Political Economy and Comparative Central Banking

Author(s):  
Gerald Epstein
Author(s):  
Mark Copelovitch ◽  
James Anderson

As the economic and financial crises of the last decade have highlighted, monetary issues sit at the heart of nearly every major political debate and policy issue in the world economy today. This makes the study of the politics of money perhaps the single most important topic in International Political Economy (IPE). This article surveys the IPE literature on money over the last two decades, highlighting outstanding scholarship on the political economy of central banking, exchange rates, and the international monetary system, as well as the persistent problem of “non-engagement” between scholars of different theoretical and methodological perspectives. In taking stock of the field, the article seeks to identify the many important contributions of each camp, to note outstanding work and scholars that have recently begun to bridge this gap, and to highlight key empirical and theoretical topics where further constructive engagement would enrich our understanding of the politics of money.


2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 660-667
Author(s):  
Matías Vernengo

The paper analyzes briefly the changing ideas on the role of money and banks from William Petty to Thomas Tooke, including the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx. It analyzes the role of ideas in shaping the evolution of central bank regulation. Particular importance is given to the Bank of England’s inconvertibility period, from 1797 to 1821, and the ensuing debate in shaping Robert Peel’s Bank Act of 1844, which is often seen as the birth of modern central banking. The importance of the Say’s Law, and the inexistence of an alternative theory of the determination of output, is shown to play an essential role in the policy prescriptions of the so-called Bullionist authors, who won the debates that shaped central banking practices in the nineteenth century. The paper concludes with a brief analysis of what is a central bank according to the dominant (marginalist) mainstream of the profession, and what an alternative conception based on what may be termed classical-Keynesian political economy would be. JEL Classification: B10, N20, E58


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document