed to move, or they act (without public announcement) to restrict exchange rate movements to such a target band. Whatever
the mechanism, level decisions fall along a second continuum that runs from a more
depreciated to a more appreciated currency. Although regime and level decisions
are interconnected, we treat them separately for heuristic purposes. We attempt
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
to delineate the domestic political economy factors that influence governments’
choices along the two continuums.
Like other areas of economic policy, exchange rate decisions involve tradeoffs
between desired goals. An established economics literature examines the costs
and benefits of alternative currency policies from the perspective of a benevolent
social planner, which is a useful starting point for gauging the attractiveness of
policies in terms of national welfare. However, the more recent political economy
scholarship incorporates the role of interest-group and partisan pressures, political
institutions, and the electoral incentives of politicians. One major theme is that currency policy has domestic distributional implications that shape the sociopolitical
environment in which policy makers assess costs and benefits. A second theme
is that domestic electoral, legislative, and bureaucratic institutions influence the
incentives of politicians as they confront currency policy tradeoffs. We develop
these themes below, emphasizing that the economic tradeoffs are politically and
institutionally conditioned.
To Fix or to Float?
Our discussion of regime choice focuses on the extreme regimes—hard pegs and
pure floats—because the analysis of intermediate cases flows from that of the extremes. The tradeoffs we describe apply to the intermediate choices—target zones,
crawling pegs and bands, etc—albeit never as starkly as with the extremes (Frankel
1999). Economic treatments of regime choice come from two perspectives: (a)
open economy macroeconomic approaches, including consideration of optimal
currency area criteria; and (b) rational-expectations treatments of the credibility
problem in monetary policy.
From the open economy perspective, the principal advantage of a fixed-rate
regime is to lower the exchange rate risk and transaction costs that can impede
international trade and investment (Mundell 1961, McKinnon 1962, Kenen 1969).
Volatile exchange rates create uncertainty about international transactions, adding
a risk premium to the costs of goods and assets traded across borders. Although
it is possible to hedge against this risk in derivatives markets, hedging invariably
involves costs, which increase with the duration of the transaction. And recent
experience indicates that there is a great deal of unexplained volatility in currency
markets, which makes hedging particularly difficult for small countries’ currencies.
By opting to stabilize the currency, a government can reduce or eliminate exchange
rate risk and so encourage greater trade and investment—a desirable objective.
Taking the next step to a currency union does away with the remaining transactions
costs, providing an even stronger impetus toward economic integration.
Pegging, however, has costs. To gain the benefits of greater economic integration by fixing the exchange rate, governments must sacrifice their capacity to
run an independent monetary policy. The “impossible trinity” principle explains
that where capital is internationally mobile, a fixed rate and monetary independence are not simultaneously attainable (Mundell 1962, 1963). The principle says
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
that a country must give up one of three goals: exchange rate stability, monetary
independence, or financial market integration. When capital is mobile internationally, domestic interest rates cannot long differ from world interest rates, as
capital flows induced by arbitrage opportunities quickly eliminate the differential.
There is strong evidence in both developed economies (Marston 1995) and the
developing world (Edwards 1999) that financial integration has progressed so far
that capital mobility can be taken more or less as a given, which reduces the choice
to sacrificing exchange rate stability versus giving up monetary independence.1
A fixed exchange rate with international capital mobility renders monetary policy
ineffective, meaning that there is no leeway to use monetary policy for purposes
of demand management or balance-of-payments adjustment. This poses a tradeoff
between two competing values: stability and flexibility. Achieving monetary stability can be a substantial benefit for countries that have endured high and highly
variable inflation and other domestic monetary disturbances. But since achieving
this stability means forgoing monetary flexibility, this can be a substantial cost for
countries that face severe external shocks to which monetary policy might be the
appropriate response.
Whereas the traditional case for stable exchange rates hinges on the benefits
of integration, recent analyses tend to place more emphasis on credibility issues
and the role of fixed regimes in stabilizing inflation expectations. With roots in
the rational expectations literature, this work builds on the time inconsistency
problem described by Kydland & Prescott (1977) and Barro & Gordon (1983).
The problem arises when monetary policy is set with discretion and wages and
prices are not fully flexible. Under these conditions, a policy maker may try to
fool private agents by inflicting an inflationary surprise, in the hope of engineering
a temporary boost in output. However, forward-looking private actors anticipate
this incentive and take it into account when forming their ex ante inflationary
expectations. These expectations thus introduce an inflationary bias into wage
bargaining and price setting. Consequently, when the policy maker adopts surprise
inflation, the equilibrium outcome is higher inflation but not higher output. The
key to solving this time inconsistency problem is credibility. If the private sector
believes that the preannounced policy is credible, then expected inflation is kept
in check at no cost to output.
Pegging the exchange rate provides an automatic rule for the conduct of monetary policy that avoids the time inconsistency problem and enhances the credibility of the government’s commitment to low inflation (Giavazzi & Pagano 1988,
Canavan & Tommasi 1997). In a fixed regime, monetary policy must be subordinated to the requirements of maintaining the peg, effectively eliminating the
discretion of the authorities. This privileges such domestic objectives as price
stability over such external objectives as payments balance and competitiveness.
Historically, a national commitment to a gold standard was the most important
1 Intermediate
regimes may allow countries to pursue both objectives to some degree
(Edwards & Savastano 1999).
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
such external anchor. More recently, many countries have pegged to the currency
of a large, low-inflation country (Mishkin 1999).
Although pegging is not the only way to commit policy to low inflation—central
bank independence with price level or inflation targets may be an alternative—its
transparency makes it a common commitment technology in contexts where the
alternatives cannot easily be monitored by the public (Herrendorf 1999, Canavan &
Tommasi 1997). When a government commits to a peg, it makes an easily verifiable
promise. Either the government follows macroeconomic policies consistent with
the peg, or it does not, in which case the peg collapses. There is in fact no technical
reason why a peg cannot be maintained, even in the face of a large speculative
attack (Obstfeld & Rogoff 1995). Therefore, devaluation is a public signal that the
government has not lived up to its promise. The transparency of a peg enhances the
credibility of the government’s commitment to low inflation but comes at price,
measured in terms of lost monetary policy flexibility. The tradeoff here is between
credibility and flexibility.
Do countries that choose pegs experience increases in trade and credibility?
Time-series studies of the relationship between exchange rate volatility and trade
(or investment) typically find small, weak negative effects (Frankel 1995). However, much stronger effects are evident in cross-sectional evaluations. Countries
that share a common currency (or have a long-term peg) trade more than three
times as much as comparable countries that have separate currencies (Rose 2000).
As for credibility, pegs tend to be favored commitment devices in countries seeking a quick resolution to chronic inflation (Vegh 1992). Systematic evidence from
136 countries over a 30-year period shows that pegging is indeed associated with
lower inflation, but at the cost of more variable output than in flexible exchange
rate regimes (Ghosh et al 1997).
Theory and evidence thus suggest that fixing the exchange rate to the currency
of a low-inflation country (a) promotes international trade and investment and (b)
disciplines monetary policy by providing an observable nominal anchor for the
value of domestic money. The advantages of a floating exchange rate, on the other
hand, reduce to the single, albeit crucial, property that it allows a government to
have its own independent monetary policy. Under a full float, demand and supply
for domestic currency against foreign currency are balanced in the market. There
is no obligation or necessity for the central bank to intervene. Therefore, domestic monetary aggregates need not be affected by external flows, and a monetary
policy can be pursued without regard to monetary policy in other countries. This
independence is valuable because it provides flexibility to accommodate foreign
and domestic shocks, including changes in the external terms of trade and interest
rates. More generally, floating allows monetary policy to be set autonomously, as
deemed appropriate in the domestic context (e.g. for stabilization purposes), and
the exchange rate becomes a residual, following whatever path is consistent with
the stabilization policy.
A related advantage of floating is that it allows the exchange rate to be used as
a policy tool. This flexibility is valuable when real appreciation, caused by inertial
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
inflation or rapid capital inflows, harms international competitiveness and threatens to generate a balance-of-payments crisis—a common syndrome in developing
and transition economies that use a fixed exchange rate as a nominal anchor for
credibility purposes (Edwards & Savastano 1999). When residual inflation generates an inflation differential between the pegging country and the anchor, it induces
a real appreciation that, in the absence of compensating productivity gains, leads
to balance-of-payments problems. A more flexible regime allows policy makers
to adjust the nominal exchange rate to ensure the competitiveness of the tradable
goods sector. However, the more flexible the regime, the smaller the credibility
gains. The tradeoff between credibility and competitiveness is particularly relevant
in countries where inflation has been a persistent problem (Frieden et al 2001).
Which regime is best for a particular country is partly a matter of the economic
characteristics of the country. The literature on optimal currency areas points to
several considerations, with openness, economic size, sensitivity to shocks, and
labor mobility between regions heading the list. Broadly speaking, when a region is
characterized by easy movement of labor, or is highly integrated with its neighbors
such that they share common disturbances, the gains of fixed exchange rates are
likely to outweigh the costs of giving up monetary independence (Frankel 1995).
Countries that are particularly sensitive to external disturbances (e.g. volatility in
the terms of trade) are generally better off floating, whereas countries concerned
about domestic monetary shocks gain from pegging. Furthermore, when the shocks
affecting a country and it neighbors are highly correlated, there is less need of monetary independence because a single policy response is appropriate for the whole
region. Beyond this, there is little consensus on the welfare criteria for exchange
rate regime choice (Frankel 1999). Given the diversity of economic conditions
relevant to selecting the optimal regime, it is not surprising that empirical findings
are typically weak or contradictory (Tavlas 1994, Edison & Melvin 1990).
A more fundamental weakness of the both the credibility and open economy
approaches is their implicit assumption that policy makers select currency regimes
to maximize aggregate social welfare. There is little reason to believe that currency
policy is made any less politically than other economic policies. In the next section,
we depart from the benevolent social planner assumption and survey work that
endogenizes the political incentives and constraints that shape regime decisions.
Interest Groups and Regime Choice
What is optimal for a country as a whole may not be optimal for particular groups
within a country. A policy of free trade, for example, creates both winners and
losers even though it is widely regarded as welfare-enhancing for the nation. These
distributional effects form the basis of “endogenous tariff theory,” which accounts
for deviations from free trade by delineating the groups that favor and oppose
protection and the conditions under which they are most influential (Milner 1999).
Currency regime choice, like the choice between free trade and protection, has
domestic distributional consequences.
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
We begin by examining the strengths and weaknesses of pressure group or
“demand-side” approaches to regime choice, which take the distributional consequences of exchange rate regime choice as part of the explanation of its causes.
We then introduce “supply-side” considerations, such as the character of domestic
political and monetary institutions and the incentives of self-seeking politicians
that inhabit them. Although aspects of the link between interests, politics, and
policies remain underdeveloped, this literature contains the building blocks of the
political economy of regime choice.
Regime choice involves tradeoffs between goals, as discussed above. Arguments
that stress the demand for regimes maintain that societal groups have different preferences in the stability-vs-flexibility tradeoff. Recall that one important advantage
of fixed rates is that international trade and investment can be conducted with minimal risk of capital losses due to currency fluctuations. The tradeoff is that fixed rates
require the subordination of domestic monetary policy to currency and balance-ofpayments considerations. A preliminary framework identifies how social groups
align on the stability-vs-flexibility tradeoff (Frieden 1991, Hefeker 1997). In its
simplest manifestation, groups are arranged along a continuum that measures the
extent to which they are involved in international or domestic economic activity.
Groups heavily involved in foreign trade and investment (i.e. producers of exportables, foreign direct and portfolio investors, and international merchants) should
favor exchange rate stability, since currency volatility is an everyday concern that
makes their business riskier and more costly. By the same token, these actors
are relatively insensitive to the loss of monetary autonomy, since they typically
conduct business in several countries and can therefore respond to unfavorable
domestic macroeconomic conditions by shifting business or assets abroad.
By contrast, groups whose economic activity is confined to the domestic economy benefit from a floating regime. The nontradables sector (e.g. services, construction, transport) and import-competing producers of tradable goods belong
in this camp. Producers of nontradables are not required to deal in foreign exchange, since their activities are, by definition, domestic. Thus, they are free of
the risks and costs of currency volatility. The nontradables sector is, however,
highly sensitive to domestic macroeconomic conditions and therefore favors the
national autonomy made possible by floating. The same logic holds for producers
of import-competing traded goods, with the added proviso that currency volatility
may reduce competition from imports by adding to the risks and costs of importing.
The strength of the pressure group approach is that it yields clear predictions
on the regime preferences of social groups in a manner similar to endogenous
tariff theory. It also provides the basis for refining predictions. For example, the
degree to which an export industry is sensitive to currency volatility will depend
on its ability to “pass through” the costs to consumers in the form of price changes.
Typically, industries in which product differentiation and reputation are important
have less pass-through than producers of standardized goods, in which competition is based primarily on price (Goldberg & Knetter 1997). This implies that
producers of internationally traded specialized products will be more concerned
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
to reduce currency volatility than producers of standardized manufactured goods
or commodities, and thus more likely to favor fixed exchange rates.
Pressure group arguments, however, are very difficult to evaluate. One problem
is that, unlike trade policy, exchange rate regime decisions are rarely subject to
votes in legislatures and hardly ever figure prominently in nationwide electoral
outcomes and campaigns. The most systematic work on pressure groups and regime
choice looks back over a century to the gold standard controversy for suitable
data. In the 1890s, the US Congress voted repeatedly on the choice between the
gold and silver standards (Frieden 1997). Similarly, the 1896 US presidential
election was a rare nationwide election in which the central issue was the exchange
rate regime; William Jennings Byran ran on a platform of monetizing silver and
floating the dollar against gold standard currencies (Eichengreen 1995). European
monetary integration in the nineteenth century provides a few additional cases
(Hefeker 1995). These analyses, controlling for other factors, find that pressure
group influences are significantly related to vote outcomes.
The number of cases available for empirical analysis may be increasing, as
exchange rates have again gained domestic political prominence in recent years.
The renewed salience may be due to the revival of international capital mobility,
since capital mobility heightens the “impossible trinity” problem (Frieden 1996).
In Europe, the post-Maastricht period was characterized by increasing turmoil and
polarization on currency union. In developing countries, regime choice is currently
a source of heated policy and electoral debate, and countries are experimenting with
a variety of regimes (Edwards & Savastano 1999). The considerable variation of
currency regimes in Latin America can be exploited to investigate the influence of
interest group pressures. In this context, the credibility-vs-competitiveness tradeoff is especially important because of problems controlling inflation in the region.
Consistent with the interest group perspective, economies with larger manufacturing sectors are more prone to adopt either floating regimes or backward-looking
crawling pegs,2 both of which tend to deliver more competitive exchange rates
(Frieden et al 2001). The influence of the manufacturing sector on the exchange
regime is also found to be more important when trade is relatively open, because
liberalized trade subjects manufacturers to greater foreign competition. These findings support the argument that the degree to which policy makers opt to sacrifice
credibility to competitiveness is a function of the political influence of tradables
The cross-sectional approach appears promising, even among developed countries, where the tradeoff between stability and flexibility is likely to dominate
(Henning 1994, Frieden 2000). However, measuring group preferences and political influence is never easy, and data limitations leave analysts with crude proxies
(e.g. a sector’s share of gross domestic product as a measure of its influence). An
alternative strategy is to take the distributional arguments to the individual level
2 In
a backward-looking crawling peg, the nominal exchange rate is adjusted mechanically
according to past inflation differentials.
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
of analysis and make use of available public opinion data on regime preferences
and voting behavior (Scheve 1999). Scheve finds that asset ownership and high
skill endowments are positively related to individuals’ expressed level of support for European monetary integration and to their voting behavior in nationwide
elections. This connects individual preferences on monetary integration to voting,
thus providing a direct test of the distributional implications of the open economy
Despite these advances, it is unlikely that the interest group approach will
spawn a literature as deep and rich as analogous work on trade policy. Pressure
group activity on exchange rates is more limited than in trade affairs, owing to
the macroeconomic nature of exchange rates and associated collective action constraints. Exchange rates have broad distributional effects, which reduce the incentives to lobby. For example, stable exchange rates benefit all industries in the
export sector; in contrast, trade protection can be narrowly targeted to create rents
for specific industries (Gowa 1988). Exchange rate policy is less excludable than
trade policy, implying more free riding (Olson 1971). But just as work on trade
has endogenized the free rider problem, so can analysis of currency policy. For
example, highly concentrated industries should be more effective lobbyists for
exchange rate policies, just as they are in trade policy (Trefler 1993). Although exchange rates may not evince as much lobbying as trade policy, lobbying is possible, even predictable across industries and countries. More attention to collective
action considerations would help us develop the links between group preferences,
lobbying, and government regime decisions.
Class-Based (Partisan) Approaches to Regime Choice
Inasmuch as exchange rates have broad distributional effects, it makes sense to
analyze the politics of regime choice at a broad level of political aggregation. Classbased partisan approaches typify this strategy. Where political parties aggregate the
monetary preferences of social classes, centrist and rightist parties are presumed
to be more inflation averse than leftist parties (Hibbs 1977). Center-right parties
are thus likely to support fixed regimes, since their business constituencies benefit
from the credible commitment to low inflation that fixing brings (Simmons 1994,
Oatley 1997). By the same token, center-right parties are expected to be enthusiastic
about stable exchange rates because of the expansion of trade and investment made
possible by fixing. Left-wing parties, by contrast, favor flexible regimes, since labor
bears the brunt of adjusting the domestic economy to external conditions (Simmons
Tests of the partisan arguments have produced mixed and often perverse results.
For example, countries with more left-wing representation in government had a
higher probability of staying on the gold standard during the interwar period than
those with less (Simmons 1994, Eichengreen 1992). The reason may be that leftist
governments had more need for the credibility that a commitment to gold could
bring. However, left-wing governments devalued more frequently, conditioned on
a downturn in the business cycle (Simmons 1994). This effect is also evident in
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
contemporary Europe; leftist parties supported stable exchange rates in the mid1980s (Garrett 1995, Oatley 1997). More generally, the partisan composition of
government had small, weak, and occasionally perverse effects on the stability
of European currencies between 1972 and 1994 (Frieden 2000). Another study of
OECD countries in the post–Bretton Woods period found no relationship between
partisanship and regime choice (Bernhard & Leblang 1999).
Partisan influences on regime choice are thus not straightforward. Indeed, the
literature contains a number of factors that condition parties’ regime preferences
and their political influence. Several of the most important mitigating factors include the degree of capital mobility (Goodman & Pauly 1993); linkage to other
issue areas, such as trade, foreign, and agricultural policy (Giavazzi & Giovannini
1989, Frieden 2001); policy makers’ beliefs and the role of ideas (Odell 1982,
Collins & Giavazzi 1993, McNamara 1998); the centralization of wage bargaining
institutions (Hall & Franzese 1998); and the independence of the central bank
(Simmons 1994, Oatley 1997). Given the wide range of mitigating factors, it is not
surprising that the ideology and influence of political parties vary tremendously
among countries. Although this variation makes it difficult to construct generalizations, some of it may be due to analogous variation in electoral and legislative
Political Institutions and Regime Choice
Various combinations of electoral and legislative institutions can affect the electoral incentives of politicians in governing parties to adopt alternative exchange
rate regimes (Bernhard & Leblang 1999). In countries where the stakes in elections are high, politicians might prefer floating exchange rates, so as to preserve
the use of monetary policy as a tool for building support before elections (Clark &
Hallerberg 2000). This is expected in majoritarian (single-member plurality) electoral systems, where a small swing in votes can lead to a large change in the
distribution of legislative seats and to the ouster of the governing party. Electoral
stakes are also a function of legislative institutions. In systems with weak, noninclusive committees, the costs of being in the minority are larger than in systems
with strong, inclusive committees, since the opposition has little influence over policy. High electoral stakes imply that politicians in “majoritarian–low opposition
influence” systems will want a flexible regime to preserve monetary independence,
so as to use monetary policy to engineer favorable (if temporary) macroeconomic
conditions before elections. In contrast, where elections are not as decisive—as in
systems with proportional representation and strong, inclusive committees—fixed
exchange rates impose lower electoral costs on politicians, implying that fixed
regimes are more likely to be chosen.
A related argument concerns the timing of elections, which in some systems
is determined endogenously by the government and in others is predetermined.
When election timing is predetermined, governing parties are loath to surrender
monetary policy flexibility by pegging, since monetary policy can be a valuable tool
for winning elections. In contrast, when election timing is endogenous, there is less
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
need to maintain monetary flexibility for electoral purposes; hence pegging is more
likely (Bernhard & Leblang 1999). These arguments and the supporting evidence
suggest that the structure of democratic institutions shapes the regime preferences
of politicians and governing parties, so much so that it dominates the influence of
partisanship on regime choice. This approach, however, seems to be restricted to
developed countries, where democratic structures are well established and stable,
and where partisanship typically has a class basis. In developing countries, it may
be the extent of democracy rather than its specific form that matters.
Political regime type (democratic to authoritarian) is in fact highly correlated
with exchange rate regime choice in developing countries (Leblang 1999, Broz
2000). Nondemocratic systems are significantly more likely to adopt a fixed regime
for credibility purposes than are democratic countries. Why authoritarian governments prefer pegs as a means to lower inflation is a matter of debate. Autocratic
governments may peg because they are more insulated from domestic audiences
and thus bear lower political costs of adjusting the economy to the peg (Simmons
1994, Leblang 1999). That is, lower political costs ex post increase the likelihood
that autocracies will choose a peg ex ante. A weakness of the argument is that
pegging is an inefficient means of generating credibility, given the availability of
alternatives, such as central bank independence (CBI), that do not require a loss
of exchange rate policy flexibility and that appear effective at reducing inflation
(see Alesina & Summers 1993, Debelle & Fischer 1994, as compared to Ghosh et al
1997, on the relative inefficiency of currency pegs). An authoritarian regime that
is insulated enough to maintain a peg would surely be capable of adopting an independent central bank, which would seem likely to improve inflation performance
at a lower cost.
A competing argument is that the transparency of a pegged regime makes it
a preferred commitment technology in authoritarian systems (Broz 2000). When
political decision making is not transparent, as in autocracies, governments must
look to a commitment technology that is more transparent and constrained (pegged
exchange rates) than the government itself. For autocratic governments, a highly
visible commitment substitutes for the lack of openness in the political system
to engender low inflation expectations. In the case of legal CBI—an opaque
commitment—democratic institutions provide an alternate source of transparency.
For democracies, an opaque commitment such as CBI is rendered transparent indirectly through active monitoring by the media, inflation hawks in society, and the
political opposition—audiences with stakes in exposing the government’s broken
promises (Wittman 1989, Fearon 1994). Autocracies are thus more likely to adopt
pegs than are democracies. In addition, the effectiveness of CBI in limiting inflation is conditioned on the level of political system transparency (Broz 2000). This
suggests that the transparency of the monetary commitment and the transparency
of the political system are substitutes. It also challenges the view that fixed regimes
and CBI are complementary commitment mechanisms (Simmons 1994, Maxfield
Although there is no consensus on the role of politics in exchange rate regime
choices, it is recognized that considerations of aggregate social welfare provide
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
a partial explanation at best. Regime decisions involve tradeoffs with domestic
distributional and electoral implications; thus, selecting an exchange rate regime
is as much a political decision as an economic one.
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
To Appreciate or Depreciate?
If a nation’s regime lies between a pure float and an irrevocable peg on the regime continuum, its policy makers face choices about the desired level of the
exchange rate. Completely free floats are in fact rare, for most governments act
to reduce currency volatility even when the exchange rate is not publicly fixed.
By the same token, countries that opt for a pegged regime always have the choice
of abandoning the peg (Calvo & Reinhart 2000). Thus, under most regimes, a
government must decide whether it prefers a relatively appreciated or a relatively
depreciated currency. A full analysis of the costs and benefits involved in choosing
the level of the exchange rate depends on the model of exchange rate determination
to which one subscribes (portfolio balance, overshooting, new classical, speculative
bubble, etc). For simplicity, we consider the tradeoff between competitiveness and
purchasing power as especially crucial to the calculations of national policy makers.
The value of the real exchange rate affects the demand for domestic traded goods
in both local and foreign markets. In the case of a real appreciation, domestic goods
become more expensive relative to foreign goods; exports fall and imports rise as a
result of the change in competitiveness. Real depreciation has the opposite effects,
improving competitiveness. Real exchange rate changes sometimes stem from
deliberate policy actions (see above). These policies are known as expenditureswitching policies because they alter the allocation of spending between domestic
and foreign goods (equivalently, between traded and nontraded goods). Although
a weaker currency increases the competitiveness of the international sector, it also
raises the prices of foreign goods and services to domestic consumers, thereby
eroding national purchasing power. If a nation imports many vital items, such as
oil, food, or capital goods, depreciation can reduce living standards and retard
economic growth, as well as cause inflation.
Beyond considerations based on the tradeoff between competitiveness and purchasing power, there is little agreement on what the appropriate level of the exchange rate should be. A real depreciation, for example, can encourage exports
and a switch from imports to domestic goods, thereby boosting aggregate output.
However, depreciation can also be contractionary, owing to its negative impact on
real money balances that follows from a higher price level. Suffice it to say that
changes in real exchange rates unleash a series of changes in economic relations,
some positive and some negative, and the net effect on overall national welfare is
very hard to calculate.
Interest Groups and the Level of the Exchange Rate
Despite this ambiguity, it is clear that the level of the exchange rate always has
distributive consequences domestically, implying a role for interest group politics. Exporting and import-competing industries lose and domestically oriented
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
(nontradables) industries gain from currency appreciation (Frieden 1991). Domestic consumers also gain as the domestic currency price of imported goods
falls, lowering the cost of living. Currency depreciations have the opposite effects,
helping exporting and import-competing industries at the expense of domestic
consumers and producers of nontraded goods and services.
Like regime decisions, the currency preferences and political capabilities of
groups are conditioned by many factors. For example, the degree to which tradables producers are directly affected by changes in the exchange rate conditions
their sensitivity to currency movements. If import-competing firms faced by an
appreciation of the home currency are able to keep their prices high—typically
because foreign producers do not in fact pass the expected price decline through
to local consumers—they will be less concerned by such an appreciation (this is
typically the case in markets for specialized, highly differentiated products, such
as automobiles).
Generally speaking, tradables industries with high pass-through are more sensitive to the relative price effects of currency movements than those with low
pass-through, since their prices respond more directly to changes in exchange
rates. By extension, the level of the exchange rate is likely to be more politicized in developing countries than in developed countries, since the former tend to
produce standardized goods and primary commodities, for which pass-through is
high. The extent to which an industry relies on imported intermediate inputs will
also determine whether it is harmed or helped by appreciation. An industry with
heavy dependence on imported inputs relative to export revenue may actually see
its profitability improve with appreciation (Campa & Goldberg 1997).
Within this complex range of possibilities, there are regularities that can be
identified. These are related to points made above about regime preferences. For
example, the argument that producers of simple tradables are relatively insensitive
to currency volatility complements the argument that they are very sensitive to the
level of the exchange rate. Such producers (of commodities and simple manufactures) will prefer a flexible regime and a tendency toward a depreciated currency.
On the other hand, the argument that producers of complex and specialized tradables are very sensitive to currency volatility complements the argument that they
are relatively insensitive to the level of the exchange rate. These producers will
prefer a fixed regime. Capturing an industry’s (or an entire nation’s) sensitivity to
exchange rate changes involves measuring the extent to which it sells products to
foreign markets, uses foreign-made inputs, and, more indirectly, competes with
foreign manufacturers on the basis of price (Frieden et al 2001).
In most instances, interest group activity on the level of the exchange rate is
episodic and asymmetric. By episodic, we mean that it can take extraordinary conditions to move group members to organize on the issue. The 50% real appreciation
of the dollar in the early and middle 1980s is a case where traded goods industries lobbied hard for policies to depreciate the dollar (Destler & Henning 1989,
Frankel 1994). The rarity of such cases is partially understandable in collective action terms, as lobbying for depreciation is a public good for the entire traded goods
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
sector. By asymmetric, we mean that lobbying from the “winners” of real appreciation (nontradables, consumers) does not usually arise to counteract pressure from
the “losers.” That is, the groups that enjoy income gains from appreciation do not
seem to mobilize politically. Consumers, of course, face high costs of collective
action, and the same constraint may apply to the nontradables sector (Henning
1994). But using the rule of thumb that advanced economies are divided roughly
equally between tradables and nontradables, the barriers to collective action should
be symmetric.
Why we do not observe symmetric lobbying (or non-lobbying) on the exchange rate is a puzzle. The reason might be that tradables producers have the
advantage of prior organization, having paid the startup costs to influence trade
policy. A related point is that traded goods industries have the option of lobbying
for industry-specific trade policies when the currency appreciates. Note that currency policy and trade policy are close substitutes in terms of the compensation
they provide: A 10% real depreciation is equivalent to a 10% import tax plus a
10% export subsidy (McKinnon & Fung 1993). Hence, the tradables sector can
organize on an industry-by-industry basis to seek trade barriers or export subsidies, thus mitigating the free rider problem (Stallings 1993). In practice, policy
makers do seem to address currency misalignments when demands for protection
intensify (Destler & Henning 1989). For the nontradables sector, trade policies are
not available, rendering lobbying for currency policies a sector-wide public good.
An implication is that the bias in favor of tradables should diminish when free
trade or international agreements restrict the ability of governments to use trade
policy as a compensatory instrument. Take away trade policy and neither sector
organizes. However, liberalizing trade might motivate previously organized traded
goods industries to lobby on the exchange rate directly (Frieden et al 2001).
Political Institutions and the Level of the Exchange Rate
Direct interest group activity on the level of the exchange rate is muted, for the
distributional effects are very broad based. Indeed, the cleavages implied by the
competitiveness–vs–purchasing-power tradeoff map to interest groups only under
an expansive definition of the concept (or, as above, when we introduce links
to other policies). A class-based partisan approach is not much help, since the
distributional effects of the real exchange rate on profits and wages cut across
sector (tradables vs nontradables) and not factor (labor vs capital) lines. That is,
a strong currency harms workers and capital employed in the traded goods sector
and benefits factors engaged in the production of nontradables. There is thus little
reason to believe that class-based political parties will find common ground on the
preferred level of the exchange rate. More generally, the absence of class cleavages
may distinguish currency level politics from currency regime politics.
Whatever the nature of interest group and partisan political pressures on the level
of the exchange rate, elections and voting are likely to be of recurrent importance.
A voluminous literature on “economic voting” provides robust support for the
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
proposition that good macroeconomic conditions keep politicians in office whereas
bad times cast them out (Lewis-Beck & Stegmaier 2000). The real exchange rate
affects broad aggregates such as purchasing power, growth rates, and the price
level—the stuff of national elections. Put another way, the macroeconomic effects
of the real exchange rate may map closely to electoral processes, the broadest form
of political aggregation.
Consumer/voters care about their purchasing power and inflation. Since voting
is a low-cost activity, politicians are sure to be concerned with the electoral consequences of the exchange rate. Indeed, governments tend to maintain appreciated
currencies before elections, delaying the necessary depreciation/devaluation until
after the election (Klein & Marion 1997, Leblang 2000, Frieden et al 2001). An
“exchange rate electoral cycle” gives a boost to voters’ income in the run-up to an
election and imposes costs on voters only after the government is in office. The
delay results in a depreciation that is larger (more costly) than if it had occurred
immediately, but newly elected governments appear to follow the rule of “devalue
immediately and blame it on your predecessors” (Edwards 1994).
The role of electoral cycles in exchange rate policy helps explain some characteristics of the currency crises that have been common over the past 20 years.
Although the causes of currency crises are controversial (Corsetti et al 1998),
delaying a devaluation certainly makes the problem worse. Given the expected
political unpopularity of a devaluation-induced reduction in national purchasing
power, however, governments may face strong incentives to avoid devaluing even
when the result is a more severe crisis than would otherwise be expected. In Mexico, for example, the attempt to delay a devaluation of the peso until after the 1994
election almost certainly led to a far more drastic collapse of the currency than
would have been the case without the electorally driven delay. As it became clear
that the government was manipulating the exchange rate for political purposes,
investors sold off the peso in droves, for the government’s exchange rate promises
had lost all credibility. This run on the peso in turn called into question the credibility of other Latin American currency pegs, creating negative externalities for
the region.
The electoral cycle is likely to be muted in countries where the central bank has
sufficient insulation from political pressures or the government has a time horizon
long enough to endogenize the higher costs of delayed action on the exchange rate.
Where an independent central bank is in charge of exchange rate policy, the pursuit
of price stability implies that politicians will be less able to manipulate the exchange
rate for electoral purposes (Clark & Reichert 1998). Likewise, a government that
expects to be in the majority across elections may have less incentive to exploit
the short-term gains of real appreciation. The point is that political institutions
condition the extent to which politicians have the capacity and/or the incentive to
act on their short-run electoral goals, at the expense of macroeconomic stability
and the competitiveness of their economies (Henning 1994).
The real exchange rate has international as well as domestic distributional consequences and thus plays an important role in international economic policy making.
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Increasing the competitiveness of the domestically produced goods sector by depreciating the currency necessarily means reducing the competitiveness of foreign
goods. The use of the exchange rate to gain a competitive advantage, of course,
cannot work when other countries retaliate with similar depreciations, as happened
during the Great Depression. This is but one of many instances in which the domestic impact of national currency policy depends on the character of interstate
monetary relations. This implies a direct connection between national exchange
rate policies and the state of the international monetary system, to which we now
The above analysis of national policies has left aside the important question of
how to explain the development of global or regional monetary systems. Perhaps more than any other economic area, national exchange rate policies depend on those of other nations.3 This is certainly true with regard to the level
of the nominal exchange rate, which is after all only meaningful in relationship to other countries’ nominal exchange rates. Another basic limitation of national analyses is that they do not take into account the nature of the international monetary system. This is especially the case when countries are faced
with the choice of a fixed or flexible regime for national currencies, since fixing is a fundamentally different enterprise in the context of a global fixed-rate
system than in the context of generalized floating. In the former case, such as
under the gold standard or Bretton Woods, choosing whether or not to fix was
tantamount to choosing whether or not to participate in a worldwide monetary
order. A similar consideration applies to broad regional fixed-rate arrangements,
such as the various monetary integration schemes of the European Union after
1973, or the Latin and Scandinavian monetary unions before 1914. Conversely,
when the world monetary system is one of floating currencies, a national choice
to fix the exchange rate is principally available to small countries that want to
lock their currencies into step with their principal trading and investment partner, as many small Caribbean countries have done with the United States for
decades. Especially given the analytical and empirical importance of international
fixed-rate systems, it is important to investigate the reasons for their origins and
Generally speaking, three interrelated factors affect the evolution of international monetary systems. The first are the sorts of national policy choices discussed above, especially in the principal members of the system. The second are
3 We are reminded of the remark attributed—apocryphally, no doubt—to a provincial Ameri-
can policy maker, who angrily told European complainers, “You worry about your exchange
rates, we’ll worry about ours!”
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
global economic factors that may affect global monetary relations, such as trends
in the international economy (growth, stagnation, crisis) and the state of international trade and payments. Third are purposive relations among states, including
strategic interaction among governments, driven by their national concerns and
constrained by the international environment.
In this section, we focus on this third set of factors, the interaction among states’
international monetary policies. Such interaction can be thought of as involving
coordination among national government policies and/or cooperation among them,
which is more complex. By coordination, we mean interaction among governments
whose principal challenge is for national policies to converge on a focal point, for
which the mutual adjustment of policies is unnecessary—such as simply choosing
to link national currencies to gold or to the dollar. This implies the existence of a
Pareto-improving Nash equilibrium (often more than one), as is the case in a Battle
of the Sexes game—countries benefit from choosing the same currency regime,
although there may be disagreement over which one to choose. By cooperation, we
mean interaction in which national policies must be adjusted consciously to support
each other—such as joint intervention in currency markets to support mutually
agreed-on exchange rates. This implies the existence of a Pareto-inferior Nash
equilibrium, which can be improved on (i.e. to a Nash bargaining solution), as is the
case in a Prisoners’ Dilemma game—countries can work together to improve their
collective and individual welfare. The two problems are not mutually exclusive,
or even strikingly different; indeed, the resolution of one usually presupposes the
resolution of the other. But for purposes of analysis it is helpful to separate the
idea of a fixed-rate system as a focal point, for example, from the idea that its
sustainability requires deliberately cooperative policies.
Coordination in International Monetary Relations
An international or regional fixed-rate regime, such as the gold standard or the
European Monetary System, has important characteristics of a focal point around
which national choices can be coordinated (Frieden 1993). As a focal point, a fixedrate system can be self-reinforcing; the more countries that were on gold, or that tied
their currencies to the Deutsche mark, the greater the incentive for other countries
with significant commercial and financial ties to go down this path. Coordination
here is particularly important as an ever larger monetarily integrated trading and
investment area provides ever greater opportunities to other countries that might
consider joining. This can be the case even if the motivations of countries differ.
One might particularly appreciate the monetary stability of a fixed rate, another
the reduction in currency volatility. It does not matter, so long as the attractions of
the regime increase with its membership (Broz 1997).
Most fixed-rate regimes do appear to grow in this way. This was certainly the
case of the pre-1914 gold standard, which owed its start to the centrality of goldstandard Britain to the nineteenth-century international economy and owed its
eventual global reach to the gradual accession of other major industrial nations
to the British-led system. The same kind of growth characterized the process of
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
European monetary integration, in which the Deutsche mark zone of Germany,
Benelux, and Austria gradually attracted more and more European members. It
should be noted, however, that just as the focal nature of a fixed-rate system can lead
to a “virtuous circle” as more and more countries sign on, so too can the unraveling
of the regime lead to a “vicious circle.” The departure of any important commercial
or financial centers from the system can dramatically reduce its centripetal pull,
as was the case with the collapse of the gold standard in the 1930s. Britain’s exit
began a stampede that led virtually the entire rest of the world off gold within a
couple of years. To some extent, then, the gold standard, Bretton Woods, and other
such international and regional monetary regimes represent simple solutions to a
coordination problem.
Cooperation in International Monetary Relations
International monetary relations may require more than simple convergence around
a visible anchor and indeed may call for the resolution of more serious problems
of cooperation. In other words, fixed-rate systems may only be stable when governments actively choose to cooperate with one another. A fixed-rate system may,
in fact, give governments incentives to cheat, such as to devalue for competitive
purposes while taking advantage of other countries’ commitment to monetary and
currency stability.4 Such a system would not be stable should such free riding
overcome attempts at coordination. By the same token, even a system as simple as
the gold standard might have relied on explicit or implicit agreements among central gold currency countries to support each others’ monetary authorities in times
of difficulty. An enduring monetary system, in this view, thus requires explicit
cooperation at least among its principal members.
The problem is a familiar one, in which there are international gains from
cooperation but potential national costs. It is useful to identify explicitly both the
welfare gain associated with international collaboration and the issues over which
nations are likely to disagree. In the international monetary realm, the gains from
a stable system of fixed rates are several. First, reduced currency volatility almost
certainly increases the level of international trade and investment. Second, fixed
rates tend to stabilize domestic monetary conditions, so that international monetary
stability reinforces (and may even increase) domestic monetary stability. Third,
predictable currency values can reduce international trade conflicts—for a rapid
change in currency values, particularly the appreciation of one currency against
others, often leads to an import surge, then protectionist pressures, and eventually
commercial antagonism.
But, as discussed above, commitment to a fixed exchange rate has costs, and
the form of the international monetary regime affects these costs. The principal
4 The
status of this problem is somewhat ambiguous. After all, a country that devalues is
reducing its purchasing power. However, it is not difficult to imagine that governments are
concerned about the competitiveness of their tradables producers, in the context of which a
unilateral devaluation can be tantamount to cheating.
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
cost is that the government cannot use the exchange rate to affect the domestic
economy; it must, so to speak, adjust the economy to fit the exchange rate. The
most common source of international conflict in this regard has to do with the
international distribution of adjustment costs. For example, under Bretton Woods
and the European Monetary System, one country’s currency served as the system’s anchor or key currency. This forced other countries to adapt their monetary
policies to the anchor country’s and led to pressures from the other governments
on the key-currency government to bring its policy more in line with conditions
elsewhere. Under Bretton Woods, from the late 1960s until the system collapsed,
European governments wanted the United States to implement more restrictive
policies to bring down American inflation, while the US government refused. In
the European Monetary System in the early 1990s, governments in the rest of
the European Union wanted the Germans to implement less restrictive policies to
combat the European recession, but the German central bank refused. This conflict between the attempts of the anchor country and others to shift the burden of
adjustment has been a common theme of international and regional currency systems and the source of much acrimony. Generally speaking, closer countries come
to agreement about the distribution of the costs of adjustment, the more likely
they are to create and sustain a common fixed-rate regime (on closely related
problems of international macroeconomic policy coordination, see Espinosa &
Yip 1993).
Historical analyses tend to support the idea that the success or failure of intergovernmental cooperation has been crucial to the durability of fixed-rate international
and regional monetary systems. Eichengreen’s (1992) magisterial study of the interwar gold standard points explicitly to the centrality of international cooperation
based on credible domestic political support. Such cooperative activities might include lending by the Bank of France to the Bank of England in the event of pressure
on the pound sterling or the coordination of monetary policy measures in a time
of international financial distress. Credible cooperation among the major powers
before 1914 was the foundation stone of the classical gold standard, according to
Eichengreen, and its absence explains the failure of the feeble interwar attempts to
revive the gold standard.5 Many regional monetary unions, too, seem to obey this
logic. Where political and other factors have encouraged cooperative behavior to
safeguard the common commitment to fixed exchange rates, the systems have endured, but in the absence of these cooperative motives, they have decayed (Cohen
This raises the question of what stimulates cooperation on exchange rate issues.
Cooperation is stimulated within the specifics of international monetary relations
by much the same factors as elsewhere in international politics (Willett 1999,
Simmons 2000). One factor is a shared interest in currency stability. A major reason for the collapse of the Bretton Woods system was that American policy makers
simply were much less concerned about the effects of exchange rate volatility than
5 For
the view that cooperation was not central to the gold standard, see Gallarotti (1995).
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Europeans were. A second factor is linkage to other policies. The existence of
cooperative ventures outside the monetary realm can stimulate currency cooperation. It is in fact doubtful that Economic Monetary Union (EMU) would have been
possible had it not been part of a broader process of European integration (Garrett
2001, Martin 2001). A third, often related, factor is the institutionalized nature of
interstate cooperation. Formal or informal mechanisms for governments to work
out their monetary differences appear to be associated with greater cooperation.
A fourth factor is numbers—the presence of a small group of large states willing
and able to take the lead in monetary relations has been common to most successful fixed-rate orders, whether during the gold standard, Bretton Woods, or any
number of regional systems. A final factor is environmental economic conditions.
Most cooperative monetary arrangements have been sorely taxed by recurrent or
protracted macroeconomic downturns.
It should be kept in mind that the relevant level of international monetary
cooperation in many instances may be regional rather than global. There have been
at least three distinctive global monetary regimes, whose emergence, evolution, and
demise are all worth explaining. But there have been many more formal or informal
regional monetary regimes, and they have had varying degrees of success, from the
Latin Monetary Union of the nineteenth century to the East African Community
of the 1960s and 1970s. Proposals for new regional currency arrangements have
proliferated in recent years, with the successful establishment of EMU the most
prominent example. Analysis of such international monetary ventures requires
attention to the focal-point nature of fixed-rate systems, to the welfare gains such a
system provides and the distributional effects it implies, and to the factors widely
understood to affect interstate cooperation more generally.
Two of the most recent such regime-related topics, EMU in Europe and ongoing debates over dollarization in Latin America, illustrate the operation of
these international factors. Dollarization appears to raise ideal-typical coordination issues, as national governments consider independent choices to adopt
the US dollar. The United States has indeed explicitly ruled out any meaningful cooperation with dollarizing governments. The principal attraction for potential dollarizers is association with large and dynamic dollar-based capital and
goods markets; and the more countries dollarize, the greater this attraction will
be. On the other hand, although the course of EMU from 1973 to completion did
have features of a focal point, especially in the operation of the European Monetary System as a Deutsche mark bloc, the more complex bargained resolution
of the transition to EMU went far beyond this. This bargaining solution involved
mutual, indeed unanimous, agreement on the structure of the new European
Central Bank, the national macroeconomic policies necessary for membership
in the monetary union, and a host of other considerations. These difficult bargains
were unquestionably made much easier by the small number of central players (arguably only Germany and France), the highly institutionalized EU environment,
and the complex network of policy linkages between EMU and other European
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Until recently, scholarly analysis of the political economy of national exchange rate
policies and of international monetary relations lagged far behind their political
and economic importance. Over the past decade, however, substantial progress
has been made in understanding why governments pursue the currency policies
they do, and why regional and international currency regimes emerge and evolve.
Many of these advances build on preexisting work on the political economy of
international trade and investment, but others come specifically from the study of
international monetary politics.
At the domestic level, we now have a reasonably well-developed set of arguments about the economic interests at stake and about how political institutions affect currency policy choice. The theoretical and empirical status of these
arguments remains undecided, but together they constitute an emerging body of
scholarship with clear dependent and candidate explanatory variables. At the international level, the study of global and regional monetary regimes has incorporated
developments in the analysis of international cooperation, using them to explain
the ebb and flow of such systems over the past two centuries.
Future research on the political economy of international monetary relations
has to confront several challenges. First, it needs to clarify and work toward resolution of the various theoretical and empirical ambiguities in existing scholarship.
Second, it needs to work toward an integration of the international and domestic
sources and effects of exchange rate policy, for the two are integrally interrelated.
Third, in concert with research in other areas of political economy, it needs to
incorporate the impact of such closely related issue areas as trade and financial
policy on international monetary affairs. These are substantial challenges, but the
past decade has seen impressive progress in the study of international monetary
policy, and there is no reason to doubt that the coming decades will be just as
The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of Marc Busch, Benjamin J Cohen,
Randall Henning, Lisa Martin, and Andrew Rose.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org
Alesina A, Summers LH. 1993. Central bank
independence and macroeconomic performance: some comparative evidence. J. Mon.
Cred. Bank. 25:151–62
Barro RJ, Gordon D. 1983. Rules, discretion,
and reputation in a model of monetary policy. J. Mon. Econ. 12:101–22
Bernhard W, Leblang D. 1999. Democratic institutions and exchange-rate commitments.
Int. Organ. 53:71–97
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Broz JL. 1997. The domestic politics of international monetary order: the gold standard. In Contested Social Orders and International Politics, ed. D Skidmore, pp. 53–91.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ. Press
Broz JL. 2000. Political system transparency
and monetary commitment regimes. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc.,
Washington, DC
Calvo GA, Reinhart CM. 2000. Fear of floating.
Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. Work. Pap. No. 7993
Campa J, Goldberg L. 1997. The evolving external orientation of manufacturing: a profile
of four countries. Fed. Reserv. Bank NY Econ.
Pol. Rev. 3:53–70
Canavan C, Tommasi M. 1997. On the credibility of alternative exchange rate regimes. J.
Dev. Econ. 54:101–22
Clark WR, Hallerberg M. 2000. Mobile capital, domestic institutions, and electorally induced monetary and fiscal policy. Am. Polit.
Sci. Rev. 94:323–46
Clark WR, Reichert U. 1998. International and
domestic constraints on political business cycles in OECD economies. Int. Organ. 52:87–
Cohen BJ. 1977. Organizing the World’s
Money. New York: Basic
Cohen BJ. 2001. Beyond EMU: the problem
of sustainability. See Eichengreen & Frieden
2001, pp. 179–204
Collins S, Giavazzi F. 1993. Attitudes toward
inflation and the viability of fixed exchange
rates. In A Retrospective on the Bretton
Woods System, ed. M Bordo, B Eichengreen, pp. 547–77. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Cooper RN. 1968. The Economics of Interdependence. New York: McGraw-Hill
Corsetti G, Pesenti P, Roubini R. 1998. What
caused the Asian currency and financial crisis? Parts I and II. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. Work.
Pap. Nos. 6833 and 6844
Debelle G, Fischer S. 1994. How independent should the central bank be? In Goals,
Guidelines, and Constraints Facing Monetary Policymakers, ed. JC Fuhrer, pp.
195–221. Boston, MA: Fed. Reserv. Bank
Destler IM, Henning CR. 1989. Dollar Politics:
Exchange Rate Policymaking in the United
States. Washington, DC: Inst. Int. Econ.
Edison H, Melvin M. 1990. The determinants
and implications of the choice of an exchange
rate system. In Monetary Policy for a Volatile
Global Economy, ed. W Haraf, T Willett, pp.
1–50. Washington, DC: Am. Enterp. Inst.
Edwards S. 1994. The political economy of inflation and stabilization in developing countries. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 42(2)
Edwards S. 1999. How effective are capital controls? J. Econ. Perspect. 13:65–84
Edwards S, Savastano M. 1999. Exchange rates
in emerging economies. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res.
Work. Pap. No. 7228
Eichengreen B. 1992. Golden Fetters. Oxford,
UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Eichengreen B. 1995. The endogeneity of exchange rate regimes. In Understanding Interdependence, ed. P Kenen, pp. 3–33. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Eichengreen B, Frieden J, eds. 2001. The Political Economy of European Monetary Unification. Boulder, CO: Westview. 2nd ed. In
Espinosa M, Yip CK. 1993. International policy
coordination: Can we have our cake and eat
it too? Fed. Reserv. Bank Atlanta Econ. Rev.
Fearon JD. 1994. Domestic political audiences
and the escalation of international disputes.
Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 88:577–92
Frankel JA. 1994. The making of exchange rate
policy in the 1980s. In American Economic
Policy in the 1980s, ed. M Feldstein, pp. 293–
341. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Frankel JA. 1995. Monetary regime choice for
a semi-open economy. In Capital Controls,
Exchange Rates and Monetary Policy in the
World Economy, ed. S Edwards, pp. 35–69.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Frankel JA. 1999. No single currency regime is
right for all countries or at all times. Essays
Int. Econ. No. 215, Princeton Univ. Press
April 11, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews
Frieden J. 1991. Invested interests: the politics
of national economic policy in a world of
global finance. Int. Organ. 45:425–51
Frieden J. 1993. The dynamics of international
monetary systems: international and domestic factors in the rise, reign, and demise of
the classical gold standard. In Coping with
Complexity in the International System, ed.
R Jervis, J Snyder. Boulder, CO: Westview
Frieden J. 1996. Economic integration and the
politics of monetary policy in the United
States. In Internationalization and Domestic Politics, ed. RO Keohane, HV Milner, pp.
108–36. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Frieden J. 1997. Monetary populism in
nineteenth-century America: an open economy interpretation. J. Econ. Hist. 57:367–95
Frieden J. 2000. The political economy of European exchange rates: an empirical assessment. Unpubl. pap.
Frieden J. 2001. Making commitments: France
and Italy in the European Monetary System, 1979–1985. See Eichengreen & Frieden
2001, pp. 23–48
Frieden J, Ghezzi P, Stein E. 2001. Politics and
exchange rates: a cross-country approach to
Latin America. In The Currency Game: Exchange Rate Politics in Latin America, ed. J
Frieden, E Stein. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. In press
Gallarotti G. 1995. The Anatomy of an International Monetary Regime: The Classical
Gold Standard, 1880–1914. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Garrett G. 1995. Capital mobility, trade, and the
domestic politics of economic policy. Int. Organ. 49:657–87
Garrett G. 2001. The politics of Maastricht. See
Eichengreen & Frieden 2001, pp. 111–30
Ghosh A, Gulde AM, Ostry JA, Wolf HC. 1997.
Does the nominal exchange rate regime matter? Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. Work. Pap. No.
Giavazzi F, Giovannini A. 1989. Limiting Exchange Rate Flexibility. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Giavazzi F, Pagano M. 1988. The advantage
of tying one’s hands: EMS discipline and
central bank credibility. Eur. Econ. Rev.
Goldberg PK, Knetter MM. 1997. Goods prices
and exchange rates: What have we learned?
J. Econ. Lit. 35:1243–72
Goodman JB, Pauly LW. 1993. The obsolescence of capital controls? World Polit. 4:50–
Gowa J. 1983. Closing the Gold Window: Domestic Politics and the End of Bretton Woods.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Gowa J. 1998. Public goods and political institutions: trade and monetary policy processes
in the United States. Int. Organ. 42:15–32
Hall PA, Franzese R. 1998. Mixed signals: central bank independence, coordinated wagebargaining, and European Monetary Union.
Int. Organ. 52:505–36
Hefeker C. 1995. Interest groups, coalitions and
monetary integration in the nineteenth century. J. Eur. Econ. Hist. 24:489–536
Hefeker C. 1997. Interest Groups and Monetary
Integration. Boulder, CO: Westview
Henning CR. 1994. Currencies and Politics
in the United States, Germany, and Japan.
Washington, DC: Inst. Int. Econ.
Herrendorf B. 1999. Transparency, reputation,
and credibility under floating and pegged exchange rates. J. Int. Econ. 49:31–50
Hibbs D. 1977. Political parties and macroeconomic policy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 71:1467–87
Kenen P. 1969. The theory of optimum currency
areas. In Monetary Problems in the International Economy, ed. R Mundell, A Swoboda.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Kindleberger C. 1970. Power and Money: the
Economics of International Politics and the
Politics of International Economics. New
York: Basic Books
Klein M, Marion N. 1997. Explaining the duration of exchange-rate pegs. J. Dev. Econ.
Kydland FE, Prescott EC. 1977. Rules rather
than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal
plans. J. Polit. Econ. 85:473–92
April 11, 2001
Annual Reviews
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
Leblang D. 1999. Democratic political institutions and exchange rate commitments in
the developing world. Int. Stud. Q. 43:599–
Leblang D. 2000. To devalue or defend: the political economy of exchange rate policy. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc.,
Washington, DC
Lewis-Beck MS, Stegmaier M. 2000. Economic
determinants of electoral outcomes. Annu.
Rev. Polit. Sci. 3:183–219
Marston RC. 1995. International Financial Integration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Martin L. 2001. International and domestic institutions in the EMU process and beyond.
See Eichengreen & Frieden 2001, pp. 131–
Maxfield S. 1997. Gatekeepers of Growth: The
International Political Economy of Central
Banking in Developing Countries. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
McKinnon RI. 1962. Optimum currency areas.
Am. Econ. Rev. 53:717–25
McKinnon RI, Fung KC. 1993. Floating exchange rates and the new interbloc protectionism. In Protectionism and World Welfare,
ed. D Salvatore, pp. 221–44. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
McNamara K. 1998. The Currency of Ideas:
Monetary Politics in the European Union.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Milner HV. 1999. The political economy of international trade. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2:91–
Mishkin FS. 1999. International experiences
with different monetary policy regimes. Natl.
Bur. Econ. Res. Work. Pap. No. 7044
Mundell RA. 1961. A theory of optimum currency areas. Am. Econ. Rev. 51:657–64
Mundell R. 1962. The appropriate use of monetary and fiscal policy under fixed exchange
rates. IMF Staff Pap. No. 9. Washington, DC:
Int. Monet. Fund
Mundell R. 1963. Capital mobility and stabilization policy under fixed and flexible
exchange rates. Can. J. Econ. Polit. Sci.
Oatley T. 1997. Monetary Politics: Exchange
Rate Cooperation in the European Union.
Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Obstfeld M, Rogoff K. 1995. The mirage of
fixed exchange rates. J. Econ. Perspect. 9:73–
Odell JS. 1982. U.S. International Monetary
Policy: Markets, Power, and Ideas as Sources
of Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Olson M. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Rose A. 2000. One money, one market: estimating the effect of common currencies on trade.
Econ. Pol. 30:7–46
Scheve K. 1999. European economic integration and electoral politics in France and
Great Britain. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am.
Polit. Sci. Assoc., Atlanta, GA
Simmons B. 1994. Who Adjusts? Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Simmons B. 2000. International law and state
behavior: commitment and compliance in international monetary affairs. Am. Polit. Sci.
Rev. 94:819–35
Stallings DA. 1993. Increased protection in the
1980s: exchange rates and institutions. Public Choice 77:493–521
Strange S. 1971. Sterling and British Policy: A
Political Study of an International Currency
in Decline. London: Oxford Univ. Press
Tavlas G. 1994. The theory of monetary integration. Open Econ. Rev. 5:211–30
Trefler D. 1993. Trade liberalization and the theory of endogenous protection. J. Polit. Econ.
Vegh CA. 1992. Stopping high inflation: an analytical overview. IMF Staff Pap. 39. Washington, DC: Int. Monet. Fund
Willett TD. 1999. Developments in the political
economy of policy coordination. Open Econ.
Rev. 10:221–53
Wittman D. 1989. Why democracies produce
efficient results. J. Polit. Econ. 97:1395–424
Annual Review of Political Science
Volume 4, 2001
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2001.4:317-343. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2600:1700:b698:4100:613c:f906:6201:86b2 on 01/27/21. For personal use only.
TRANSNATIONAL POLITICS: Contention and Institutions in
International Politics, Sidney Tarrow
M. Goldgeier, P. E. Tetlock
Significance of Postwar Japanese Politics for Political Science, Bradley
Richardson, Dennis Patterson
THEORY, Jack A. Goldstone
FORMATION, M. Hechter, D. Okamoto
CIVIC EDUCATION, William A. Galston
THEORIES OF DELEGATION, J. Bendor, A. Glazer, T. Hammond
the Past Few Years?, Nathaniel Beck
RIVALRIES, John Vasquez, Christopher S. Leskiw
RELATIONS, J. Lawrence Broz, Jeffry A. Frieden
BIOLOGY AND POLITICS: Linking Nature and Nurture, R.D. Masters
Advances in Political Science, Karen Beckwith
TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist Research Program in International
Relations and Comparative Politics, Martha Finnemore, Kathryn Sikkink
VIACRATIC AMERICA: Plessy on Foot v. Brown on Wheels, Douglas
W. Rae
Global Political Economy
Global Political Economy
Robert Gilpin
Jean M. Gilpin
Copyright ï›™ 2001 by Princeton University Press
Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock,
Oxfordshire OX20 1SY
All Rights Reserved
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Gilpin, Robert.
Global political economy : understanding the international economic order /
Robert Gilpin with the assistance of Jean M. Gilpin.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-691-08676-1 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-691-08677-X (pbk.)
1. International economic relations. 2. Free trade. 3. International finance.
4. Technological innovations—Economic aspects. 5. Economic development.
I. Gilpin, Jean M. II. Title.
HF1359 .G5516 2001
This book has been composed in Sabon.
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO
Z39.48-1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper)
Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press,
Princeton & Oxford
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
The New Global Economic Order
Changes in the World Economy
Intellectual Perspectives
My Perspective: State-centric Realism
Purpose of Economic Activity
The Nature of Political Economy
What You Seek Is What You Find
The Nature of an Economy
Embeddedness of the Economy
The Neoclassical Conception of the Economy
The Discipline of Neoclassical Economics
Nature of a Market
Method of Comparative Statics
Intellectual Limitations
Economists and Public Policy
Comparison of Economics and Political Economy
The Study of International Political Economy
Distribution of Wealth and Economic Activities
National Autonomy
The Politics of International Regimes
Theory of Hegemonic Stability
Governance of the Global Economy
New Economic Theories
Change and Neoclassical Economics
World View of the New Theories
The New Theories
The Political Significance of the New Economic Theories
Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!