Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:42:47.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Checks and Balances, Private Information, and the Credibility of Monetary Commitments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2003

Philip Keefer  and
David Stasavage
Get access

Abstract

In this article, we argue that the effectiveness of central bank independence and exchange-rate pegs in solving credibility problems is contingent on two factors: political institutions and information asymmetries. However, the impact of these two factors differs. We argue that the presence of one institution—multiple political veto players—should be crucial for the effectiveness of central bank independence, but should have no impact on the efficacy of exchange-rate pegs. In contrast, exchange-rate pegs should have a greater anti-inflationary impact when it is difficult for the public to distinguish between inflation generated by policy choice and inflation resulting from exogenous shocks to the economy. Such information asymmetries between the public and the government, however, do not increase the efficacy of central bank independence. Empirical tests using newly developed data on political institutions provide strong support for our hypotheses.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2002 , pp. 751 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, Thorsten, Clarke, George, Groff, Alberto, Keefer, Philip, and Walsh, Patrick. 2001. New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions. World Bank Economic Review 15 (1):165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, William. 1998. A Political Explanation of Variations in Central Bank Independence. American Political Science Review 92 (2):311–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, William, Broz, J. Lawrence, and Clark, William Roberts. 2002. The Political Economy of Monetary Institutions. International Organization 56 (4):693–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, William, and Leblang, David. 1999. Democratic Institutions and Exchange-Rate Commitments. International Organization 53 (1):71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broz, Lawrence. 2002. Political Institutions and the Transparency of Monetary Policy Commitments. International Organization 56 (4):861–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campillo, Marta, and Miron, Jeffrey. 1996. Why Does Inflation Differ Across Countries? NBER Working Paper 5540. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canavan, Chris, and Tommasi, Mariano. 1997. On the Credibility of Alternative Exchange-Rate Regimes. Journal of Development Economics 54 (1):101–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canzoneri, Matthew B. 1985. Monetary Policy Games and the Role of Private Information. American Economic Review 75 (5):1056–70.Google Scholar
Chortareas, Georgios, Stasavage, David, and Sterne, Gabriel. Forthcoming. Does it Pay to be Transparent: International Evidence from Central Bank Forecasts? Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 84 (5).Google Scholar
Clark, William, and Maxfield, Sylvia. 1997. Credible Commitments, International Investment Flows, and Central Bank Independence in Developing Countries: A Signaling Model. Unpublished manuscript, School of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Cukierman, Alex, Miller, Geoffrey, and Neyapti, Bilin. 1998. Central Bank Reform, Liberalization, and Inflation in Transition Economies: An International Perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.Google Scholar
Cukierman, Alex, Webb, Steven B., and Neyapti, Bilin. 1992. Measuring the Independence of Central Banks and Its Effect on Policy Outcomes. World Bank Economic Review 6 (3):353–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Russell, and MacKinnon, James G.. 1981. Several Tests for Model Specification in the Presence of Alternative Hypotheses. Econometrica 49 (3):781–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making Under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, Jon, and Svensson, Lars. 2001. Transparency and Credibility: Monetary Policy with Unobservable Goals. International Economic Review 42 (2):369–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, Jeffrey, Schmukler, Sergio, and Serven, Luis. 2000. Verifiability and the Vanishing Intermediate Exchange Rate Regime. NBER Working Paper 7901. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzese, Robert J. 1999. Partially Independent Central Banks, Politically Responsive Governments, and Inflation. American Journal of Political Science. 43 (3):681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, Atish R., Gulde, Ann-Marie, Ostry, Jonathan D., and Wolf, Holder C.. 1995. Does the Exchange Rate Regime Matter for Inflation and Growth? IMF Working Paper 121. Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Franzese, Robert J.. 1998. Mixed Signals: Central Bank Independence, Coordinated Wage–Bargaining, and European Monetary Union. International Organization 52 (3):505–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrendorf, Berthold. 1999. Transparency, Reputation, and Credibility under Floating and Pegged Exchange Rates. Journal of International Economics 49 (1):31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, Philip. 2002. Politics and the Determinants of Banking Crises: The Effects of Political Checks and Balances. In Banking, Financial Integration and International Crises, edited by Hernández, Leonardo and Schmidt-Hebel, Klaus, 85–112. Santiago: Central Bank of Chile.Google Scholar
Keefer, Philip, and Stasavage, David. 2000. Bureaucratic Delegation and Political Institutions: When Are Independent Central Banks Irrelevant? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2356. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne. 1998. Federalism and Central Bank Independence: The Politics of German Monetary Policy, 1957–92. World Politics 50 (3):401–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxfield, Sylvia. 1997. Gatekeepers of Growth. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Matthew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2):243–77.Google Scholar
Moser, Peter. 1999. Checks and Balances, and the Supply of Central Bank Independence. European Economic Review 43 (8):1569–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obstfeld, Maurice. 1996. Models of Currency Crises with Self-Fulfilling Features. European Economic Review 40 (3–5):1037–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Evido. 1994. Monetary and Fiscal Policy, Volume I. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogoff, Kenneth. 1985. The Optimal Degree of Commitment to an Intermediate Monetary Target. Quarterly Journal of Economics 100 (4):1169–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, David. 1993. Openness and Inflation: Theory and Evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (4):869–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasavage, David. 2001. Transparency of Monetary Policy and the Costs of Disinflation. Paper presented at the 97th Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 30 August–2 September, San Francisco, Calif.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Moran, Mark J.. 1983. Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91 (5):765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar