![]() Its point of departure is the observation that some 60% of identified global foreign exchange reserves take the form of dollars, that more than 60% of the foreign currency liabilities and assets of banks are in dollars, and that the share of world trade invoiced in dollars far exceeds the United States’ share in global imports and exports. The Harvard view is fundamentally empirical, although the regularities on which it focuses have stimulated some interesting theorising. The Harvard view: The international monetary system remains unipolar and dollar-based 3 Still, I will maintain this as a useful working distinction, or pretense, for the purpose of this discussion. Nor are the two views rigidly and consistently associated with Harvard and Berkeley. It can be argued that the two views overlap and that one view is more about the past while the other is more about the future. Truth be told, the distinction is not always clear cut. 1 The alternative, which I will call the ‘Berkeley view’, is that the system is evolving away from the United States and the dollar, toward a multipolar world in which several consequential international and reserve currencies will coexist, other countries will no longer rely exclusively or even mainly on the US for international liquidity and governance will be a collective endeavor. One, which I will call the ‘Harvard view’, is that there is a striking degree of persistence in the structure of the system, which remains dollar-based and U.S. ![]() How has the international monetary system evolved over the last 75 years and how will it evolve in the future? I organise my answer to this question by distinguishing two views. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |