Monetary Statecraft in Follower States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
David Andrews, ed. International Monetary Power, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006. Monetary Statecraft in Follower States Louis W. Pauly Common sense suggests that successful leaders need willing follow- ers. Coercion can sometimes be effective, but, as every new parent soon learns, out- comes achieved through self-interested acquiescence tend to be more satisfactory and more enduring than those achieved through the application of brute force. Po- litical theorists typically focus on the concept of legitimacy when they evoke the quality that transforms the raw power of a strong actor into something more ac- ceptable to a relatively weaker one. Only when it is operative, we might even say, is the term leadership really appropriate. The authority relationship thereby invoked ultimately entails a fundamental respect for the autonomy of the follower.1 Early versions of this chapter were presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies As- sociation, March 17–20, 2004, and at the European University Institute, May 16, 2004, and released as a working paper by the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition of McMaster University (GHC 05/8, April 2005). For constructive comments and suggestions, I am grateful to Stephen Harris, Beth Simmons, Bob Hancké, William Coleman, fellow conferees, two anonymous referees, and especially to Dave Andrews. For generously sharing original empirical material on the two main cases, I am deeply indebted to Dave Andrews and to Eric Helleiner. Eduard Hochreiter opened many doors for David and me in Vienna. Georg Winckler and Aurel Schubert provided valuable assistance to me during several trips to Austria. It was a privilege to interview Louis Rasminsky in Ottawa during the final years of his long life. Financial assistance came from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and from the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. 1. Research on the meaning of power and authority in international relations is rapidly expanding. For an overview, see Edgar Grande and Louis W. Pauly, eds., Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political Authority in the Twenty-First Century (Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 2005). On legitimacy and par- ticular monetary orders, see Benjamin J. Cohen, “Balance-of-Payments Financing: Evolution of a Re- gime,” in International Regimes, ed. Stephen Krasner, 315–36 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, l983); Jonathan Kirshner, ed., Monetary Orders: Ambiguous Economics, Ubiquitous Politics (Ithaca: Cornell Uni- versity Press, 2003); David Andrews, C. Randall Henning, and Louis W. Pauly, eds., Governing the World’s Money (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002). On the concepts of leadership and followership in this arena, see Rawi Abdelal, “The Politics of Monetary Leadership and Followership: Stability in the Euro- pean Monetary System since the Currency Crisis of 1992,” Political Studies 46, no. 2 (1998): 236–59. 184 CD8145. 184-208 2/17/06 10:36 AM Page 185 Monetary Statecraft in Follower States 185 In a world characterized by both intensifying economic interdependence and continuing political disunity, the quest to establish rules capable of governing mon- etary power is as difficult as it is persistent. Leading and following states in many different periods during the past century repeatedly attempted to negotiate such rules. That they needed to do so, for example in 1944 and again after 1971, suggests the enduring temptation of unbridled power on the part of leaders. That they wanted to do so suggests the capacity of followers somehow to limit the power of leaders. As I employ the term in this chapter, followership involves an observable ca- pacity for strategic choice. In this policy context, that capacity defines the contours of monetary statecraft. This chapter explores leader-follower dynamics by applying conceptions of monetary power and statecraft developed by David Andrews (chap. 1 in this volume), as well as the discussion of monetary leadership by Andrew Wal- ter (chap. 3 in this volume), to two important and illustrative empirical cases of mon- etary followership in Canada and Austria. National Policies and International Monetary Order What a follower state basically wants from a monetary leader, it might reasonably be assumed, is a reliable monetary anchor or, more precisely, in recent times an external bulwark against inflation. Despite the integrative effects of economic globalization, however, few follower states have in fact ever demonstrated a complete willingness simply to trust systemic or regional leaders to maintain macroeconomic policies consistent with their own preferences. Certainly since 1945, key follower states in the middle of the pyramid of international monetary power have always insisted on taking out insurance.2 Because these follower states feared that the leading states might force them to bear more than their fair share of the burden of adjustment to expanded trade and investment flows, collaborative institutions such as the Interna- tional Monetary Fund (IMF) or the Group of Seven promised them greater sym- metry when payments imbalances needed to be equilibrated. But follower states insisted on hedging their bets even further by retaining national control over spe- cific policy instruments, either because they believed that multilateral instruments would be too weak or because they actually hoped that asymmetries might work to their own benefit. Capital controls certainly fell into such a category, especially in the early postwar years. During the past few decades, as most follower states moved decisively to open their economies to freer capital movements, other measures were developed to compensate for the absence of effective controls. Some governments, 2. Benjamin J. Cohen hypothesizes, in The Geography of Money (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 116–17, seven layers in the world’s currency pyramid, extending from the “top currency” (the U.S. dollar) and “patrician currencies” (the Japanese yen and German mark, now the euro) at the apex to the “permeated,” “quasi-,” and “pseudo-currencies” at the base. Roughly speaking, the universe of follower states to which my analysis is addressed comes from the remaining two layers between this base and apex; they range from Switzerland and Canada to Australia, South Korea, Austria, Malaysia, and Chile. Also see Benjamin J. Cohen, The Future of Money (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). CD8145. 184-208 2/17/06 10:36 AM Page 186 186 Louis W. Pauly for example, opted to combine capital decontrol with exchange-rate floats. Others, particularly inside the European monetary union, chose a combination of regional exchange-rate fixity and new collaborative mechanisms for managing external mon- etary relationships. Such decisions construct policy buffers between followers and leaders. The pur- poses of those buffers are to limit monetary power conceived in relational terms and to constrain the instrumental use of such power. Most clearly, to employ the con- ceptual terminology employed in earlier chapters, such buffers work mainly to counter the leader’s Power to Deflect the transitional costs of balance-of-payments adjustment, including the costs of maintaining a system designed to facilitate such adjustment. A perennial struggle among interdependent but ultimately sovereign states involves the attempted shifting of such costs on to others. Blunting the power of others to do so is equivalent to carving out a zone of autonomy in an interdepen- dent relationship. This makes willing and self-interested followership possible. In the Canadian and Austrian case histories summarized in this chapter, we see the struggle to limit monetary power, to practice monetary statecraft, up close. We also see very different policy choices being made, arguably with similar degrees of success. Beyond helping us understand how those choices constrain monetary power, a comparison of the underlying reasons for the differences between them suggests the importance of relational context. It also suggests the key role that con- tinues to be played by distinctive domestic political and social arrangements, even in a policy arena commonly depicted as ever more completely dominated by free- wheeling systemic forces. In the end, the empirical evidence presented here points to the importance of conjoining research on the varieties of contemporary capital- ism with continuing research on international monetary power and authority. More specifically, it highlights the broader significance of idiosyncratic arrangements for wage bargaining and other measures to redistribute internally the net benefits and costs of ever-deepening national involvement in external markets.3 Without attention to those idiosyncrasies, the very different exchange-rate re- gime choices of Canada and Austria represent an evident puzzle. Both countries have similarly asymmetrical, dependent economic relationships with their larger neigh- bors and leading trading and investing partners. They also have similarly compli- cated and historically fraught political relationships with those large neighbors. Prominent international political economists predict that currency politics in small, open economies will incline in the direction of exchange-rate stability.4 Despite a 3. See, for example, Fritz Scharpf, Crisis and Choice in European Social Democracy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991); Herbert Kitschelt, Peter Lange, Gary Marks, and John D. Stephens, Continu- ity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism