Maxfield, Sylvia. (1997). Gatekeepers of growth : the international political economy of central banking in developing countries. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Maxfield examines the rise of central bank independence in the 90s and attempts to outline some of the drivers of this change. Firstly, the rise of central bank independence may seem counterintuitive, especially for someone who deploys a rationalist framework: why would political leaders give up control of such a powerful took that could effect their future power to such a great degree? Maxfield argues that the increasing globalization of financial markets if, “of central importance” (4). The cause of financial market’s increasing control over the independent decision making of politicians is the attempt to, “signal their [the politician’s] nation’s creditworthiness to potential investors” (4). “Specially, this book argues that the likelihood politicians will use central bank independence to try to signal creditworthiness is greater 1.) the larger their country’s need for balance of payments support, 2.) the greater the expected effectiveness of signaling, 3.) the more secure their tenure as politicians, and 4.) the fewer their country’s restrictions on international financial transactions” (4).
She then goes on to briefly, and helpfully, outline some of the main functions of central banks. “To control inflation policymakers seek an anchor for prices. The exchange rate system devised in Bretton Woods…provided an exchange rate anchor” (7). This broke down after the move to fiat money. This is one of the reasons that there needed to be a new anchor for the international financial system: central bank independence with a mandate to control for price flux.
One reason that central banks need to be independent is because market actors can anticipate the policy moves of politicized government groups more easily (8). Another reason is the great power of finance in the age of increased economic interdependence (9). Another reason that this has become a more important issue is the Maastricht Treaty for conformity with EU rules (10). The increasing focus on rationalism as a social science methodology helped to promote the move to central banks (11). There are “normative” arguments for the move to central banks, like increased economic performance, policy coordination, democratic accountability, though I found these to be a bit problematic (12-7).
Maxfield then goes on, in chapter 2 to highlight the political source of central bank independence (also the title of the chapter). She highlights different studies that identify different sources of the independence of central banks. Some identify the need for highly trained and independent technocrats. Some believe that there is more independence if there is less political polarization in a country, others if there is more. Some that sectors of the economy will press for independence because it is in their interest. Another main group looks at how central bank independence is contingent on the need of governments to raise finance. Yet another group looks at ideology as a factor in determining whether or not the central bank is independent.
“A potential explanation for the contradictory findings reported above is that financier’s abilities to exploit a nation’s international economic vulnerabilities shape the effectiveness of financial sector demands on government to protect central bank independence” (33).
She then highlights the ways in which international finance can incentivise the move on the part of states to make their central banks independent. She looks at FDI, foreign equity shares, international bank loans and foreign government bonds. She finds that the first three are relatively not going to effect the move towards an independent bank. However, foreign government bonds do much to signal a country’s creditworthiness to international finance.
The final chapters of the book examine different case studies. I did not read these.
