Super Currency – What Does It Mean for China and the U.S.?

Published in Caijing
(China) on 30 March 2009
by Hai Yanjiang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Peter Stevens. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
On March 23, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, published a text titled “Thoughts on the Reform of the International Currency System,” which proposes that “the rapid spread of the financial crisis to a global scale reflects the intrinsic defects and systemic risk of the current international monetary system.” He stresses that creating a currency decoupled from sovereign nations and able to maintain stable, long-term currency values is the ideal goal of reforming the international currency system. Such a currency would avoid the intrinsic defects of sovereign “fiat” currency acting as reserve currency.

Over the past few days, Zhou’s suggestions have provoked intense discussion among government officials and investors in many countries, but overall, most Western countries are utterly unenthusiastic about putting this idea into practice. On March 24th, President Obama said, “I don’t believe there’s a need to establish a global currency." On the same day, in a Congressional hearing, U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke were asked whether or not they were “resolutely opposed to a shift away from the dollar to some kind of global currency.” Both men said that they were. The IMF’s managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, said in Paris, “I think a conversation over a new type of international reserve currency would be completely reasonable; perhaps discussions will be carried out in the next few months." The U.N.’s economic and financial advisory mission will submit a report to the general assembly in 26 days, urging world leaders to agree to the construction of a new international currency system as an alternative to the U.S. dollar. The leaders of Russia, Brazil and other countries have declared that this advice is worthy of a complete discussion.

China International Finance Corporation’s chief economist, Ha Jiming, thinks that establishing a “super” currency to replace the dollar as the international reserve currency could increase the stability and credibility of international reserves, and also would be a kind of release for the U.S. Using the currencies of major countries to constitute the “super” currency would be the best choice for an international reserve asset.

Ha predicts that if the reforms can be realized, China’s position in international currency and financial markets will rise, internationalization of China’s Renminbi (RMB) will accelerate, and the RMB will likely appreciate in the long-term. These changes will have deep implications for China’s economy and capital market.

In his opinion, Zhou Xiaochuan’s initiative follows the thinking of the Keynesian era. He recalls the origins of thinking about international reserve assets. In the early 1940s, Keynes had previously proposed the establishment of an international clearing union and the creation of a new currency (the "bancor"), independent from the control of any nation, which would provide liquidity to the world. But after World War II, the Bretton Woods Agreement that established the IMF did not adopt Keynes’ proposal, but instead adopted U.S. Treasury official Harry Dexter White’s exchange rate scheme, one that pegged the dollar to gold, with all other currencies pegged to the dollar. Consequently, the dollar became an important international reserve currency.

But at the start of the 1970s, following the decoupling of the dollar from gold, the U.S. still enjoyed the great benefit of seigneurage over the international reserve currency. However, with other countries’ currencies still pegged to the dollar, the U.S. found itself at a disadvantage of its own: It was difficult to adjust its balance of payments through devaluation while adjusting the cost of excessive external imbalances through domestic price changes and fluctuations in the real economy.

Ha Jiming says the rules of the international monetary system impact payments, financing instruments and institutional security. The international monetary system could be organized according to a system of fluctuating exchange rates or a set of international reserve assets. Depending on the mechanism by which exchange rates are formed, the range of fluctuation can be determined through fixed exchanged rates, adjustable pegs, floating pegs, crawling pegs, a managed float or completely free-floating exchange rates. According to the distribution of reserve assets, you could have a gold standard (gold as the only international reserve asset), a credit-money system (based on dollars, for example) or a combination of these two.

In reality, the international monetary system often combines these two different methods of classification. For example, the gold standard is a fixed exchange-rate system; the Bretton-Woods system was a combination of fixed exchange rates and gold-backed dollar reserves; the present international monetary system is based on floating, but managed, exchange rates, along with U.S. dollar reserves decoupled from gold. Of course, under completely free-floating exchange rates, reserve assets would become unnecessary, because imbalances in the international balance of payments could be corrected automatically through exchange rate adjustments. In other words, the greater the flexibility of exchange rates, the smaller the demands on foreign reserves.

Ha suggests that a good international monetary system should be beneficial to promoting international trade and investment, as well as distributing the "dividends’" of economic globalization fairly among countries. The advantages (and disadvantages) of an international monetary system can be judged in terms of three aspects: adjustment, mobility and credibility. Adjustment refers to the correction mechanism for international payment imbalances. A good international monetary system should be capable of correcting imbalances at the lowest cost and the highest speed. Mobility has to do with whether international reserve assets are enough to settle imbalances in international payments. A good international monetary system should be capable of providing appropriate reserve assets, correcting payment imbalances so as not to introduce global deflation or inflation. Credibility refers to the efficiency of the correction mechanism along with the security of international reserves.

Ha Jiming thinks that managed floating exchange rates are the most viable exchange rate scheme at present, and that the world cannot realize a completely free-floating exchange rate mechanism. The reasons are, first, that excessive currency fluctuation along with international trade leads to excessive speculation. Secondly, beggar-thy-neighbor policies – competitive devaluation and trade protectionism – become more prevalent. During the two world wars, a short-lived attempt at a floating exchange rate ended in failure. On the other hand, under a system of fixed exchange rates, countries lose their independence on monetary policy and are forced to correct imbalances in international payments and in the real economy by implementing price fluctuations, all at too great a cost.

How can mobility and adjustment – two important aspects of a good international monetary system – be achieved? First, Ha Jiming thinks a New Special Drawing Right (NSDR) would include, apart from the four main currencies (the dollar, the euro, the yen and the pound), the currencies of other major countries – the RMB among them. Next, the IMF should distribute NSDRs among a large number of member nations, allowing them to become the currency of international settlements, as well as the basis of each country’s monetary and exchange rate policies. Each country could, through borrowing NSDRs from the IMF, settle its temporary balance of payments problems. Countries with surpluses will lend NSDRs to deficit countries through the IMF, with interest rates set by supply and demand, or by referring to average interest rates in the countries whose currencies back the NSDR; deficit countries’ lack of NSDRs will push their exchange rates up (or implement contractionary monetary policy) and surplus nations will experience lower exchange rates (or implement expansionary monetary policy). The IMF could periodically set the total amount of NSDRs to maintain an appropriate level of global liquidity.

But Ha Jiming also warns that these important reforms are difficult to accomplish overnight. America’s willingness to give up the dollar’s special status as international reserve currency, the design and scale of the new reserve currency, along with questions of distribution and so on: In addition to technical details, these questions are related to each country’s choices over its interests and responsibilities.


3月23日,中国人民银行行长周小川发表了题为《关于改革国际货币体系的思考》一文,指出,“此次金融危机的爆发并在全球范围内迅速蔓延,反映出当前国际货币体系的内在缺陷和系统性风险。”他强调,创造一种与主权国家脱钩、并能保持币值长期稳定的国际储备货币,从而避免主权信用货币作为储备货币的内在缺陷,是国际货币体系改革的理想目标。
  连日来,周小川行长的建议在许多国家政府官员和投资者中引发激烈讨论,但是,总体来看,大部分西方国家对实施这个建议并无多高热情。3月24日,美国总统奥巴马表示,“我不相信有必要建立全球货币。”同日,在美国国会的一次听证会上,美国财长盖特纳和美联储主席伯南克被问及,是否会“坚决反对美国从美元转向某种全球货币?”两人都回答,“是的。”国际货币基金组织(IMF)总裁斯特劳斯-卡恩则在巴黎表示,“我认为关于新型国际储备货币的讨论是完全合理的,也许有关讨论将在未来几个月内进行。” 联合国金融、经济改革咨询团26日向联合国大会提交报告,敦促世界领导人同意构建替代美元的新的国际储备货币体系。俄罗斯、巴西等国领导人表态说,认为这一建议值得充分讨论。

  中国国际金融有限公司首席经济学家哈继铭认为,建立“超级”货币取代美元的国际储备货币地位,既可以增强国际储备货币的保值性和可信性,也是对美国的一种解脱。由重要国家货币组成的“超级”货币是国际储备资产的最佳选择。

  他预言,如果改革得以实施,中国在国际货币和金融事务中的地位将得到提高,人民币国际化的进程将加快,人民币汇率长期看升。这些将对中国经济和资本市场产生深远的意义。

  在他看来,周小川的倡议,与凯恩斯当年的思路同出一辙。他回顾了国际储备资产这一想法的由来。早在上世纪40年代,凯恩斯曾经提出,要建立国际清算联盟(Clearing Union),并创建一种独立于一国主权货币之外的新货币(bancor),为全球提供流动性。但是,“二战”后,布雷顿森林会议在建立国际货币基金组织时没有采纳凯恩斯的建议,而采纳了当时美国财长怀特的计划,建立了“美元盯黄金,各国盯美元”的汇率安排,于是,美元成了主要国际储备资产。

  但是,上世纪70年代初,美元与黄金脱钩之后,国际储备货币的特殊地位使得美国享受了巨大的铸币税利益。但是,作为“第N个”货币,各国货币钉住美元,美国也将自己置于不利的处境:美国难以通过货币贬值来调整国际收支失衡,而通过国内价格变化和实体经济的波动来调整外部失衡成本过大。

哈继铭说,国际货币体系指的是影响国际收支的规则、工具、融资手段和机构安排。国际货币体系可以按照汇率的形成机制或国际储备资产的形式来分类。按照汇率形成机制划分,可以分为带有一定波动区间的固定汇率体系,可调整的钉住体系,爬行钉住体系,有管理的浮动体系,和完全自由浮动体系。按照储备资产形式划分,可以有金本位制度(黄金为惟一国际储备资产),信用货币制度(例如美元),黄金与信用货币组合制度(以上两者制度之结合)。现实中的国际货币体系往往是上述两种分类方法的不同组合。例如,金本位制度是固定汇率体系,布雷顿森林体系是固定汇率以及与黄金挂钩的美元储备体系的组合,当今的国际货币体系则是有管理的浮动汇率,加上与黄金脱钩的美元储备体系。当然,在完全自由浮动汇率下,储备资产就失去了存在的必要性,因为国际收支的失衡可以通过汇率的调整自动加以纠正。换言之,汇率灵活性越强,对储备的要求越小。

他提出,一个好的国际货币体系应该有利于促进国际贸易和投资,并在各国间公平分配经济全球化的“红利”。可以从三个方面评判国际货币体系的优劣:调整性、流动性、可信性。调整性指的是国际收支失衡的纠正机制。一个好的国际货币体系应该能够以最低的成本和最快的速度纠正失衡。流动性指的是国际储备资产的数量是否足以结算短期国际收支失衡。一个好的国际货币体系应当能够提供适量的储备资产,使得国际收支失衡的纠正不至于导致全球通缩或通胀。可信性指的是失衡纠正机制有效性以及国际储备资产的保值。

  哈继铭认为,有管理的浮动汇率是当今最为可行的汇率安排,全球不可能实现完全自由浮动的汇率制度。原因是,第一,汇率的过度波动伤及国际贸易并导致过度投机。第二,难以避免各国以邻为壑的竞争性贬值和贸易保护主义政策的盛行。两次大战期间,对浮动汇率制的短暂尝试以失败告终。另一方面,严格的固定汇率制度将令各国丧失货币政策的独立性,而且迫使国际收支失衡的纠正通过价格和实体经济的波动来实现,成本过大。

  如何实现一个良好的国际货币体系的另外两个重要属性,即流动性和调整性呢?哈继铭认为,首先,这是一种新的特别提款权(New Special Drawing Rights或NSDRs),除了现有SDRs的四种主要货币(美元、欧元、日元和英镑),它还将包括人民币在内的其他主要国家的货币。其次,国际货币基金组织应当大量发行并向成员国分配NSDRs,使其成为国际收支结算货币以及各成员国货币和汇率政策的基础。各国可以通过向国际货币基金组织借贷 NSDRs,来为其暂时的国际收支失衡提供结算。顺差国通过国际货币基金组织将NSDRs借给逆差国,利率由供求关系决定,或参照NSDRs构成国的同期限平均利率水平;逆(顺)差国NSDRs的减少(增加)将使其汇率贬(升)值,或采取紧缩性(扩张性)货币政策以纠正失衡。国际货币基金组织可以定期对 NSDRs总量作出调整,以维持适量的全球流动性。

  但是,哈继铭也提醒,这项重要改革难以一蹴而就。美国是否愿意放弃国际储备货币的特殊地位,新储备货币的设计及其规模的扩大,以及份额的分配等等问题,都涉及各国的利益和责任取舍,还有技术上的细节。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

China: Trump’s ‘Opportunism First’ — Attacking Iran Opens Pandora’s Box

Germany: Trump’s Opportunity in Iran

Cuba: The Middle East Is on Fire

Canada: Elbows Down on the Digital Services Tax

Austria: Would-Be King Trump Doesn’t Have His House in Order

Topics

Colombia: The Horsemen of the New Cold War

Australia: Australia Is Far from Its Own Zohran Mamdani Moment. Here’s Why

Canada: How Ottawa Gift-Wrapped our Dairy Sector for Trump

Canada: New York Swoons over an American Justin Trudeau

Germany: Europe Bending the Knee to Trump

Germany: NATO Secretary-General Showers Trump with Praise: Seems Rutte Wanted To Keep the Emperor Happy

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

China: US Visa Policy Policing Students

Related Articles

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*