To address this crisis, Egypt has turned to international lenders and allies, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. They have secured over $50 billion in financial commitments in 2023 alone.

These interventions have allowed Egypt to implement critical short-term measures, such as devaluing its currency, reducing subsidies and increasing interest rates. Meanwhile, the IMF has offered an $8 billion loan package as part of its 2022 program for Egypt, aiming to mitigate currency overvaluation and fiscal imbalances. Yet analysts like Steven Cook, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, note that Egypt’s economic resilience remains uncertain without deeper structural reforms. This is particularly true given the limited progress on divesting military-controlled businesses and liberalizing the private sector.

Egypt’s exchange rate has shown significant volatility over the past two decades, with the Egyptian pound (EGP) experiencing sharp depreciations against the United States dollar (USD). In 2024, the EGP/USD rate dropped by 37.03%, driven by shrinking foreign currency reserves, a widening trade deficit and rising demand for USD amidst persistent economic uncertainties. The Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) has responded with various stabilization measures, including devaluations, interest rate hikes and capital controls. However, structural economic challenges and market pressures continue to weigh on the EGP, signaling ongoing currency instability for the near term.

Historically, Egypt’s crisis reflects a dependence on international financial aid to address chronic fiscal issues. The country has experienced at least eight significant BOP crises since 1952, each leading to IMF programs or financial interventions from international partners to stabilize the economy temporarily. However, these interventions have rarely resulted in lasting reforms, as Egypt often returns to fixed or highly stabilized exchange rates following periods of financial distress. This recurring cycle is largely driven by Egypt’s state-centric governance model and persistent cronyism, which have deterred sustainable growth and prevented the formation of a resilient market economy.

While Egypt’s strategic importance makes it “too big to fail” for many international partners, questions remain about whether the current assistance will drive meaningful change or merely delay another crisis. According to a report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and research from the IMF, without comprehensive reform, Egypt risks continued fiscal and economic instability. Experts argue that structural adjustments — including reducing military control of the economy and allowing a fully flexible exchange rate — are essential for breaking the cycle of economic instability and achieving sustainable growth.

Case comparisons: Argentina and Turkey’s currency crises

The economic trajectories of Argentina and Turkey offer insights into the cyclical nature of currency crises in emerging markets, particularly those burdened with high levels of external debt and recurrent currency depreciation. These cases demonstrate the limitations of short-term financial fixes in the absence of comprehensive structural reforms and robust fiscal management, with implications relevant to Egypt’s current economic challenges.

Argentina’s financial history is marked by chronic fiscal mismanagement, high external debt and recurrent reliance on IMF bailouts. Since the early 2000s, Argentina has defaulted on its debt multiple times, eroding investor confidence and creating a volatile investment environment. The country’s approach has typically focused on immediate crisis resolution through IMF assistance, currency devaluation and austerity measures, rather than on deep structural reforms. For instance, Argentina’s 2000–2002 crisis, during which it defaulted on $95 billion in debt, led to a sharp devaluation of the peso and significant social hardship. Despite an IMF bailout and subsequent restructuring, Argentina’s pattern of accumulating debt and renegotiating it without establishing a sustainable fiscal framework has continued. This culminated in additional defaults in 2014 and 2020.

The core of Argentina’s instability lies in its weak fiscal discipline, characterized by chronic budget deficits and a lack of political consensus on sustainable economic policies. This instability has created a self-perpetuating cycle: High debt burdens lead to recurring defaults, eroding trust among foreign investors, which then necessitates further reliance on external support and austerity measures, perpetuating economic fragility. Argentina’s experiences underscore the limitations of debt-driven growth and the dangers of relying on short-term financial infusions without addressing underlying structural issues, such as public spending control and inflation stabilization.

Turkey’s recent economic difficulties stem from a combination of high inflation, excessive reliance on foreign-denominated debt and an unorthodox approach to monetary policy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Unlike Argentina, Turkey’s crisis has been driven by its refusal to adhere to conventional monetary strategies, particularly concerning interest rate management. Erdoğan’s insistence on maintaining low interest rates, despite high inflation, has led to significant currency depreciation; the Turkish lira has lost over 80% of its value against the dollar from 2018 to 2023.

Turkey’s debt dynamics, particularly its dependence on short-term foreign debt, have exacerbated this volatility. Turkish corporations and financial institutions, heavily indebted in foreign currency, face severe financial strain as the lira depreciates, making dollar-denominated debt more expensive to service. This high level of exposure to external financing has heightened Turkey’s vulnerability to global economic conditions, such as interest rate hikes by the US Federal Reserve. It has increased the cost of borrowing for emerging markets.

Jeffrey Frankel, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, notes that Turkey’s reliance on foreign capital, paired with its unorthodox policy stance, has deterred investors. It has further devalued the currency and intensified inflation.

Policy shifts and economic reforms

Egypt’s rising external debt raises concerns about the government’s capacity to service it without continuous outside assistance. This debt burden puts downward pressure on the currency, as investors demand higher returns to offset the risks associated with holding Egyptian assets. Moreover, declining foreign exchange reserves have limited the Central Bank of Egypt’s (CBE) ability to stabilize the currency, contributing to further depreciation. Countries like Argentina have encountered similar difficulties, with diminishing reserves constraining options for currency defense and increasing reliance on the IMF.

The CBE’s recent shift to a more flexible exchange rate is intended to attract foreign investment and fulfill IMF requirements, allowing the EGP to fluctuate more freely. While a floating currency can provide stability over time, Egypt’s experience reflects the risks associated with rapid depreciation. This phenomenon is also evident in Turkey’s recent currency challenges.

To counteract inflation, the CBE has raised interest rates, hoping to draw in foreign investment; however, this has not been sufficient to prevent the EGP’s decline. This underscores the need for comprehensive economic reforms to secure long-term stability.

Strategic economic reforms for Egypt

Ruchir Agarwal, a Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government (M-RCBG) research fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, and Adnan Mazarei, a non-resident senior fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), argue that Egypt’s recurring economic crises, exacerbated by governance and policy shortcomings, require a fundamental shift in approach. They emphasize that Egypt has to address governance and policy deficiencies, military dominance and cronyism to implement necessary economic reforms and break its cycle of recurring crises, rather than relying on international financial bailouts.

To stabilize and attract foreign investment, Egypt should prioritize macroeconomic stability and regulatory reform using four steps. First, maintaining a flexible exchange rate will help reduce speculative pressure on the EGP, creating a more predictable environment for investors. Second, focusing on inflation control through targeted subsidies and supply chain improvements would further support this stability. Third, by adopting global standards in transparency and corporate governance, Egypt can build investor confidence; streamlining regulatory processes would make foreign investment more accessible. Finally, reducing the military’s role in the economy, curbing cronyism and enforcing anti-corruption measures could help establish a more equitable environment for private businesses.

The Egyptian conundrum: elite capital flight and economic stability

Egypt’s economic journey has frequently involved partnerships with the IMF to address persistent fiscal challenges and stabilize the macroeconomic framework. However, one of the most significant yet underexplored dynamics undermining Egypt’s fiscal stability is elite capital flight — the large-scale transfer of domestic wealth by political and economic elites to offshore financial centers. This practice has far-reaching consequences for economic development, governance and societal equity.

Egypt’s case exemplifies the challenges of elite capital flight. Over decades, economic and political elites have transferred vast sums of wealth to offshore havens, facilitated by weak anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks and global financial opacity. While exact figures are difficult to ascertain, estimates of the financial assets held abroad by Egyptian elites highlight the magnitude of this issue.

These outflows coincide with structural economic inefficiencies and governance gaps, leaving the state financially constrained. In turn, the government is often forced to implement austerity measures or seek external funding, amplifying socio-economic pressures.

Elite capital flight undermines economic stability and development through several interrelated mechanisms. It exacerbates socio-economic disparities. While elites secure their wealth abroad, the general population faces the consequences of reduced public spending and austerity measures. This creates a dual economic reality where the wealthy remain insulated from domestic economic pressures, while lower-income groups bear the brunt of fiscal challenges.

Elite capital flight is a longstanding feature of Egypt’s economic landscape, deeply rooted in governance inefficiencies and weak regulatory frameworks. Economic and political elites often perceive domestic instability, potential expropriation or shifts in policy as triggers for safeguarding wealth abroad. These dynamics are facilitated by global financial systems that accommodate opaque wealth transfers and shield assets from domestic scrutiny.

Egypt’s economic elite have historically diversified their financial portfolios, funneling resources into offshore financial centers such as Switzerland, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions with favorable conditions for wealth concealment. This “insurance” mechanism not only provides security against domestic uncertainties but deprives the nation of critical resources that could otherwise bolster infrastructure, public services and social programs. As Andreas Kern, a Teaching Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, argues, “the ability to draw on the IMF creates perverse economic incentives so that a country’s elites can privatize economic gains by moving funds into offshore financial destinations before the arrival of the Fund.”

Egypt’s economic trajectory highlights the interplay between governance failures, elite capture and external financial interventions. Without addressing the systemic drivers of elite capital flight, external assistance risks perpetuating a cycle of dependency rather than fostering sustainable growth. As global scrutiny on financial transparency intensifies, Egypt’s experience offers valuable lessons for crafting more equitable and resilient economic policies.

Egypt’s next steps

To effectively implement and sustain the policy recommendations made in this piece, in addition to macroeconomics and government reform, Egypt must prioritize the development of expertise in AML and counter-financing of terrorism (CFT). This will require a skilled workforce across financial regulation, law enforcement and compliance to ensure that Egypt’s AML/CFT frameworks align with international standards while addressing the country’s unique economic challenges. Building this expertise will involve continuous training, technical assistance and collaboration with global organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and IMF.

Elite capital flight also represents a significant barrier to Egypt’s economic development and stability. By diverting critical resources from the domestic economy, it exacerbates fiscal deficits, perpetuates inequality and undermines trust in governance. Addressing this issue requires a comprehensive approach that combines domestic reforms with international cooperation to foster a more equitable and resilient economic framework. For Egypt, tackling elite capital flight is not only a question of fiscal prudence but also of social and economic justice.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Egypt’s Policy Challenges and Deep Reforms for Lasting Financial Stability appeared first on Fair Observer.

In the US, where industrial policies, tariffs and labor-market shifts play a pivotal role in economic competitiveness, the ongoing trade tensions with China are proving to be a significant factor in shaping the future of work. As manufacturing jobs evolve in response to technological advances and shifting global markets, the broader narrative of globalization is also changing. This shift presents new opportunities and challenges, with profound implications for economic stability, workforce development and the overall trajectory of international trade. The outcome of this complex interaction will determine the US’s ability to adapt to a new economic order while safeguarding its industrial base and global competitiveness.

The Kuznets curve and manufacturing employment

The Kuznets curve is a graphic illustration of an economic theory introduced by Simon Kuznets. It shows an inverted-U-shaped relationship between economic development and income inequality, positing that inequality rises during early industrialization but declines as economies reach advanced stages of development. The curve framework illustrates that as economies mature and technological advancements drive productivity, manufacturing’s share of employment tends to decline, pushing nations toward service-oriented sectors. This inverted-U-shaped trajectory suggests that both income inequality and manufacturing employment follow a similar pattern in response to structural economic transformations. For developing regions such as Africa, where manufacturing plays a critical role in employment, the Kuznets curve provides a useful framework for understanding the complex dynamics of industrialization and employment as economies mature.

The transformative role of AI in manufacturing

AI and automation technologies are driving a profound transformation in the manufacturing sector, automating many tasks previously performed by human workers. This shift is enhancing productivity, enabling companies to sustain or increase output levels with a smaller workforce. Further, the growth of AI and automation is contributing to a structural shift from manufacturing toward services and knowledge-based sectors. As high-skill industries, such as software development and data science, expand, they attract educated workers, while manufacturing employment stagnates or declines. For many developing countries, the rise of automation could make it harder to maintain large-scale manufacturing jobs as advanced economies increasingly turn to robotics and AI-driven production to stay competitive.

The inverted-U-shaped relationship between manufacturing employment and GDP per capita reflects a broader transition from labor-intensive manufacturing to service-oriented economies. This shift is not solely a result of economic development but also reflects the influence of advancing technologies, which reduce the need for manufacturing labor.

While this may benefit high-income countries by reducing labor costs and boosting efficiency, it poses significant challenges for developing economies. These economies, which traditionally relied on labor-intensive manufacturing to fuel economic growth and job creation, may find that the model is no longer as feasible in a world increasingly dominated by automated production processes. As AI and automation reshape the global production landscape, policymakers face the challenge of balancing support for manufacturing with fostering innovation in service and technology sectors to ensure long-term economic resilience.

For developing nations, sustaining manufacturing as a vital employment source requires adapting industrial policies to embrace both traditional manufacturing and high-growth, technology-driven sectors. In high-income nations, on the other hand, AI and automation are essential for retaining competitiveness in high-value sectors. For example, specialized manufacturing remains vital, as seen in industries like aerospace, biotechnology and electronics in the US, Japan and Germany. Here, manufacturing is integrated with high-value services, maintaining competitiveness through constant innovation.

The complex transformation of US manufacturing employment

As the global economy shifts, manufacturing employment in the US faces a complex transformation, intricately connected to the ongoing trade dynamics with China. Historically, US manufacturing employment surged with industrialization, but the rise of automation, coupled with shifting trade policies, has led to a gradual decline in these jobs. The US–China trade relationship has played a pivotal role in shaping this trajectory. China’s growing dominance in manufacturing, aided by low-cost production and state-driven economic policies, has led to significant outsourcing of US manufacturing jobs, exacerbating concerns over job loss and wage stagnation in key sectors.

In response, the US has increasingly turned to tariffs and industrial policies, notably during the Trump administration, to counteract China’s perceived unfair trade practices, such as intellectual property theft and subsidies to domestic industries. While these tariffs were intended to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US and reduce reliance on China, they also brought unintended consequences, such as higher costs for US consumers and disrupted supply chains. Moreover, these trade wars have highlighted the delicate balance between protecting domestic industries and fostering long-term economic growth.

Simultaneously, the rise of automation and artificial intelligence in manufacturing further complicates the issue. As advanced economies like the US embrace AI-driven production to stay competitive, manufacturing jobs are increasingly automated, reducing the number of workers needed in these sectors. The decline in manufacturing employment is not just a result of trade policy but also a structural shift driven by technological advances. This poses a significant challenge for policymakers as they seek to navigate the dual pressures of protecting employment and encouraging technological innovation. Ultimately, the future of US manufacturing employment will depend on balancing industrial policies, trade strategies and the need to foster both high-skill jobs in technology-driven sectors and resilient manufacturing industries that can adapt to the changing global landscape.

Historical perspective on tariffs and economic growth

While tariffs undeniably helped protect emerging American industries, their primary function before 1913 was as a crucial revenue source for the federal government, funding about 90% of expenditures. This revenue was essential for infrastructure and military needs in a time when other federal taxes were nearly nonexistent. Economist Yeo Joon Yoon argues that America’s rapid economic growth was not only a result of tariffs but also due to favorable institutional conditions, such as the absence of direct taxes on income and corporate profits, which allowed capital to be freely reinvested. This fiscal environment, combined with a growing market and resource base, offered additional momentum for economic expansion.

Early US Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, a key advocate for industrial growth, recognized both the opportunities and constraints that tariffs imposed. While he promoted tariffs as a way to nurture US industry, he cautioned against excessively high rates that could reduce imports and, consequently, government revenue. For a young nation reliant on foreign goods and raw materials, finding the right tariff balance was vital for sustaining both government funding and industrial growth. This complex approach reflects early American economic policy’s reliance on tariffs as a flexible tool for revenue, protection and stability.

Modern protectionists often refer to 19th-century America as a model of successful industrial growth under high tariffs. Figures like former US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer argue that tariffs were key to America’s transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial powerhouse. Advocates such as Oren Cass and Michael Lind also suggest that tariffs enabled the US to pursue import-substitution policies that supported domestic industries. For them, 19th-century tariff policy exemplifies how protective measures can help build and sustain local industries, despite the associated trade-offs.

However, Hamilton’s careful approach to tariffs reflected a nuanced understanding of economic development, balancing protectionist goals with the need to keep markets open to support revenue and ensure access to imported goods. His caution underscores the complex nature of tariff policy, where protecting industries had to be weighed against the need for stable federal funding. While tariffs shielded fledgling American industries, they were vulnerable to economic cycles and international trade fluctuations that could impact revenue streams.

The introduction of the modern federal income tax, passed in 1913 on the heels of the 16th Amendment, marked a turning point in American fiscal policy. With this new source of income, the government gained financial flexibility and could pursue targeted economic policies beyond tariffs. This shift diminished the federal government’s dependence on tariffs, allowing for a more diversified fiscal strategy that could support economic development without relying solely on trade barriers. This historical evolution underscores that while tariffs can play a vital role in early industrial growth, their effectiveness is greatly enhanced when complemented by broader fiscal tools, such as income taxes, which provide the government with more stable and adaptable revenue sources.

US–China trade history

The US–China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) policy aligns with a broader historical framework of US foreign policy, beginning with President Richard Nixon’s 1972 initiative to establish diplomatic ties with China. Nixon’s decision marked a strategic pivot, recognizing China’s rising economic and military influence and the importance of constructive engagement. This vision influenced the US’s decision to grant China PNTR status in the late 1990s, rooted in the belief that integrating China into the global economy would reduce risks associated with isolating a growing power.

By normalizing trade relations, the US aimed to encourage China to adhere to international trade norms, fostering stability through economic interdependence. Advocates viewed PNTR as part of a strategy to promote gradual economic and policy alignment. While China’s rapid export-led growth and market integration reflected some successes, challenges persisted, particularly in areas like intellectual property rights, trade imbalances and China’s state-driven economic approach.

While China has adopted some global trade practices, particularly in exports and production, it continues to selectively comply with international norms, especially in areas like intellectual property protection. This selective compliance has fueled ongoing tensions with the US, particularly during the 2018–2020 trade war initiated by President Donald Trump. The trade war aimed to address perceived unfair practices through tariffs and other measures under Sections 301 and 232, targeting industries such as electronics and high-tech equipment. These tariffs were designed to reduce China’s trade imbalances and encourage greater market access, highlighting the US’s concerns over China’s protectionist policies and state-driven economic model.

Despite these tariffs, which failed to yield significant changes in Chinese behavior, the US–China trade friction underscored China’s drive for technological self-sufficiency. In response, China accelerated its efforts in innovation, placing a greater emphasis on research and development, technology transfer and fostering collaborations between industry and academia. These initiatives aim to reduce China’s reliance on external technology and strengthen its domestic capabilities. This ongoing tension between the two nations reveals the strategic importance of high-tech sectors in a globally connected economy, where both must navigate the delicate balance between protectionism and innovation to remain competitive.

Balancing national security and economic efficiency

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, speaking at the Stephen C. Friedheim Symposium on Global Economics hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, outlined President Joe Biden’s administration’s strategy for aligning international economic policy with domestic priorities. Yellen emphasized the need to balance economic efficiency with national security, particularly regarding China and key industrial sectors. While acknowledging China’s low-cost production of essential goods like solar panels — which could advance climate goals if heavily relied upon — Yellen warned of the risks of over-dependence. She stressed the importance of strengthening supply-chain resilience and promoting US domestic manufacturing, even at the expense of higher costs.

Yellen also addressed China’s high savings rate, which has fueled substantial subsidies in advanced sectors like semiconductors and clean energy, contributing to global overcapacity and undermining industries in the US and other countries. She called for China to shift its focus toward increasing consumer spending and reinforcing social safety nets, though the Chinese government continues to prioritize state-backed investments. The secretary observed that the Chinese government has chosen instead to continue funneling resources into state-backed investments. She cautioned that this approach could lead to a “slippery slope,” where demands for subsidies may extend across more industries, potentially straining fiscal discipline. Also, the subsidy programs implemented by Japan, the European Union and other select groups perpetuate crony capitalism, fostering undue influence and squandering taxpayer resources. Given these dynamics, the US may wish to maintain or even strengthen trade barriers to counteract practices, particularly extensive subsidies, not only in China but also in Japan and the European Union, practices which distort global markets and undermine US competitiveness. 

Her analysis reflects the administration’s belief that targeted trade and industrial policies are vital for national security and long-term economic stability, despite the short-term challenges they may pose. In parallel, the Biosecure Act, recently passed by the US House of Representatives, seeks to restrict US pharmaceutical partnerships with certain Chinese companies due to national security concerns — an action contested by firms like WuXi AppTec. Amid rising geopolitical tensions and ongoing tariffs, US drugmakers are diversifying their supply chains to reduce reliance on Chinese suppliers. This shift is part of a broader strategy to enhance resilience, though it comes with increased costs and potential delays as companies seek high-standard alternatives. The move highlights the tradeoff between securing supply chains and managing rising production expenses, which could impact drug prices and availability in the US market.

Negotiating this crossroads

As US–China trade tensions persist, the US faces a critical balancing act between fostering economic growth, driving technological innovation and maintaining global competitiveness. The rapid evolution of automation and AI in manufacturing is reshaping the economic landscape, presenting a dual challenge: the US must preserve its industrial base while adapting to an increasingly service-oriented economy. At the same time, US trade policies — especially tariffs and industrial strategies designed to address China’s trade practices — further complicate this transition.

While tariffs on Chinese goods may offer short-term protection to certain US industries, they have also exposed deeper structural challenges. The risk is that these trade measures could inadvertently stifle the very innovation that is essential for the US to maintain long-term global competitiveness. As policymakers grapple with these issues, it’s clear that a nuanced trade approach, focused not only on protecting domestic industries but also on cultivating a highly skilled workforce for emerging sectors, will be crucial for ensuring the nation’s economic resilience.

This evolving dynamic emphasizes the urgent need for a more refined global trade framework, particularly within the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO must adapt to the rising importance of industrial policy globally, ensuring that trade rules remain relevant in an era of technological transformation. Equipped with an updated toolkit, the WTO can help nations navigate the delicate balance between pursuing national industrial strategies and fostering global cooperation. How the US responds to these shifts in manufacturing employment and trade policy will ultimately define its ability to thrive in a rapidly changing global economic order.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Reshoring: Reality or Myth? US–China Trade and the Future of American Manufacturing appeared first on Fair Observer.

The euro, underpinned by the Eurozone’s robust institutional framework, offers political stability and a solid monetary authority. These traits make it a compelling candidate for a global reserve currency. Nevertheless, the structural and political fragmentation within the European Union and divergent fiscal policies among its member states undermine the euro’s reliability as a universal reserve asset. As of 2023, the euro accounts for just 21% of global foreign exchange reserves compared to the US dollar’s commanding 58%. Even with the issuance of 400 billion euros (over $447 billion) in jointly backed debt during the Covid-19 crisis, the Eurozone still lacks the deep and liquid debt markets needed to elevate the euro’s status as a reserve currency.

China’s rapid economic growth and its expanding role in global trade have significantly boosted the renminbi’s global status. In 2023, the renminbi accounted for 3.71% of global payments by value, according to Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT). Its share of trade finance payments doubled from 4% in 2022 to 8% in 2024. These advancements, driven by China’s economic prowess, have positioned the renminbi as a potential global reserve currency.

However, it still faces substantial obstacles that deter other countries from adopting the renminbi as a reserve currency. These include strict capital controls, a lack of transparency in financial markets and the Chinese Communist Party’s centralized political power.

The dollar’s competition

Recent discussions highlight potential shifts that could influence the demand for dollar alternatives. For instance, emerging markets might begin issuing more debt in the currencies of their trading partners, like China. In 2023, China’s Panda bond market experienced record growth, with foreign issuers raising over $15.3 billion in renminbi-denominated bonds, up from $12.4 billion in 2022. This major growth signals an increasing confidence in the renminbi as a funding currency, potentially advancing its status as a reserve currency.

Also, China’s efforts to promote the renminbi as a global currency include the 2015 establishment of the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) and the development of the digital yuan (e-CNY). These initiatives aim to reduce reliance on US-dominated financial systems like SWIFT and increase the renminbi’s global accessibility. However, the renminbi’s share of global reserves remains minimal, at just 3% compared to the dollar’s 58%.

Furthermore, the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) could reshape the global currency landscape. However, the dollar’s dominance in DeFi trading, where 99% of stablecoins are pegged to the dollar, suggests that any expansion in digital currencies will likely reinforce the dollar’s role.

Why the dollar endures

Despite the growing presence of the euro and renminbi, the dollar remains firmly in the lead. Its stability and liquidity, combined with the US’s geopolitical influence — which is underpinned by a $877 billion military budget — ensures its continued dominance. The euro faces significant hurdles due to political fragmentation within the EU and differing fiscal policies among its member states. These undermine its reliability as a universal reserve currency despite its relatively large share of global reserves.

Geopolitical factors also play a crucial role in maintaining the dollar’s dominance. Its status as the world’s leading currency is reinforced by US political and military supremacy, as well as its unrivaled sanctioning power. Countries that rely on the dollar for international trade and financial transactions are more likely to align their policies with US interests. This further entrenches its central role in the global financial system.

From an econophysics perspective, the strength of the dollar evidently endures compared to the euro and renminbi. By quantifying the divergence rates between the dollar and these currencies, analysis reaffirms the dollar’s role as the core of the global financial system from 2001 to 2022. Even with emerging challengers, its dominance is likely to persist. It is supported by the unparalleled liquidity of US financial markets, the US’s geopolitical influence and the historical legacy of the Bretton Woods system.

While the euro and renminbi have made notable strides in global trade and finance, they do not yet present credible alternatives to the dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency. The structural and political challenges both currencies face suggest that the dollar’s dominance will continue for the foreseeable future.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Can the Euro or Renminbi Really Challenge the US Dollar? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Ishiba’s idealism (or “Ishibaism”) has long placed him at odds with the late Prime Minister and LDP President Shinzo Abe, whose vision for Japan centered on bolstering national power and economic dominance. By contrast, Ishiba advocates “purer” solutions that aim for deeper structural improvements. This divergence is central to his critique of “Abe politics,” which he sees as prioritizing short-term gains over long-term national rejuvenation.

Ishiba and incumbent Prime Minister Fumio Kishida are committed to refocusing Japan’s growth strategies on rural regions, which have been disproportionately affected by economic disparities. While Ishiba is inclined towards fiscal discipline, he is unlikely to pursue immediate austerity measures; rather, he will probably consider carefully timed tax increases to finance rising defense expenditures.

Ishiba’s policies to manage economic turmoil

In March 2024, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) raised interest rates for the first time in 17 years. This signals an end to its negative interest rate policy in response to persistent inflationary pressures. In July, the yen dropped to its lowest value in 38 years; a second rate hike followed. Political pressure had been building for such hikes to address the yen’s devaluation.

By early August, Japan’s stock market experienced a historic decline. It was partly triggered by concerns over the BOJ’s hawkish stance — a stance advocating immediate, vigorous action — and a hard slowdown in the US economy predicted by the Sahm Rule. Yet a soft landing was also predicted, as the US economy is currently strong. The decline caused political sentiment in Nagatachō — the district in Tokyo where the prime minister resides — to shift.

The Salm Rule observes the unemployment rate over the past 12 months to identify economic struggle; if the rate increases by half a percent or more in a three-month period, the rule is triggered. This usually happens at the start of a recession. Via Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Ishiba is expected to uphold the principle of central bank independence, a cornerstone of sound monetary policy as exemplified by institutions like the US Federal Reserve (or the Fed). By maintaining the BOJ’s autonomy, economists evaluate that Ishiba will allow Governor Kazuo Ueda the space needed to pursue further rate normalization, which will enhance Japan’s economic stability.

Ishiba emphasized that the government is in no position to direct monetary policy. However, he expressed his expectations that Japan’s economy will continue to progress sustainably under the BOJ’s accommodative stance, ultimately eradicating deflation. He underscored the importance of maintaining close collaboration with the central bank to observe market trends calmly and cautiously, while engaging in careful communication with market participants.

Prior to the prime minister’s remarks, Ueda indicated that the BOJ is strongly supporting Japan’s economy through its highly accommodative monetary policy. Future adjustments to monetary easing are contingent on economic and inflationary developments aligning with BOJ projections. Regardless, Ueda noted that there is ample time to evaluate these conditions, and the BOJ will proceed carefully.

Ueda further clarified that there were no specific requests made by the prime minister regarding monetary policy. Additionally, the joint 2013 accord between the government and the BOJ, prioritizing the early elimination of deflation and sustainable economic growth, was not part of their discussion.

Takaichi’s opposition to monetary tightening

Ishiba plans to appoint former Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato as Minister of Finance. Kato, who is a former member of the Ministry of Finance, was first elected to the House of Representatives in the 2003 general election. He served as Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary during the Abe administration and championed the continuation of Abe’s economic policy, “Abenomics,” during the party presidential election. As always, this is the mysterious LDP way of saying, “inadequate knowledge and strategies can lead to harm.”

Sanae Takaichi, another strong conservative-leadership contender from the House of Representatives, is a staunch advocate of continued monetary easing. She has publicly opposed the BOJ’s rate hikes. During a recent online discussion, she argued that tightening monetary policy at this juncture would be premature, calling it “foolish.” Takaichi’s stance has raised fears about potential political interference in the central bank’s operations, reminiscent of certain US political figures like former President Donald Trump, who seeks to exert control over the Fed.

Meanwhile, some observers worry about having a repeat of the United Kingdom’s experience in 2022: The government of then-UK Prime Minister Liz Truss employed aggressive fiscal expansion which, compounded by concurrent rate hikes by the Bank of England, led to sharp currency depreciation and a surge in interest rates. Observers caution Japan to avoid a similar scenario, where ill-considered political statements trigger a destabilizing “Truss shock.” Indeed, Takaichi’s remarks have already contributed to volatility in the foreign exchange market, causing fluctuations in the US dollar/Japanese yen rate.

The yen depreciated from 143,000 to 146,000 following Takaichi’s rally, reversing the earlier appreciation from 146,000 to 142,000 that occurred after Ishiba’s selection. Via TradingView

Ishiba envisions the creation of an “Asian NATO” as essential for securing robust regional deterrence, with serious consideration of nuclear sharing with the US. He also desires a revision of the US–Japan Status of Forces Agreement, addressing concerns related to jurisdiction, environmental protection and the balance of legal authority between both nations over military activities and personnel.

In line with this strategic vision, it appears that he is willing to prioritize short-term economic gains over central bank independence. This signals a potential shift in his economic approach moving forward.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Will Takaichi’s Risky Opposition Now Challenge Ishiba’s Economic Reform? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Furthermore, I believe opposition to CBI risks politicizing monetary policy. I recommend strengthening legal protections for CBI, enhancing the legal framework and prioritizing long-term stability over short-term political gains. Additionally, we should promote international agreements and cooperation among central banks to effectively manage global economic spillovers. These measures are essential for preserving the integrity and effectiveness of central banks in a rapidly changing global economy.

The role of central bank independence

Central bank independence is essential for maintaining a balanced approach to monetary policy, particularly in managing the trade-off between inflation and unemployment.

According to the Federal Reserve (or the Fed), the Federal Reserve System is “independent within the government:” It works within the framework established by Congress. By operating independently of the government, central banks can focus on long-term economic objectives rather than succumbing to short-term political pressures. This independence prevents governments from using monetary policy to achieve electoral gains, such as artificially lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy before an election.

Moreover, an independent central bank is better positioned to manage inflation, which is a critical component of economic stability. When inflation is allowed to rise unchecked, it can erode purchasing power, destabilize financial markets and harm economic growth. By maintaining a focus on price stability, central banks prevent these negative effects and actively create an environment conducive to sustainable economic development. This offers a hopeful outlook for economic growth.

CBI has long been regarded as a cornerstone of sound economic governance, particularly in an increasingly globalized economy. As nations become more integrated through trade, finance and technology, the ability of central banks to operate independently from political influence has become crucial for maintaining economic stability.

One of the key drivers behind the global movement toward CBI is the need to attract and retain foreign investment. In a globalized economy, countries compete for capital and investors seek stability and predictability in monetary policy. Central banks perceived as free from political interference are more likely to inspire confidence among investors. As a result, many countries, particularly emerging markets, adopted or strengthened CBI as part of broader economic reforms aimed at integrating into the global economy.

The experience of countries like Chile and South Korea in the 1990s illustrates this. Both nations, seeking to stabilize their economies and attract foreign investment, implemented significant reforms that enhanced the independence of their central banks. These reforms were instrumental in reducing inflation and fostering economic growth, demonstrating the positive impact of CBI in a globalized world.

During the Eurozone debt crisis that began in 2009, the European Central Bank (ECB)’s independence was critical in preventing the collapse of the euro. As several Eurozone countries, including Greece, Ireland and Portugal, faced severe financial difficulties, the ECB resisted political pressure from member states to engage in direct bailout financing. Instead, it implemented unconventional monetary policies, such as the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) program. This provided a backstop for sovereign bonds without directly compromising its independence. This approach was pivotal in stabilizing financial markets and restoring investor confidence, helping to prevent the crisis from spreading further across Europe.

Donald Trump’s opposition to CBI and the risks of weakening it

Former United States President Donald Trump has expressed his view that, as president, he should have more influence over monetary policy. He has suggested that his business success gives him better instincts than those at the Fed. He criticized Fed Chairman Jerome Powell for poor timing in policy decisions, asserting that central banking is largely based on “gut feeling.”

During a press conference in August 2024, Trump asserted, “I think that, in my case, I made a lot of money. I was very successful. And I think I have a better instinct than, in many cases, people that would be on the Federal Reserve or the chairman.” Trump’s business success, particularly in the real estate sector, where he has built a multi-billion-dollar empire, gives him a unique perspective on economic growth. Trump’s preference for easy money and low interest rates reflects his background in real estate, where tight money can harm developers.

Trump’s desire for more direct control over the Fed is reminiscent of historical instances where political influence over monetary policy led to disastrous outcomes. A notable example is US President Richard Nixon’s influence over Fed Chairman Arthur Burns in the 1970s, which resulted in policies that contributed to the stagflation of that era — characterized by high inflation and stagnant economic growth. Trump’s approach risks repeating these mistakes by prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term stability.

Trump appointed Jerome Powell as Fed Chairman but later criticized him when the Fed did not lower rates. Trump also favors a weak dollar, believing it benefits exports; critics, however, argue that this approach harms Americans. Regardless, Trump would need a legal change to gain more control over the Fed. This is unlikely given the political risks and the Senate’s role in confirming any Fed Chair.

Trump criticized the Fed’s timing on monetary decisions. In particular, he noted that its models are outdated, still relying on a flawed tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. He pointed out that the Fed’s policies, such as quantitative easing (QE) and the expanded balance sheet, have given it excessive influence over the economy. Trump believes a debate over the Fed’s mandate and models would be beneficial. Economists, however, warn that focusing on easy money and a weak dollar could lead to more inflation and economic problems in a potential second term.

Trump’s criticism of the Fed, particularly his calls for lower interest rates and more accessible monetary policy, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of central banks. As a businessman with a background in real estate — a sector that thrives on low interest rates — Trump’s preference for easy money is understandable but misguided when applied to national monetary policy. His critique overlooks the risks associated with such an approach, like the potential for inflation to spiral out of control.

Trump’s advocacy for easy money is particularly concerning in the context of inflation. While low interest rates can stimulate economic growth in the short term, they also increase the risk of inflation if not carefully managed. The Fed’s primary mandate is to balance the goals of maximum employment and price stability. However, political interference that prioritizes growth at any cost could lead to the abandonment of this careful balance, resulting in higher inflation and economic instability.

Additionally, weakening CBI could undermine the Fed’s ability to respond effectively to economic crises. The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated the importance of a strong and independent central bank in stabilizing the economy. The Fed’s swift actions, including quantitative easing and emergency lending facilities, were crucial in preventing a deeper recession. Political influence that hampers the Fed’s ability to act decisively in future crises could have severe consequences for the US and global economies.

Weakening CBI can also exacerbate economic inequality, which is a growing concern in many advanced economies. When political figures influence monetary policy to achieve specific economic outcomes, like lower interest rates to spur growth before an election, the benefits often accrue disproportionately to certain sectors, like those reliant on cheap credit. Meanwhile, the costs — such as higher inflation — can disproportionately impact lower-income households. Inflation erodes the purchasing power of fixed incomes and savings, which can exacerbate wealth disparities and strain the social fabric.

The Biden administration’s commitment to CBI

The global shift towards CBI is not just a change in monetary policy but a significant evolution that carries the weight of history. It is a response to the devastating inflationary episodes of the 1970s and 1980s, a movement that was a deliberate rethinking of the central banks’ role. This shift is rooted in the understanding that politically driven monetary decisions could lead to destabilizing and unsustainable economic conditions.

In the US, the passing of the Federal Reserve Reform Act (1977) marked a pivotal moment in this global shift. By enshrining the Fed’s dual mandate — promoting full employment and maintaining price stability — Congress also took crucial steps to protect the central bank from political interference. Incumbent President Joe Biden’s administration, building on Trump-era policies, has pursued significant investments in key industries through initiatives like the CHIPS and Science Act (2022) and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022). Some of these major industries include green energy and semiconductor manufacturing.

These initiatives demonstrate a strategic alignment of fiscal and industrial policy, aiming to strengthen domestic supply chains and promote technological leadership. While advocates argue that they enhance economic resilience and innovation, they also raise questions about the potential erosion of CBI. Central banks, traditionally insulated from political pressures, might face increasing demands to coordinate with government-led industrial policies. This would challenge the delicate balance between fiscal and monetary objectives.

Though a more collaborative approach between fiscal and monetary policy could generate short-term economic benefits, it also risks compromising the central bank’s ability to act independently to stabilize inflation and manage long-term economic health. This legislative move was significant because it showcased the importance of allowing the Fed to operate independently. It recognized that short-term political pressures could undermine the economy’s long-term stability.

The US experience set a powerful example that soon influenced global economic policy. In 1997, both the Bank of England (BoE) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) were granted formal independence. This signaled a major shift away from the historical norms of political control over monetary policy. Establishing the European Central Bank (ECB) in 1998 exemplified this trend. The ECB’s creation marked a new era in European monetary policy: It replaced national central banks that had been subject to varying degrees of political influence, thereby promoting a standardized and politically neutral approach to monetary governance across the Eurozone.

Empirical evidence robustly supports the benefits of this move towards CBI. It has become increasingly prevalent among advanced economies, connecting with a significant reduction in inflation rates and more firmly anchored long-term inflation expectations. These outcomes tie directly to the enhanced credibility and predictability that independent central banks bring to monetary policy. They allow them to focus on long-term economic health rather than short-term political considerations.

The global commitment to CBI has only strengthened over time. A comprehensive analysis of 370 central bank reforms from 1923 to 2023 reveals a resurgence in support for CBI since 2016. This underscores its continued relevance as a fundamental pillar of economic stability. The renewed commitment is particularly noteworthy given the complex and evolving challenges facing global economies today, reaffirming CBI as a critical tool in maintaining macroeconomic stability.

Within the Biden administration, the historical context of CBI serves as a crucial guide. The administration’s steadfast support for CBI is not just a matter of policy preference, but a deep-rooted commitment to economic stability. In analyzing the Biden administration’s commitment to CBI, it is essential to recognize the delicate balance between fiscal policy and monetary authority. CBI is often celebrated for its role in safeguarding economies from politically motivated monetary policy that could destabilize inflation control. The separation between monetary and fiscal policy has been vital in maintaining long-term economic stability. The Fed’s autonomy is seen as critical to ensuring that monetary decisions remain focused on inflation and employment targets rather than short-term political gains.

The Biden administration wielded considerable influence over the economy using extensive fiscal policy measures. The American Rescue Plan Act (2021), the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as strategic executive actions such as the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and student-loan debt forgiveness, reflect a pragmatic approach. They leveraged fiscal tools to influence economic outcomes in ways that monetary policy alone could not have achieved in such a short time.

While CBI remains a pillar of long-term economic stability, the administration likely recognized that, given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, fiscal measures were indispensable. The unique conditions meant fighting inflation and stabilizing the economy required a broader, more immediate response — one where fiscal and executive action played a leading role, complementing rather than conflicting with the Fed’s independence. This dynamic, while preserving the long-term ideal of CBI, also underscores the reality that fiscal policy and executive power can shape economic outcomes in ways that transcend central bank interventions alone. Therefore, reversing the hard-earned progress towards CBI risks rekindling the inflationary pressures that once wreaked havoc on global economies.

Index of Central Bank Independence (CBI) in Advanced Economies, 1970-2022. Via The White House.

Enhancing coordination and the role of globalization

While CBI is crucial, improving coordination between monetary and fiscal policy is merited, as Trump’s critique suggests. Fiscal policy, controlled by Congress and the executive branch, also significantly influences aggregate demand and inflation. Better communication and coordination between these two arms of economic policy could lead to more coherent and effective economic management.

One proposal to achieve this without compromising the Fed’s independence is to include the National Economic Council director and the Congressional Budget Office director as ex officio nonvoting members of the Federal Open Market Committee. This would allow for better alignment between monetary and fiscal policies while preserving the Fed’s autonomy in decision-making.

However, private conversations about economic stability are being held. The June 2024 meeting between the BoJ, the Ministry of Finance and the Financial Services Agency highlights a critical moment in Japan’s economic policy. (Worth noting is the fact that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy and their designated delegates cannot vote. When attending Monetary Policy Meetings, they can express opinions, submit proposals and request the Policy Board to postpone a vote until the next meeting.) The yen’s depreciation against the US dollar has raised concerns about its potential impacts on inflation and overall economic stability in 2024. The discussion about the BoJ’s independence becomes particularly pertinent in this context. Though the BoJ traditionally operates with a degree of autonomy to implement monetary policy based on economic conditions, the yen’s current weakness and its repercussions are stirring discussions of whether more direct government intervention is needed.

The independence of the BoJ is rooted in its mandate to focus on price stability and economic growth without undue political influence. This separation is intended to ensure that monetary policy decisions implement policy with the aim of maintaining price stability with long-term objectives, not short-term political pressures. However, there is a growing sentiment within the government to take more assertive actions. This is evidenced by recent statements from key figures such as Minister of Digital Affairs Taro Kohno, who has suggested hiking interest rates in response to the yen’s weakness. Such proposals indicate that some policymakers view the BoJ’s current policy stance as insufficient to address the immediate challenges posed by the depreciating currency.

The involvement of other members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) further complicates the issue. Its discussions about potential interventions, including those that could impact the BoJ’s policy decisions, reflect a broader concern about the yen’s trajectory. While the BoJ has a clear mandate and operational framework, the mounting pressure from the government to align monetary policy with broader economic goals raises serious questions about the feasibility of maintaining its independence. If the government were to exert more influence, it could potentially undermine the BoJ’s ability to focus on long-term economic stability. This would pose significant risks to the economy.

CBI is closely linked to controlling inflation, which is a primary concern in advanced and emerging economies. Independent central banks are better equipped to resist the political pressure to pursue expansionary monetary policies that could increase inflation. This is particularly important in a globalized economy, where trade and financial linkages can transmit inflationary pressures across borders.

Empirical evidence supports the notion that CBI is associated with lower inflation. Countries with more independent central banks tended to experience lower and more stable inflation rates. For example, the relationship between CBI and inflation control became especially evident during the inflationary period of the 1970s and 1980s, when many central banks were subject to political interference, leading to high and persistent inflation. This finding has been corroborated by subsequent research, which has shown that CBI contributes to the anchoring of inflation expectations, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of monetary policy.

The relationship between CBI and inflation control became particularly evident during the inflationary period of the 1970s and 1980s. Many central banks were subject to political interference during this time, leading to high and persistent inflation. Several countries, including the US and Germany, responded by granting greater independence to their central banks, resulting in a significant decrease in inflation.

Central banks navigate an increasingly complex global environment, balancing domestic objectives with the need to manage the global spillovers of their actions. The independence of central banks is critical to ensure economic stability and long-term growth.

In a globalized economy, the actions of a central bank have implications that reach far beyond national borders. The US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency means that the Fed’s policies impact global financial markets, international trade and the economic stability of other nations. The importance of a non-politicized Fed in maintaining international confidence in the US dollar cannot be overstated. It helps prevent capital flight, currency volatility and a potential shift away from the dollar as the dominant global currency.

Globalization has fundamentally altered monetary policy dynamics, particularly in the context of central bank independence. As economies intertwine, the actions of one central bank can have profound effects on others, amplifying the importance of independent decision-making. The growing complexity of global financial systems necessitates that central banks adapt rapidly to new challenges, such as capital flow volatility and cross-border financial risks. 

One critical aspect of globalization is the transmission of economic shocks across borders. Central banks must be vigilant in mitigating these shocks while maintaining domestic economic stability. For instance, the 2008 financial crisis demonstrated how quickly financial turmoil can spread globally, underscoring the need for independent central banks to act swiftly and decisively. The crisis also showcased the importance of international cooperation among central banks; while this is necessary, it must be balanced with preserving domestic policy autonomy.

Looking forward, central banks must navigate the delicate balance between maintaining independence and participating in global monetary coordination. The potential for conflicts between domestic objectives and international pressures will likely increase, requiring central banks to adopt more sophisticated and transparent communication strategies. Ensuring that these institutions remain insulated from political pressures while engaging in necessary international cooperation will be crucial for maintaining economic stability in an increasingly interconnected world.

The Global Financial Crisis and central bank coordination

One historic economic event is especially imperative to study. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008–2009 marked one of the most significant economic downturns in recent memory, with worldwide impact. The crisis began in the US but quickly spread to other economies, highlighting the interconnectedness of global markets.

The US is one of the largest economies in the world, and its trade relations influence other nations’ economies substantially. For instance, during the GFC, the collapse of US demand had a ripple effect, causing major slowdowns in export-driven economies like those of China, Germany and Japan. This exemplifies how shocks in the US “export” financial stress across the world, while the reverse influence is often less pronounced. The rapid transmission of financial shocks underscored the need for coordinated action among central banks worldwide to stabilize the global economy.

During the GFC, central banks took the following actions:

1. The Fed played a pivotal role by implementing a series of unconventional monetary policies, including lowering interest rates to near-zero levels and introducing QE programs. These measures involved buying assets to restore liquidity to financial markets and support economic recovery.
2. Faced with a severe sovereign debt crisis in several Eurozone countries, the ECB lowered interest rates and provided long-term refinancing operations to banks. The ECB later introduced the OMT program, which was crucial in stabilizing bond markets and preventing the collapse of the euro.
3. The BoE reduced interest rates and launched its own QE program to support the UK economy. Its actions were coordinated with those of other major central banks to ensure a unified response to the crisis.
4. The BoJ expanded its asset purchase program and maintained a low-interest rate policy to support the Japanese economy, which was also affected by the global downturn.

Central banks recognized that unilateral actions would be insufficient to address the global nature of the crisis. Therefore, they engaged in unprecedented levels of cooperation, particularly through these mechanisms:

1. Currency Swap Agreements: Central banks, including the Fed, ECB, BoE and BoJ, established currency swap lines to ensure that banks in other countries had access to US dollars, which were in high demand. This move crucially prevented a liquidity crisis and stabilized global markets.
2. Coordinated Interest Rate Cuts: In October 2008, several major central banks, including the Fed, ECB, BoE and BoJ, conducted a coordinated interest rate cut to reduce borrowing costs globally and stimulate economic activity.
3. G20 Summits: The G20, which includes both advanced and emerging economies, played a critical role in facilitating international coordination. The 2009 G20 summit in London prompted commitments to provide fiscal stimulus, increase resources for the International Monetary Fund and enhance financial regulation to prevent future crises.
4. Bank for International Settlements (BIS): The BIS serves as a platform for central banks to exchange information, coordinate policy responses and discuss strategies for maintaining financial stability. Its role in fostering international cooperation was vital in ensuring a coherent global response to the crisis.

The coordinated efforts of central banks were instrumental in mitigating the worst effects of the GFC. The rapid implementation of monetary easing measures, coupled with international cooperation, helped stabilize financial markets, restore confidence and set the stage for a gradual economic recovery. The crisis demonstrated that in a globalized economy, the actions of one central bank can have significant spillover effects on others, making international cooperation essential.

The experience of the GFC showcases the importance of sustained international cooperation among central banks. As global markets become more interconnected, the potential for spillover effects increases, making coordinated policy responses critical for maintaining global economic stability.

Moving forward, central banks should continue to strengthen their cooperation through global forums like the G20 and BIS, ensuring that their policies are harmonized to prevent adverse cross-border impacts. Additionally, they should work together to develop frameworks for managing future crises. In an interconnected world, the stability of one economy often depends on the stability of others.

What is the solution?

The independence of central banks like the Fed is vital for ensuring sound monetary policy, economic stability and global financial confidence. While Trump’s critique of the Fed highlights legitimate concerns about the need for better coordination between monetary and fiscal policy, his desire for more direct control over monetary policy risks undermining the very foundation of economic stability. A politicized central bank, driven by short-term political goals, would likely lead to higher inflation, economic instability and global volatility.

In an increasingly globalized economy, the role of central bank independence extends beyond national borders. The interconnectedness of global markets means that the actions of central banks can have profound spillover effects on other economies. Central banks must navigate complex global dynamics, where their decisions influence global capital flows, currency stability and international trade.

The solution lies not in reducing central bank independence but in enhancing the mechanisms for policy coordination while preserving the autonomy of institutions critical to the economy’s long-term health. By maintaining a strong, independent Fed, the US can continue navigating the complexities of a globalized economy while safeguarding its economic future. Central bank independence can secure a stable and prosperous economic environment domestically and globally by focusing on policies like the Fed’s dual mandate: maximum employment and price stability.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Central Bank Independence Is Unbelievably Valuable for the World Economy appeared first on Fair Observer.