My preceding blogpost, the Hour of the Technocrats, was inspired by the recent accession of Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos, both professional economists, to the prime ministerships of Italy and Greece, respectively.   Today we turn to the U.S., where the political process seldom views academic credentials benevolently.

In the United States, Senator Richard Shelby scorned President Obama’s 2010 nomination of Peter Diamond, an eminent MIT Professor of Economics, and prevented his confirmation as a governor of the Federal Reserve Board.  The Alabama Senator farfetchedly claimed that the nominee was not qualified, and persisted despite the coincidence that Diamond won the Nobel Prize in Economics soon after his nomination (deservedly).   But, then, Shelby was holding up an astounding 70 of President Obama’s nominations, just to try to get two pork projects in his home state funded.   Diamond finally withdrew in June 2011, because Shelby and other anti-technocratic Senators had blocked the confirmation process for 14 months and were clearly going to continue to do so.   Diamond, like Axel Weber in my preceding blogpost, was comfortable foregoing the limelight. 

Of course there are other kinds of technocrats than economists.  Senate Republicans also blocked Elizabeth Warren - a Harvard professor, but of Law, not Economics — from becoming the first head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Even at the “quant” end of the finance field spectrum, the anti-technocrats in Congress have hamstrung the Treasury’s new Office of Financial Research, and it has not been possible to find a finance professor to be the first Director of the new agency.   As always, the Senate continues to hold up on political grounds confirmation of highly qualified technocrats for ambassadorships, judgeships, and so on.  The latest was the end last week of the campaign to get the Senate to confirm Don Berwick, another Harvard professor (School of Public Health), who had been doing an excellent job of running Medicare and Medicaid.   Another current example is the stalled nomination of Michael McFaul, an outstandingly qualified political science professor from Stanford, to be ambassador to Russia.   The American public has been losing out on the services of a lot of top-quality officials.

It goes without saying that academic or technical expertise is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion for a successful government official.   Far from it.  On the one hand, many of my colleagues on the faculties of elite universities would not make great policy makers — lacking some of the desirable leadership, managerial, or other interpersonal skills.  On the other hand, many excellent political leaders have not been intellectuals.  George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower are two examples among U.S. presidents.

I would, however, argue that it is necessary to pass a certain threshold of awareness of facts and curiosity about the world.  To take just a few examples of geographical knowledge, a candidate who does not know where the Battle of Concord was fought, where Paul Revere rode, the difference between Brazil and Bolivia, that Africa is not a single nation, which country Iran is, or which country Libya is, is not likely to make a good president.   Call me an egghead if you will; but I consider a decision to invade the wrong country to be more than a minor technical slip.

The Hour of the Technocrats has arrived.   In desperation from debt crises that their gridlocked political systems have created, Italy and Greece both in November chose new Prime Ministers who are technocratic economists rather than politicians:   Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos, respectively.  One can even describe them as professors:  Monti has been president of the prestigious Bocconi University when not a European Commissioner in Brussels, and Papademos has been my colleague at Harvard Kennedy School in the year since he finished his term as Deputy Governor of the European Central Bank (even teaching a class I usually teach).

No doubt, whatever happens, pundits who evaluate their performance will soon be writing: “Professors Earn ‘A’ in Economics, but Flunk Politics.”   This will be unfair.   It is not lack of political ability that will stymie them, but lack of political power in the mandates they have been given.    Mario Monti, despite very strong popular support among Italians for his technocratic government, does not have a parliamentary majority that he can rely on.   Berlusconi, in boasting that he can pull the plug on Monti anytime he wants, has made it clear that he still will not lay aside his personal political interests for the good of the country even when everyone understands what he is doing.   

Lucas Papademos in Greece has been dealt an even weaker hand.  Despite his best efforts to insist on a term longer than three months and the ability to appoint some members of his cabinet, as requirements for accepting the Prime Ministership, in the end he could not get even these minimum conditions.

The elevation of these two outstanding civil servants comes after a period when some other professors have been squeezed out by the political process.   Several good technocratic economists from emerging market countries were passed over in June, when choosing the successor to Dominique Strauss-Kahn as Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.

Next, an example from Germany. Axel Weber in January 2011 resigned as President of the Deutsche Bundesbank and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.  The interpretation in the press was that his statements opposing ECB purchases of bonds issued by troubled periphery countries had been evidence of political naivety on his part.   The press could not imagine that a technocrat might voluntarily relinquish a sure shot at a position of great power — successor to Jean Claude Trichet as ECB President — on a matter of principle.    But that is precisely what Weber was doing.  The willingness to give up power if necessary is one of the advantages of professors for such positions.  (It is a different matter that the ECB presidency then went to Mario Draghi, who is also an economist and technocrat, and in fact the perfect man for the job.)

It is a mistake to conflate technocrat elites (they are the ones with the PhDs or other advanced economics degrees) with other kinds of elites (the ones with money or power, especially if they got them from their parents).   Most economists understood very well the possible downside of European monetary union.  In the late 1980s, when Jacques Delors asked major European leaders what the next step should be in the European integration project, they underestimated the technical difficulties when they opted for monetary integration.

Technocrats can play a useful role.  One of their advantages is acting as an honest broker when traditional politicians have become discredited or parties are deadlocked.  Another is the credibility that comes when they are not motivated by getting re-elected, either because their term in office has been limited in advance or because it is know that they in fact prefer the quiet life back at the university.  The most obvious advantage to technocrats comes when the biggest problems facing the country are in large part technical such as proposing economic reforms or negotiating loan terms.  A good precedent in Italy is Carlo Ciampi, who took the governing reins in 1993 after Italy was forced to drop out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, but managed to repeal the scala mobile (the wage indexation system), beat down inflation, and re-board the train of European monetary integration. 

Obvious disadvantages of some technocrats include lack of managerial experience, lack of perceived legitimacy, and lack of a domestic political powerbase.   Monti and Papademos both have managerial experience and, for now, perceived legitimacy.   The last of the three factors will be the limiting factor for them.

Among current heads of state who could be considered technocrats are President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, President Sebastián Piñera of Chile, and President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia.  Nobody could accuse these three of having led sheltered lives or being unaccustomed to making difficult decisions.   But it happens that all three received their ivory tower training at the Harvard.  Calderón took a record three courses from me.   Unfortunately, dealing with violent drug lords was not on my syllabus. 

Having shiny international credentials is not always an advantage.  When Sirleaf received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011, the speculation was that this evidence of her good image abroad could hurt her with the voters at home in her campaign for re-election.   Analogously, Prime Ministers Monti and Papademos hold gold card memberships in the clubs of EU and euro elites that will help them obtain support for their countries abroad but leave them vulnerable domestically to charges that they are lackeys of foreign powers.

It is good that Rome and Athens, the two seats of classical western civilization, have turned to these two civilized men for leadership. I hope the politicians realize that Monti and Papademos cannot work miracles if they are not given the political tools to get their policies enacted.   

[A version of this column appeared Nov. 25 on Project Syndicate.  Comments can be posted there]

A subsequent blog post will extend the discussion of technocrats to some recent examples from the United States of highly qualified academics who have been blocked from office for political reasons.

The parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are meeting once again in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.  The period covered by the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and the clock is running out on negotiations for a successor agreement.  Progress at Copenhagen two years ago and Cancun one year ago was slow.   Negotiations have been blocked by a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. The United States is at loggerheads with the developing world, especially China–now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG)–and India.  

Fortunately, there might be a way to break through this roadblock.  A formulas-based approach, building on existing commitments, could attain desired mitigation of concentrations of Greenhouse Gases, while yet avoiding the imposition of disproportionate economic costs on any single country or group of countries.  The political feasibility of our proposal has been borne out over the last year, in that the specifics have turned out to be consistent with positions recently taken by the important players.  This despite what appears to be a Gordian knot too big to be untied.

On the one hand, the leaders of India and China are clear: They won’t cut emissions until after the United States and other developed countries have cut theirs first. After all, the industrialized countries created the problem of global climate change, and got rich in the process. Developing countries shouldn’t be denied their turn at economic development, they argue. As the Indians point out, Americans emit more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide per person as they do.

On the other hand, the U.S. Congress is equally clear: It will not impose quantitative limits on U.S. GHG emissions if it fears that emissions from China, India, and other developing countries will continue to grow unabated. Indeed, that is why the Senate was unwilling to ratify the Kyoto Protocol ten years ago. Why should U.S. firms bear the economic cost of cutting emissions if energy-intensive domestic aluminum smelters and steel mills, for example, would just migrate to countries that have no caps and cheaper energy (a problem known as leakage)? Global emissions would simply continue their rapid rise in a different part of the world. Emission cap legislation will not pass the Senate as long as major developing countries haven’t accepted quantitative targets of their own.

Global issues of leakage and competitiveness can only be effectively addressed at the multilateral level. The climate change negotiators need to coalesce on a specific mechanism for setting the actual numbers for future emission targets. The framework must address the three gaping holes in the Kyoto Protocol: the absence of a mechanism for setting targets in the long run, the lack of participation by many major emitting countries, and the lack of faith that signatories will fulfill their commitments.

I see one practical solution to the apparently irreconcilable differences between the United States and the developing countries regarding binding quantitative targets: Washington would agree to join Europe in adopting emission targets that would cut substantially over the next 40 years. Simultaneously, in the same agreement, China, India, and other developing countries would agree to a path that immediately imposes binding emission targets on them. These would be targets that in the first five-year period simply follow the so-called business-as-usual path, defined as the rate of increase in emissions that these countries would experience in the absence of an international agreement, as determined by experts’ projections.

The idea of developing countries committing only to business-as-usual targets will be met with loud objections from both environmentalists and U.S. business interests because it doesn’t obligate China or other developing countries to cut emissions. But this commitment is far more important than it may sound at first. Specifically, it precludes carbon leakage from undermining the environmental goal of the agreement. The developing countries can’t go above their set business-as-usual paths as they would in the absence of this commitment and, therefore, can’t exploit developed states’ emissions reduction efforts by expanding carbon-intensive industries. This step mitigates the competitiveness concerns of carbon-intensive industries in developed countries.

Such an approach recognizes the reality that it would be irrational for China to agree to substantial cuts in the short term. Indeed, the developing countries, for their part, may object when asked to take on any kind of binding targets at all, at this stage.  But they should realize that they would gain in strictly economic terms from such an agreement.  The commitment, in an international system of emission permits trading, would give China the ability to sell permits at the world market price. How do we know Beijing would come out ahead? It is currently building roughly 100 power plants per year to accommodate its rapidly growing energy demand. The cost of shutting down an already-functioning U.S. coal-fired power plant is far higher than the cost of building a new low-carbon plant in China. For this reason, when a U.S. firm pays China to cut its emissions voluntarily, thereby obtaining a permit that the U.S. firm can use to meet its emission obligations, both parties benefit, even in strictly economic terms. The environmental benefit is that China’s aggregate emissions would voluntarily fall below its business-as-usual commitment from the beginning.

Of course, the next step to this solution requires that China and other developing countries make cuts below their business-as-usual path in future years and, eventually, make cuts in absolute terms as states gain confidence in the framework. But the developing countries must agree to the principle of making cuts similar to those made by Europe, the United States, and others who have gone before them, taking due account of differences in income. Emission targets can be determined by formulas that follow from four important guidelines:

(1) They give lower-income countries more time before they start to cut emissions.

(2) They ask richer countries for steeper cuts than poorer countries. This is a principle that turns out to have been embodied in the targets accepted by countries last year at Cancun. (See Figure 1, where the relationship between agreed emission cuts and income per capita is highly significant statistically.)

(3) They lead to a gradual convergence of emissions per capita over the course of the century.

(4) They take care not to reward any country for joining the system late.    

 Figure 1: Estimated progressivity in Cancun emmission targets (including former Soviet countries)

 An application of FEEM’s WITCH model reveals that these formulas produce emission targets that obey common-sense constraints:  no country or group of countries is asked to adopt targets that would cost it more than 1% of GDP over the century as a whole or more than 5% of GDP in any single five-year time period.

Realistically, no country (rich or poor) will abide by targets in any given period that entail extremely large economic sacrifices relative to the alternative of simply not participating in the system. It is time to stop making sweeping proposals that assume otherwise, and to pursue instead the narrow thread of the politically possible.

[The specifics of the formula's proposal are explained in "Sustainable Cooperation in Global Climate Policy: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets to Build on Copenhagen and Cancun," a background paper co-authored with Valentina Bosetti, for the annual Human Development Report just released by the UN Development Programme, Nov. 2011.  All estimates were updated in light of recent developments, relative to our earlier paper, "Politically Feasible Emission Target Formulas to Attain 460 ppm CO2 Concentrations," forthcoming, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy (Oxford University Press) Winter 2012.]

This column appears at Vox.  Comments may be posted there.

Many questions in the field of financial regulation are hard to answer:    Would the separation of commercial banking and investment banking help prevent crises?   To what extent should individual consumers be protected against foolishly borrowing too much?  Should Credit Default Swaps be regulated out of existence?    What should regulators do about patterns of high executive compensation that is evidently not a reward for performance?  I have views on these questions, just as other observers do.  But in these cases I see the arguments on both sides.

The question of funding the U.S. financial regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is easy to answer, however.  I do not see the argument  for cutting funding  of the SEC and CFTC or for the other ways that Republicans in Congress are finding to make it difficult for these agencies to do their jobs.   They are also deliberately impeding two new agencies set up in response to the 2008 financial crisis — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, lodged at the Fed, and the Office of Financial Research at the Treasury — from doing their respective jobs.

Bernard Madoff was the most obviously venal of the figures in the financial crisis of the fall of 2008.  There is nothing hard to understand about the swindle he perpetrated, no ambiguities about where the legal line is drawn, no free-market interpretation that anyone uses to justify what he did.  The SEC had been warned over and over again in the years before 2008.   Why did it do nothing?  In large part because it had in effect been given a mandate to regulate as little as possible. 

I realize that in the United States, as in every country, we have some regulations that are excessive or undesirable.  But how anyone can think that regulation by the SEC was excessive during 2001-08 and that this contributed to the financial crisis?

That is the irrationality on the Right.   There is an equally irrational point of view on the Left.  It goes like this:  because the head of the CFTC is a former investment banker from Goldman Sachs, it must necessarily be that he is serving the interests of the financial community.  It happens that Gary Gensler is doing a great job, against great odds.   He has been trying to force derivatives trading into clearinghouses with lower counterparty risk, as required by the Dodd-Frank bill, to try to avoid repeats of September 2008.  I can see, when an investment banker is appointed to such a position, asking questions that one would not ask if he came from some other profession.  But he has been in office for 2 ½ years, pursuing regulation of derivatives with sufficient vigor to make most of Wall Street angry.  Reading the words “Goldman Sachs” on someone’s resume should not be a substitute for all other thought processes.

US News and World Report asks, “Who is handling its debt crisis better: Europe or the United States?”   My answer follows.

  In both Europe and the United States, the current public debt woes are attributable to mistakes made by political leaders going back more than a decade.  In both cases the tremendous magnitude of the long-term debt problems has only become evident for all to see recently, by which time it was too late for the straightforward policy solutions that were viable options previously. 

  It is hard to judge whether it is Europe or the United States that has screwed up worse.     On the one hand, Europe is now much closer to full-fledged crisis: the debt problems in Mediterranean members are virtually insoluble at current interest rates, are probably pushing Europe back into recession, and could well result in one or more countries forced to leave the euro.  By contrast, there is no true fiscal crisis here yet; the world’s investors are still buying large quantities of US bonds at low interest rates.

  On the other hand, the mistakes by US politicians are more gratuitously self-inflicted than on the other side of the Atlantic.   In 2001, all we had to do was continue the fiscal progress that had been made during the 1990s: preserve the budget surplus and move on to address the longer term problems of social security and Medicare in a deliberate and balanced manner.  Instead we recklessly enacted massive tax cuts and tripled the rate of growth of federal spending, in ways guaranteed to generate serious fiscal troubles in the decade of the 2010s and beyond.  The debt-ceiling standoff last summer was but the latest self-inflicted wound, new evidence that the US political system is not functioning.  

  To be sure, euroland too has made serious policy mistakes.  But one can sympathize with the difficulty of agreeing policy across 17 sovereign governments.   The political fissures have been inevitable ever since 1999, when the euro members (then 11) adopted a single currency without a single fiscal authority, in what was nevertheless a historic and laudable enterprise.  As they say, “why should anyone be surprised at the difficulty of getting 17 national legislatures to agree, when the United States cannot even do it with one?”

  It is not too late for American politicians to enact the economically sensible policy:  current short-term fiscal stimulus simultaneous with steps to lock in a long-run return to fiscal responsibility (which cannot possibly be accomplished solely by discretionary spending cuts, entitlement reform, or tax revenues, but rather should include all three).   For euroland, unfortunately, even if the politicians could come together, there no longer exists an option for preserving the monetary union in quite the form originally envisioned.

** This column (along with others’ answers to the question) first appeared in the Debate Club of U.S. News & World Report , Nov. 7, 2011, which has the copyright. **

[My reactions to developments in the euro crisis can be seen in four clips from CNBC's Kudlow Report in October and one on BNN in November.] 

The prices of minerals, hydrocarbons, and agricultural commodities have been on a veritable roller coaster. Although commodity prices are always more variable than those for manufactured goods and services, commodity markets over the last five years have seen extraordinary volatility.

Countries that specialize in the export of oil, copper, iron ore, wheat, coffee, or other commodities have boomed.  But they are highly vulnerable. Dollar commodity prices could plunge at any time, as a result of a new global recession, a hard landing in China, an increase in real interest rates in the United States, fluctuations in climate, or random sector-specific factors.

Countries that have outstanding debt in dollars or other foreign currencies are especially vulnerable. If their export revenues were to plunge relative to their debt-service obligations, the result could be crashes reminiscent of Latin America’s debt crisis in 1982 or the Asian and Russian currency crises of 1997-1998.

Many developing countries have made progress since the 1990’s in shifting from dollar-denominated debt toward foreign direct investment and other types of capital inflows, or in paying down their liabilities altogether. But some commodity exporters still seek ways to borrow that won’t expose them to excessive risk.

Commodity bonds may offer a neat way to circumvent these risks. Exporters of any particular commodity should issue debt that is denominated in terms of the price of that commodity, rather than in dollars or any other currency. Jamaica, for example, would issue alumina bonds; Nigeria would issue oil bonds; Sierra Leone would issue iron-ore bonds; and Mongolia would issue copper bonds. Investors would be able to buy Guatemala’s coffee bonds, Côte d’Ivoire’s cocoa bonds, Liberia’s rubber bonds, Mali’s cotton bonds; and Ghana’s gold bonds.

The advantage of such bonds is that in the event of a decline in the world price of the underlying commodity, the country’s debt-to-export ratio need not rise. The cost of debt service adjusts automatically, without the severe disruption that results from loss of confidence, crisis, debt restructuring, and so forth.

The idea is not new. (The oldest reference I know is Lessard & Williamson, 1985.)  So, why has it not been tried before? When one asks finance ministers in commodity-exporting debtor countries, they frequently reply that they fear insufficient demand for commodity bonds.

That is a surprising proposition, given that commodity bonds have an obvious latent market, rooted in real economic fundamentals. After all, steel companies have an inherent need to hedge against fluctuations in the price of iron ore, just as airlines and utilities have an inherent need to hedge against fluctuations in the price of oil.  Each of these commodities is an important input for major corporations. Surely there is at least as much natural demand for commodity bonds as there is for credit-default swaps and some of the bizarrely complicated derivatives that are currently traded!

It takes liquidity to make a market successful, and it can be difficult to get a new one started until it achieves a certain critical mass. The problem may be that there are not many investors who want to take a long position on oil and Nigerian credit risk simultaneously.

A multilateral agency such as the World Bank could play a critical role in launching a market in commodity bonds. The fit would be particularly good in those countries where the Bank is already lending money.

Here is how it would work. Instead of denominating a loan to Nigeria in terms of dollars, the Bank would denominate it in terms of the price of oil; it would then turn around and lay off its exposure to the world oil price by issuing that same quantity of bonds denominated in oil. If the Bank lends to multiple oil-exporting countries, the market for oil bonds that it creates would be that much larger and more liquid. It can serve an additional important pooling function in cases where there are different grades or varieties of the product (as with oil or coffee), and where prices can diverge enough to make an important difference to the exporters.  The Bank could link the bond it issues to an oil price index, a weighted average of various product grades.

An alternative for some commodity exporters is to hedge their risk by selling on the futures market. But an important disadvantage of derivatives is their short maturity. A West African country with newly discovered oil reserves needs to finance exploration, drilling, and pipeline construction, which means that it needs to hedge at a time horizon of 10-20 years, not 90 days.

Another disadvantage of derivatives is that they require a high degree of sophistication –both technical and political. In the event of an increase in a commodity’s price, a finance minister who has done a perfect job ex ante of hedging export-price risk on the futures market will suddenly find himself accused ex post of having gambled away the national patrimony. This principal-agent problem is much diminished in the case of commodity bonds.

If the international financial wizards can get together and act on this idea now, commodity exporters might be able to avoid calamity the next time the world price of their product takes a plunge.  The World Bank should take up the cause.

All of a sudden, the renminbi is being touted as the next big international currency.   Just in the last year or two, the Chinese currency has begun to internationalize along a number of dimensions.   RMB bank desposits are now available in Hong Kong.  A RMB bond market has grown rapidly there as well, with the issuers including major multinationals such as McDonald’s.   Some of China’s international trade is now invoiced in the currency.  Foreign central banks have been able to hold RMB since August 2010, with Malaysia going first. 

Some are now claiming that the renminbi could overtake the dollar for the number one slot in the international currency rankings within a decade (especially Subramanian 2011a, p.19; 2011b).   The basis of this prediction is, first, the likelihood that the Chinese economy will surpass the US economy in size and, second, the historical precedent when the dollar overtook the pound sterling as the number one international currency during the period after World War I.   

It used to be thought that international currency status was subject to much inertia (e.g., Krugman, 1984).  There was said to have been a long lag between the date when the US economy had passed the UK economy with respect to size (1872, by the criterion of GNP) and the time when the dollar had passed the pound (1946, by the criterion of shares in central banks’ holdings of reserves). 

The “new view,” represented in particular by Eichengreen (2011) and Eichengreen and Flandreau (2010), is that the lag was in fact rather short.  It took until World War I for the dollar to fulfill the criteria of an international currency.  Furthermore, the date when the dollar is said to have challenged the pound in importance has now been moved up to the mid-1920s.   The first point is right. If trade is the measure of size, the US first caught up with the UK during World War I.  The US did not even have a permanent central bank until 1913.  The other important criteria came soon thereafter:  creditor status for the country; the perceived prospects for the currency to remain strong in value; and deep, liquid, open financial markets.  (I have discussed the criteria in earlier papers.  Chinn and Frankel, 2007, evaluate them econometrically and give further references.)  The second point seems a matter of whether or not one wants to distinguish between the concept of “coming to rival” / “catching up with”  the pound (1920s) versus the phenomenon of definitively “pulling ahead” / “displacing” the pound (1945).  Under either interpretation, the dollar’s initial rise as an international currency was indeed rapid, once the conditions were in place. 

The dollar is one of three national currencies to have attained international status during the 20th century.  The other two were the yen and the mark, which became major international currencies after the breakup of the Bretton Woods system in 1971-73.  (The euro, of course, did so after 1999.)  In the early 1990s, both were spoken of as potential rivals of the dollar for the number one slot.  It is easy to forget it now, because Japan’s relative role has diminished since then and the mark has been superseded.  In retrospect, the two currencies’ shares in central bank reserves peaked as the 1990s began.

The current RMB phenomenon differs in an interesting way from the historical circumstances of the rise of the three earlier currencies.  The Chinese government is actively promoting the international use of its currency.   Neither Germany nor Japan, nor even the US, did that, at least not at first.   In all three cases, export interests, who stood to lose competitiveness if international demand for the currency were to rise, were much stronger than the financial sector, which might have supported internationalization.  One would expect the same fears of a stronger currency and its effects on manufacturing exports to dominate the calculations in China.

In the case of the mark and yen after 1973, internationalization came despite the reluctance of the German and Japanese governments.  In the case of the United States after 1914, a tiny elite promoted internationalization of the dollar despite the indifference or hostility to such a project in the nation at large.  These individuals, led by Benjamin Strong, the first president of the New York Fed, were the same ones who had conspired in 1910 to establish the Federal Reserve in the first place.

It is not yet clear that China’s new enthusiasm for internationalizing its currency includes a willingness to end financial repression in the domestic financial system, remove cross-border capital controls, and allow the RMB to appreciate, thus helping to shift the economy away from its export-dependence.  Perhaps a small elite will be able to accomplish these things, in the way that Strong did a century earlier.  But so far the government is only promoting international use of the RMB offshore, walled off from the domestic financial system.  That will not be enough to do it.

[This RIETI perspectives note summarizes the argument in "Historical Precedents for the Internationalization of the RMB," a paper that I have written for a workshop directed by Sebastian Mallaby, for the Council on Foreign Relations and the China Development Research Foundation.]

 Comments can be posted at the version on the Vox site or Seeking Alpha.

References

Chinn, Menzie, and Jeffrey Frankel , 2007, “Will the Euro Eventually Surpass the Dollar as Leading International Reserve Currency?” in  G7 Current Account Imbalances: Sustainability and Adjustment, edited by Richard Clarida (University of Chicago Press).  

Eichengreen, Barry, 2011, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System (Oxford University Press).

Eichengreen, Barry, and Marc Flandreau, 2010, “The Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the Rise of the Dollar as an International Currency, 1914-39,” BIS WP no. 328, Nov.

Eichengreen, Barry, and Jeffrey Frankel, 1996, “The SDR, Reserve Currencies, and the Future of the International Monetary System” in The Future of the SDR in Light of Changes in the International Financial System, edited by M.Mussa, J.Boughton, and P.Isard (International Monetary Fund).

Krugman, Paul, 1984, “The International Role of the Dollar: Theory and Prospect,” in Exchange Rate Theory and Practice, edited by J.Bilson and R.Marston (University of Chicago Press), 261-78.

Subramanian, Arvind, 2011a, “Renminbi Rules: The Conditional Imminence of the Reserve Currency Transition,” (Petersen Institute for International Economics), September. 

Subramanian, Arvind, 2011b , Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China’s Economic Dominance (Petersen Institute for International Economics), September. 

     After the currency crises of 1994-2001, and especially the East Asia crises of 1997-98, a lot of research investigated what countries could do to protect themselves against a future repeat.  More importantly, policy makers in emerging markets took some serious measures.  Some countries abandoned exchange rate targets and began to float.   Many accumulated high levels of foreign exchange reserves.  Many moved away from dollar-denominated debt, toward other kinds of capital inflow that would be less vulnerable to currency mismatch, such as domestic currency debt or Foreign Direct Investment.   Some instituted Collective Action Clauses in their debt contracts to facilitate otherwise-messy restructuring of debt in the event of a severe negative shock.  A few raised reserve requirements or otherwise tightened prudential banking regulations (clearly not enough, in retrospect). And so on.

When the Global Financial Crisis hit ten years later, it was bad news for everyone, except that it was good news for econometricians:  we could observe which countries got hit badly by this common external shock in 2008-09 and which did not, and could try to draw inferences about which strategies helped countries withstand the shock better than others.  The NBER is holding a public symposium in Washington on September 22.   The topic of the 3^rd and final session is: What ex ante policies can help reduce vulnerability to future shocks?

     Three papers that were presented at the earlier NBER conference in Bretton Woods (the culmination of a project on the Global Financial Crisis  sponsored by the Sloan Foundation) fall naturally into this category:

• International Reserves and the Global Financial Crisis, Kathryn Dominguez (University of Michigan), Yuko Hashimoto (IMF), and Takatoshi Ito (University of Tokyo);
• Managing Capital Inflows: The Role of Controls and Prudential Policies,  Jonathan Ostry, Atish Ghosh, Marcos Chamon, and Mahvash Qureshi (all of the IMF);
• International Financial Crises and the IMF: What the Historical Record Shows, Bergljot Barkbu (IMF), Barry Eichengreen (UC, Berkeley), and Ashoka Mody (IMF). 

To simplify a bit, Dominguez and co-authors study whether holding high levels of reserves helped countries do better in the Global Financial Crisis;  Ostry and co-authors study whether capital controls and bank regulation helped; and Barkbu, Eichengreen and Mody consider possible new mechanisms to improve the risk structure of capital inflows and to smooth adjustment to shocks, such as sovereign CoCos (Contingent Convertible bonds) and indexing of debt.

     The question that Dominguez, Hashimoto, and Ito address in International Reserves and the Global Financial Crisis, had been actively debated in the years before 2008.   Some economists thought that China, especially, but other emerging market countries as well, were holding far more foreign exchange reserves than they needed to withstand shocks.  Larry Summers (2006) was one prominent example; I must admit that his argument sounded sensible to me at the time.  When the global financial crisis hit, it was possible to test the proposition.   Some of the early studies found that reserve holdings did not seem to help countries withstand the crisis better.  Blanchard, Faruqee and Klyuev (2009) was one.   A series of papers by Andy Rose and Mark Spiegel (2009a, b) also found no significant effect.   But others found an important effect.    One of the technical contributions of the paper by Dominguez and co-authors is to subtract estimates of interest income and valuation changes from officially report levels of reserves in order to get at the actively managed component.  Their single most important finding is that real GDP growth recovery after the global financial crisis was stronger for countries that had accumulated large reserve holdings before the crisis.

This is the same thing I had found in a study with George Saravelos (NBER WP no.16047, 2010) .   Out of dozens of potential early warning indicators, foreign exchange reserves are the indicator that had been most often identified as significant by eighty pre-2008 studies conducted on earlier data.  We found that reserves are also the indicator that was the strongest predictor of which countries got into trouble in 2008-09. A particularly useful indicator is the ratio of reserves to short-term debt (Guidotti, 2003).   We found that the second most consistently important early warning indicator was overvaluation of the currency by criteria like PPP.   Also important in the recent crisis were measures of national saving.

Why did the Dominguez paper and my paper find that reserves had a significant effect, and others did not?    My guess is that it has to do with different definitions.  In particular, we define the crisis period as late 2008 and early 2009, whereas the earlier papers I mentioned ended in 2008.

     In Managing Capital Inflows: The Role of Controls and Prudential Policies, Ostry, Ghosh, Chamon, and Qureshi do something very important.  Too many discussions lump financial regulations together (speaking indiscriminately of Tobin taxes, Chile-style or Brazil-style controls on short-term capital inflows, Venezuela’s  controls on outflows, etc., even though these are completely different things).  Chamon and co-authors develop three new country indices: one for financial-sector capital controls, one for prudential regulation of foreign exchange transactions in the domestic banking sector, and one for domestic prudential policies.  This helps avoid exacerbating what is often a sterile oversimplified debate.  For example, even if one is ideologically opposed to capital controls, or has been persuaded by research such as Kristin Forbes (2007) that the famous Chile controls caused undesirable distortions, it is hard to be opposed to prudential banking regulations, especially in light of the origins of the 2008 crisis.   Chamon and co-authors find that capital controls and FX-related prudential measures can both help shift the composition of lending, away from FX-denominated bank loans and toward equity and FDI components of capital inflows.   Previous researchers have found that shifts of this sort in the composition of inflow, as opposed to reductions in the level of inflows per se, reduce the probability of a crisis. (Frankel and Rose, 1996, among many others.)   Probably the most important finding by Chamon et al is a reasonably strong statistical association between pre-crisis prudential and capital control policy and resilience to the sudden stop.   Countries in the upper quarter of restrictiveness of FX-related prudential measures do better in a crisis than those in the bottom quarter, by a whopping margin of 2 ½ - 3 ½ % percentage points of growth.  An important lesson for countries facing large inflows today.

     One of the co-authors of International Financial Crises and the IMF: What the Historical Record Shows, Barry Eichengreen, is not just the pre-eminent economic historian of this field but also supplied a lot of the intellectual force behind the adoption of Collective Action Clauses after the preceding round of emerging market crises (e.g., Eichengreen, 2003; and Eichengreen and Mody, 2004).  Thus it is well worth listening to what they have to say about further ideas for structuring capital flows ex ante in such a way as to avoid messy and costly restructuring ex post.

Barkbu, Mody, and Eichengreen explore how to automate the restructuring decision.  Automating the process has key advantages: it preserves the integrity of the contract (which avoids the uncertainties involved in triggering CDS); it is predictable; and it can be priced.   It can also avoid the need for what otherwise might be a lengthy process of renegotiation between debtors and creditors during which time economic activity falls and everyone suffers.  To this end, they discuss the idea of adding to future government bond issues so-called sovereign cocos, contractual provisions that automatically lengthen maturities or reduce interest and amortization payments when a pre-specified debt/GDP ratio is reached.  

There are also other ways of improving risk sharing and avoiding the need for costly restructuring negotiations.  An idea that is older but that I think merits more of a try-out than it has received — applicable for countries that export oil, minerals or agricultural commodities — is to index the debt to the world price of the export commodity.  Also in this category is the basic movement away from dollar-denominated debt and toward domestic-denominated debt, equity and FDI .  It seems to me that countries that heeded such lesson of the 1990s (including many emerging markets in Asia and Latin America) came through the GFC relatively well, whereas those that did not (Eastern Europe), did not.   

References

Barkbu, Bergljot, Barry Eichengreen, and Ashoka Mody, International Financial Crises and the IMF: What the Historical Record Shows, NBER Conference on The Global Financial Crisis, Bretton Woods, NH, June 2011, organized by C.Engel, K.Forbes, and J.Frankel.
Berkmen, Pelin, Gaston Gelos, Robert Rennhack, and James P Walsh (2009), “The Global Financial Crisis: Explaining Cross-Country Differences in the Output Impact“, IMF Working Paper 09/280.
Blanchard, Olivier, Hamid Faruqee, and Vladimir Klyuev (2009), “Did Foreign Reserves Help Weather the Crisis“, IMF Survey Magazine, October.
Chamon, Marcos, Atish Ghosh, Jonathan Ostry, and Mahvash Qureshi, Managing Capital Inflows: The Role of Controls and Prudential Policies,   NBER Conference on The Global Financial Crisis, Bretton Woods, NH, June 2011, organized by C.Engel, K.Forbes, and J.Frankel.
Dominguez, Kathryn, Yuko Hashimoto, and Takatoshi Ito, International Reserves and the Global Financial Crisis, , NBER Conference on The Global Financial Crisis, Bretton Woods, NH, June 2011, organized by C.Engel, K.Forbes, and J.Frankel.
Eichengreen, Barry, 2003, “Restructuring Sovereign Debt,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 4, 1 November , 75-98.
Eichengreen, Barry and Ashoka Mody. 2004, “Do Collective Action Clauses Raise Borrowing Costs?,” Economic Journal, v114 (495,April), 247-264.   NBER WP 7458.
Forbes, Kristin, “One cost of the Chilean capital controls: Increased financial constraints for smaller traded firms,” Journal of International Economics,  71, Issue 2, April 2007, Pages 294-323
Frankel, Jeffrey and George Saravelos (2010), “Are Leading Indicators of Financial Crises Useful for Assessing Country Vulnerability? Evidence from the 2008-09 Global Crisis,” NBER WP 16047, June.
Frankel, Jeffrey, and Andrew Rose (1996) “Currency Crashes in Emerging Markets,” Journal of International Economics 41, no. 3/4, 351-66.
Guidotti, Pablo (2003), in J Antonio Gonzalez, V.Corbo, A.Krueger, and A.Tornell, (eds.), Latin American Macroeconomic Reforms: The Second Stage, University of Chicago Press.
Obstfeld, Maurice, Jay Shambaugh, and Alan Taylor (2009), “Financial Instability, Reserves, and Central Bank Swap Lines in the Panic of 2008,” American Economic Review, 99(2):480-486.
Obstfeld, Maurice, Jay Shambaugh, and Alan Taylor (2010), “Financial Stability, the Trilemma, and International Reserves“, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics.
Rose, Andrew and Mark Spiegel (2009a), “The Causes and Consequences of the 2008 Crisis: Early Warning,” Global Journal of Economics. NBER Working Paper 15357.
Rose, Andrew, and Mark Spiegel (2009b), “The Causes and Consequences of the 2008 Crisis: International Linkages and American Exposure,” Pacific Economic Review.
Summers, Lawrence, 2006,  “Reflections on Global Account Imbalances and Emerging Markets Reserve Accumulation,” March 24.

           After a month of high drama the Senate at high noon today voted to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling.    How to evaluate this outcome?    If I must give a one-word verdict, it would be “good.”   If I can expand to two words, it would be “not good.”   If I can elaborate to 20 words: “The legislation confirms the sorry state of our public deliberations, but it is probably the best that could be hoped for,” given where the negotiations were as the big hand on the clock approached twelve.

            In what sense was the outcome to the debt ceiling standoff good?   It was much better than a number of alternatives that could have easily happened.  After the pin had been pulled out of the hand grenade, Washington managed to put it back in.   Specifically, it is good that:

• 1. Those who favored a US default — in some cases deliberately, not just as a bargaining tactic — did not prevail.
• 2. Those who sought to force the Congress and White House to go through the madness of voting on the debt ceiling every few months between now and the next presidential election did not prevail.
• 3. The bill’s 10 years of spending cuts are not front-loaded. Frontloading would have substantially raised the chances of going back into a new recession. (So would have default or an uncertainty-maximizing short-term fix.)
• 4. The bill has a mechanism that just might in November demonstrate to the arithmetically innumerate that it is literally impossible to eliminate the budget deficit if the cuts are to come primarily in discretionary non-security spending.  Instead, military spending, entitlements, and tax revenues will have to be part of the eventual solution — as also favored by the American people in polls, even a majority of Republicans. This epiphany on the part of the people who are described as die-hard fiscal conservatives is needed before we can break the political log-jam.  A solution is not possible so long as the extremists are under the mistaken belief that the deficit can be eliminated with cuts concentrated in domestic discretionary spending and so long as they have veto power in the eyes of the Republican leaders.

            The mechanism is to force Congress to confront an unpleasant but clear choice between (i) on the one hand, deep automatic cuts that hit defense, which are anathema to most Republicans, and Medicare, which are anathema to Democrats, and (ii) on the other hand, the more thoughtful recommendations of a bi-partisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which would certainly spread out the pain more to include increased tax revenues, anathema to Republicans, and other entitlement cuts, anathema to Democrats.  The 12-member panel is to report its recommendations in late November, and the Congress is to vote on them in December.  This mechanism is of course crude, but may be just the sort of thing we need to force individual congressmen to confront arithmetic.     
            Some have asked how this panel will differ from the ill-fated Simpson-Bowles commission.   A critical difference is the requirement that the Congress must vote up-or-down on the recommendations.   (This was also a feature of the original version of what became the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; but the provision was voted down by Senate Republicans, including some who had sponsored the proposal until President Obama came out in favor of it in January 2010.)

            In what sense was today’s outcome to the debt ceiling stand-off “not good?”   It would have been better if:

• 1. The Republicans had agreed to some of President Obama’s various compromise proposals over the last year and a half; or
• 2. The showdown had at the last minute forced a “$4 trillion” Grand Bargain in which all sides had ceded ground in order to adopt a workable and credible plan to get back to fiscal responsibility gradually over the coming decade, rather than subsisting on political rhetoric.
• 3. The outcome had included something to help the current faltering recovery.
• 4. President Obama had come off looking like Gary Cooper.

           [Comments can be posted at SeekingAlpha.]

[This column is co-authored with Carlos Végh and Guillermo Vuletin and was published in VoxEU.]

Everywhere one looks, problems of fiscal policy are now center stage.   Among advanced countries, the news is bad:   Europe’s periphery teeters, the U.K. slashes, the U.S. deadlocks, Japan muddles.  But in the rest of the world there is better news:   In an historic reversal, many emerging market and developing countries have over the last decade achieved a countercyclical fiscal policy.

In the past, developing countries tended to follow procyclical fiscal policy:   they increased spending (or cut taxes) during periods of expansion and cut spending (or raised taxes) during periods of recession.  Many authors have documented that fiscal policy has tended to be procyclical in developing countries, in comparison with a pattern among industrialized countries that has been by and large countercyclical. (References for this proposition and others are available.)   Most studies look at the procyclicality of government spending, because tax receipts are particularly endogenous with respect to the business cycle.  Indeed, an important reason for procyclical spending is precisely that government receipts from taxes or mineral royalties rise in booms, and the government cannot resist the temptation or political pressure to increase spending proportionately, or even more than proportionately. One can find a similar pattern on the tax side by focusing on tax rates rather than revenues, though cross-country evidence is harder to come by.

Figure I (which is a version of evidence presented in Kaminsky, Reinhart and Vegh, 2004) depicts the correlation between government spending and GDP for 94 countries over the period 1960-1999.   More precisely, it shows the correlation between the cyclical components of spending and GDP;  the longer term trends are taken out.   The set includes 21 developed countries, which are represented by black bars, and 73 developing countries, represented by yellow bars.  A positive correlation indicates government spending that is procyclical, that is, destabilizing.  A negative correlation indicates countercyclical spending, that is, stabilizing.  

[Click here for enlargement of Figure I.] 

There is no missing the message.  Yellow bars lie overwhelmingly on the right hand side:  more than 90 percent of developing countries show positive correlations (procyclical spending).  Black bars dominate the left hand side:  around 80 per cent of industrial countries show negative correlations (countercyclical spending).

 Over the last decade there has been a historic shift in the cyclical behavior of fiscal policy in the developing world.     Figure II updates the statistics, showing the period 2000-2009.  The number of yellow bars on the left side of the graph (negative correlations) has greatly increased.   Around 35 percent of developing countries [26 out of 73] now show a countercyclical fiscal policy, more than quadruple the share during the earlier period.  

[Click here for enlargement of Figure II.] 

Figure III presents a scatter plot with the 1960-1999 correlation on the horizontal axis and the 2000-2009 correlation on the vertical axis.  The lower right quadrant shows the graduates from procyclical to countercyclical fiscal policy.  The star performers include Chile and Botswana; but 24 developing countries altogether (out of 73) have made this historic shift.  

[Click here for enlargement of Figure III.] 

The evidence of countercyclicality among many emerging market and developing countries matches up with other criteria for judging maturity in the conduct of fiscal policy:    debt/GDP ratios, rankings by rating agencies, and sovereign spreads.  Low income and emerging market countries in the aggregate have achieved debt/GDP levels around 40 percent of GDP over the last four years.  [The IMF estimates the 2011 ratio at 43 per cent among emerging market countries and 35 per cent among low-income countries]. This is the same period during which debt in advanced countries has risen from about 70 per cent of GDP to 102 percent.   The financial markets have ratified the historic turnaround.   Spreads are now lower for many emerging markets than for some “advanced countries.”    Rating agencies rank Singapore as more creditworthy than Belgium, Korea ahead of Portugal, Mexico ahead of Iceland, and just about everybody ahead of Greece.    Euromoney ranks Chile as less risky than Japan, Korea less risky than Italy, Malaysia less risky than Spain, and Brazil less risky than Portugal.

Largely as a result of their improved fiscal situations during the period 2000-2007, many emerging markets were able to bounce back from the 2008-2009 global financial crisis more quickly than advanced countries.   

What explains the ability of some countries, particularly emerging market and developing countries, to escape the trap of procyclical fiscal policy? Many researchers have pointed to the importance of institutions.  In new research we find that the cyclicality of a country’s fiscal policy is inversely correlated with the country’s institutional quality (which includes measures of law and order, bureaucracy quality, corruption, and other risks to investment).    The relationship holds also when instrumental variables are used.

Although one thinks of institutions as slow-moving, they can change over time.   Chile’s institutional quality has risen strongly since the early 1980s, during which time its fiscal policy has turned from procyclical to countercyclical.   A country with good institutional quality in the general sense of rule of law can help lock in countercyclical fiscal policy through specific budget institutions.   Chile did it with the structural budget reforms of 2000 and 2006.   Chile’s approach could be emulated by others.

Fiscal rules, such as euroland’s  Stability and Growth Pact, may accomplish little in themselves.   Rules can actually worsen the tendency of governments to make overly optimistic forecasts for economic growth and budget balance.   Chile’s key innovation was to give responsibility for forecasting to independent expert commissions, insulated from politicians’ wishful thinking.

Even advanced countries have something to learn about countercyclical fiscal policy from Chile and others to the South.  Saving during expansions such as 2001-06 is critical for weathering the storm in recessions such as 2008-09.  Otherwise there may be no way out but to adjust at the worst possible time.