The degree of monetary sovereignty ranges widely from countries with high control over monetary systems to those who voluntarily gave up aspects to supranational organizations or adopted a foreign currency.
Monetary sovereignty represents a fundamental aspect of state power in modern economies, with theoretical roots extending fromclassical economics through contemporarymonetary theory.[3] The concept encompasses not simply the technical ability to issue currency,[4] but the broader capacity to manage macroeconomic conditions through monetary instruments.[5]
From a theoretical perspective, monetary sovereignty enables governments to pursuecountercyclical policies during economic downturns,[6] provide liquidity during financial crises, and maintainprice stability through various monetary mechanisms.[7]Post-Keynesian[8] andModern Monetary Theory economists emphasize that countries with full monetary sovereignty possess unique fiscal capabilities, as they can theoretically finance government spending through money creation rather than borrowing, subject to inflationary constraints.[9]
However, the practical exercise of monetary sovereignty is limited by international financial markets, trade relationships, and institutional arrangements. Even countries with formal monetary sovereignty may find their policy space limited by capital mobility, exchange rate controls, and the need to maintain credibility with international investors.[9]
Legal tender authority: the exclusive authority to designate which forms ofpayment are legally acceptable forsettling debts in a nation.[10][11] This includes determining the official currency.
Issuance and retirement: the exclusive authority to control legal tenderissuance and retirement.[12]
Monetary policy independence: The ability to set interest rates and determine bankreserve requirements without external interference.[13] This power includes responding to economic conditions with expansionary or contractionary measures.[14]
Monetary sovereignty has evolved significantly through history.[18] Understanding this evolution provides context for contemporary debates about monetary arrangements and policy choices.
Monetary sovereignty predates modern political sovereignty by millennia, with ancient rulers and religious authorities asserting control over money creation and exchange.[19][20] Early manifestations included royal prerogatives over coinage,[21] standardization ofweights and measures, and the establishment of monetary systems that facilitated trade and taxation.[22]
These early systems demonstrated the intimate connection between monetary control and political authority, as rulers used monetary privileges to finance state activities and project power.[23] The development of sophisticated monetary systems in ancient civilizations such asMesopotamia,Greece, andRome established precedents for state involvement in monetary affairs.[24]
The medieval period witnessed significant innovations in monetary organization, including the emergence of international banking networks,bills of exchange, and early forms ofpaper money.[25] TheItalian city-states pioneered banking techniques that separated monetary functions from simple commodity exchange, while the development of trade networks created pressures for monetary coordination across political boundaries.[26]
The rise of nation-states in early modern Europe coincided with efforts to consolidate monetary authority within territorial boundaries.[27][20] Monarchs sought to standardize currencies, suppress competing monetary systems, and useseigniorage revenues to finance state activities.[28] These efforts often conflicted with local monetary arrangements and international trade requirements, creating tensions that persist in contemporary monetary arrangements.[29]
The establishment of central banks beginning with Sweden'sRiksbank in 1668 represented an institutional innovation in monetary sovereignty.[30] Early central banks combined private banking functions with public monetary responsibilities,[31] creating institutional frameworks that could manage currency issuance, provide government financing, and maintain financial stability.[32] TheBank of England (1694) and subsequent central banks developed the institutional infrastructure for modern monetary policy.[33]
Theclassical gold standard (1873-1914) created a system of international monetary coordination that significantly constrained national monetary sovereignty.[34] Countries maintaining gold convertibility had to subordinate domestic monetary policy to the maintenance of fixedexchange rates, limiting their ability to respond to economic shocks with independent monetary measures.[35]
The experience of the gold standard highlighted fundamental tensions between international monetary stability and domestic policy autonomy.[36] Countries faced "impossible trinity" trade-offs between fixed exchange rates, independent monetary policy, and capital mobility.[37] These constraints became acute during economic downturns, when the gold standard's deflationary bias conflicted with domestic needs for monetary expansion.[38]
The collapse of the gold standard during World War I and its incomplete restoration during the interwar period demonstrated both the attractions and limitations of international monetary coordination.[39] The Great Depression revealed the costs of maintaining external monetary constraints during severe economic contractions, leading to widespread abandonment of gold convertibility in favor of managed currencies.[40]
TheBretton Woods system (1944-1971) created a compromise between international monetary stability and national policy autonomy,[41] establishing fixed but adjustable exchange rates anchored to the dollar-gold standard.[42] This system provided greater policy flexibility than the classical gold standard while maintaining international monetary coordination through institutional mechanisms.[43]
The collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971 marked a watershed,[44] as major economies adopted floating exchange rates and regained monetary policy independence.[45][46] This transition enabled countries to pursue domestic monetary policy unconstrained by maintaining fixed exchange rates, though it increased exchange rate volatility and created new challenges for international economic coordination.[47]
The post-Bretton Woods era has seen experimentation with monetary arrangements including currency unions,[48] reflecting ongoing efforts to balance monetary sovereignty with the benefits of international coordination and credibility.[49]
Nations such as the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom have high monetary sovereignty. They have autonomous central banks that can respond to economic conditions without external constraints and independently set monetary policy.[50]
TheEuropean Union represents voluntary monetary sovereignty sharing. 20 member nations adopted the euro[51] and transferred substantial powers to theEuropean Central Bank.[52] These countries have some fiscal sovereignty but gave up the ability to independently adjust the money supply, set interest rates, or devalue the currency.[53]
Digital currencies, includingcentral bank digital currencies (CBDCs)[58] and private cryptocurrencies, challenge monetary sovereignty.[59] These technologies could allow currency competition and cross-border payments bypassing traditional monetary controls.[60]
Money can be created by both central banks and commercial banks.[63] Central banks createbase money throughopen market operations, lending to commercial banks, and other mechanisms.[64] Commercial banks create money throughfractional reserve banking when they extend loans.[65] Most money is created by commercial banks through loans.[66] In 2014, theBank of England explained that commercial bank deposits made up 97% of the broad money supply, with only 3% consisting of central bank-issued notes and coins.[67]
The role ofreserve requirements has evolved significantly since the2008 financial crisis.[68] Contrary to traditional textbook models, empirical evidence demonstrates that banks do not require existing deposits before making loans.[69] Instead, loans create deposits, and banks subsequently seek the required reserves.[70] Central banks typically accommodate this demand for reserves to maintain their target interest rates,[71] meaning that reserve aggregates do not effectively constrain bank lending or deposit creation in practice.[72]
Sovereign money reform, likefull-reserve banking, proposes fundamental changes to this system. The concept builds on historical precedents and theoretical work dating back to theChicago Plan of the 1930s,[73] developed by economists includingIrving Fisher andHenry Simons in response to theGreat Depression.[74] The plan advocated for complete separation of the monetary and credit functions of banks.[75]
Modern proponents argue that the current system causes several problems: it grants private banks the power to create the money supply for profit,[76] it contributes to financial instability through procyclical lending patterns,[77] and it lets banks capture theseigniorage (profit from money creation) that could otherwise benefit the public.[78] They contend that money creation should be a public function that elected governments exercise democratically rather than a private privilege of profit maximizing banks.[79]
The theoretical framework rests on the principle that money is a public good and social institution that should serve public purposes.[80] Proponents argue that democratic societies should maintain control over their money supply rather than delegating this sovereign function to private entities.[81] This perspective draws onchartalist insights about the nature of money as a creature of the state, backed by taxation andlegal tender laws.[82]
Under sovereign money systems, central banks would create money exclusively, while commercial banks would become intermediaries that lend existing money rather than creating new money through lending.[83] The transition would involve several mechanisms:
Separation of accounts: Banks would be required to separate customer deposits into two distinct types:transaction accounts (fully backed by central bank reserves) and investment accounts (used for lending purposes). This separation ensures that money used for payments is fully secure while maintaining a role for banks in credit intermediation.[84]
Graduated implementation: Reform proposals typically involve phased transitions to minimize economic disruption. This might include gradually increasing reserve requirements over several years until reaching 100%, or implementing the system first for new banks before extending to existing institutions.[85]
Central bank money creation: Instead of influencing money creation indirectly through interest rate policy,[86] central banks would directly control money supply growth. New money would be created through government spending on public purposes[87] such as infrastructure, education, or healthcare, or through direct distribution to citizens (sometimes called "helicopter money").[88]
Credit allocation: While banks would lose money creation privileges, they would retain important functions in credit assessment, risk management, and loan servicing. The system would allow credit expansion, but this would be funded through existing money rather than newly created deposits.[89]
Organizations likePositive Money advocate for central banks exclusively managing money creation. This would replace using interest rates to influence commercial bank money creation.[90] Sovereign money reform proponents argue for money creation that benefits the general public not private banks.[91] They say commercial banks can create money for profit while the public bears financial instability risk.[92] Proponents argue for democratic oversight over money creation,[93] for public purposes like education, healthcare, or basic income.[94]
Critics question the feasibility of a transition to a sovereign money system.[95] They argue sovereign money would not prevent asset bubbles financed by existing surplus funds inmoney markets.[96]
