Case Of Monetary Union Research Articles

Economic, Political, and Institutional Prerequisites for Monetary Union Among the Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council

The paper reviews the arguments for and against monetary union among the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council—the United Arab Emirates, the State of Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar and the State of Kuwait. Both technical economic arguments and political economy considerations are discussed. I conclude that there is an economic case for GCC monetary union, but that it is not overwhelming. The lack of economic integration among the GCC members is striking. Without anything approaching the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons among the six GCC member countries, the case for monetary union is mainly based on the small size of all GCC members other than Saudi Arabia, and their high degree of openness. Indeed, even without the creation of a monetary union, there could be significant advantages to all GCC members, from both an economic and a security perspective, from greater economic integration, through the creation of a true common market for goods, services, capital and labour, and from deeper political integration. The political arguments against monetary union at this juncture appear overwhelming, however. The absence of effective supranational political institutions encompassing the six GCC members means that there could be no effective political accountability of the GCC central bank. The surrender of political sovereignty inherent in joining a monetary union would therefore not be perceived as legitimate by an increasingly politically sophisticated citizenry. I believe that monetary union among the GCC members will occur only as part of a broad and broadly based movement towards far-reaching political integration. And there is little evidence of that as yet.

The Case for Monetary Union Reexamined with the Benefit of the Single Monetary Policy

A traditional OCA criterion holds that the more symmetric the shock exposure of countries, the more suited they are for currency union. According to Frankel and Rose (1998, 2002), growing correlation of the ex post income fluctuations of members also can provide endogenous justification for regional monetary union (MU) after its creation. Trade-enhancing effects of MU increase symmetry of shock exposure. But the single monetary policy of a multilateral MU in theory counteracts net disturbances to the union as a whole to the extent consistent with low inflation. This would leave mostly idiosyncratic disturbances and hence less symmetry among the national disturbance effects that remain. But recent evidence from the euro area yields results contrary to those expected.

The Economic Case for Monetary Union in the European Union

Differential requirements for seigniorage provide a weak case for retaining monetary independence. As regards adjustment to asymmetric shocks, nominal exchange rate flexibility is at best a limited blessing and at worst a limited curse. Absence of significant fiscal redistribution mechanisms among EU members is not an obstacle to monetary union. Neither is limited international labour mobility. Convergence of real economic performance is irrelevant for monetary union. A common currency is the logical implication of unrestricted capital mobility. The Maastricht criteria need not hinder monetary union provided the political will exists to adopt a flexible interpretation of the fiscal criteria.

Monetary union or currency competition? Currency arrangements for monetary stability in East and West

Recent events in the European Monetary System on the one hand and monetary disintegration in the former Soviet Union on the other hand have revived interest in the question of how to design and choose a monetary regime for both parts of Europe that ensures monetary stability. The objective of monetary stability can be achieved either by complete monetary union or by currency competition. Building on Hayek's ideas, I argue that both regimes are viable solutions depending on the circumstances. The paper first focuses on the misperceived benefits of flexible exchange rates, making the case for monetary union in Western Europe. However, monetary union is no alternative for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Instead currency competition could be used to retain the benefits of flexible exchange rates and to foster monetary stability at the same time.