European Journal of Political Economy
Ž .Vol. 14 1998 407–432
The two concepts of money: implications for the
analysis of optimal currency areas
Charles A.E. Goodhart )
Financial Markets Group, London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, UK
Accepted 1 March 1998
Abstract
Much of the economic analysis of moving to EMU has been undertaken within the
context of the Optimal Currency Area paradigm. This is the spatialrgeographic counterpart
of the currently dominating model of the nature and evolution of money, here termed M
theory, whereby money is viewed as having developed from a private sector cost minimisation
process to facilitate trading. Here, I argue, first, that there is a second, cartalist, or C
theory alternative, which is empirically more compelling. Second, I claim that this approach
can predict observed relationships between sovereign countries and their currencies better
than the OCA model. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
JEL classification: B10; E42; F02; F33; N10; N40
Keywords: Cartalism; Sovereignty; Currency; Mints; Seigniorage; Optimal Currency Area; EMU
1. Introduction
Much of the economic analysis and assessment of the comparative advantages
and disadvantages of moving to a single currency, Euro, area in Europe has been
undertaken within the context of the Optimal Currency Area paradigm. This, in its
turn, is the spatialrgeographic facet of the currently dominating model of the
nature and evolution of money. The latter views money as having developed by a
process, whereby the private sector has sought to minimize the costs of making
exchanges in the process of trading. In this paper, I shall argue, first, that there is a
second, alternative approach to the story of the evolution and nature of money,
)
Tel.: q44-171-955-7555; Fax: q44-171-371-3664; E-mail: cgoodhart@compuserve.com
0176-2680r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Ž .PII S0176-2680 98 00015-9
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432408
which is historically and empirically more compelling. Next, I shall claim that this
second approach is far better able to predict and explain the observed relationship
between sovereign countries and their associated currencies than the OCA model.
In fact, there has been a continuing debate between those who argue that the
use of currency was based essentially on the power of the issuing authority
Ž . ŽCartalists —i.e., that currency becomes money primarily because the coins or
.monetary instruments more widely are struck with the insignia of sovereignty,
Žand not so much because they happen to be made of gold, silver and copper, or
.later of paper —and those who argue that the value of currency depends primarŽ
. 1
ily, or solely, on the intrinsic value of the backing of that currency, Metallists .
A conjoint debate exists between those who have argued that money evolved as a
private sector, market-oriented, response to overcome the transactions costs inherŽ
. 2
ent in barter, let us call them Mengerians , and those who again argue that the
State 3
has generally played a central role in the evolution and use of money
Ž .Cartalists .
There is little doubt that the M team has assembled the more illustrious
Ž 4 Ž . 5
collection of economists plus the endorsement of Aristotle and Locke 1960 ,
and has expressed its analysis in more formal and elegant terms, from the earlier
Ž . Ž . 6 Ž .economists such as Jevons 1875 , and Menger 1892 , von Mises 1912 ,
Ž . Ž .Brunner 1971 and Alchian 1977b , on more recently to Kiyotaki and Wright
Ž .1989, 1993 , plus a host of other eminent economists. Against them, the C team
Ž .has arrayed a more motley, fringe group of economists, such as Knapp 1905 in
Ž . 7 Ž .Germany, and Mireaux 1930 in France and most of the post-Keynesians in
8 Ž . Ž .the UK and USA. Nevertheless, as Melitz 1974 and Redish 1992 have noted,´
the C team approach has also received the support of a large number, probably a
sizeable majority, of those in other disciplines, e.g., anthropologists, numismatists
and historians concerned with the origin of money. 9
Whereas the M group has
been strong on formal theory, it has been constitutionally weak on institutional
1
Ž . Ž .As noted in Goodhart 1989 Chap. 2, p. 34 . The problems which the switch to fiat money cause
for M-form analysis are addressed later in Section 2.
2
Ž .After the paper of Menger 1892 .
3 13,18.The religious authorities also played a major role, see .
4
Ž . Ž . Ž . 11
Politics, Vol. 1 circa 340 BC , also see comments by Grierson 1977 p. 9 , and .
5
Two Treatises of GoÕernment, Second Treatise, pp. 318-320. Also, in the same vein, see Pufendorf
Ž .1744 , Book V, Chap. 1.
6
In his Economic Journal paper of 1892, Menger assembled virtually all the elements of the
intuitive analysis that has remained at the heart of the M-form theory. Subsequent economists with
similar views have developed more technically advanced and mathematically rigorous models of the
same process without much change to its central message.
7
Ž .Also see Fontana 1996 .
8
Ž . Ž .Keynes 1935 pp. 3, 4 , believed that fiat money had to be explained on a Cartalist basis, but
there is less evidence on his views of the earlier origins of money.
9
Ž .A leading contributor in this group is Grierson 1977 . His pamphlet on The Origins of Money is
Ž . Ž .particularly useful. Also see Einzig 1949 and Polanyi 1957 .
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 409
detail and historical empiricism. Melitz is the only current economist from the M´
team, known to me, who tries to address the anthropological and historical issues
presented by the C team.
I shall expand on this discussion in Section 2, and attempt to demonstrate
where the M team’s model has its main weaknesses, and to provide further
evidence, historical and analytical, in support of the C team approach.
Ž .The optimal currency area theory OCA connected with the names of Mundell,
McKinnon and Kenen is a natural extension of the M team theory into the spatial,
geographic domain. If the origin of money is to be seen in terms of private sector
market evolution, whose function is to minimise transactions costs, then the
evolution of a number of separate currencies in differing geographical areas
should, analogously, be analysed in terms of private sector market evolution,
Ž .whose function would have been to minimise some set of micro-level transaction
Ž .and macro-level adjustment costs. Against this, the C team analysts would claim
that the spatial determination of separate currencies has almost nothing to do with
such economic cost minimisation and almost everything to do with considerations
of political sovereignty. In Section 3, I shall argue that the C team hypothesis does
Ž .far better in explaining and predicting historical reality than the M team OCA
model. Indeed, the discrepancy is so marked that the continued supremacy among
Ž .economists of the M OCA model indicates how strong remains the attachment of
Žeconomists to nicely constructed models, whatever the facts may be the belief that
Central Banks not only can, but also do, control the monetary base of their
.economy is another example of this genre . The comparative paradigmatic success
Ž .of the M team OCA model may also reflect economists’ normative preference
for systems determined by private sector cost minimisation rather than messier
political factors.
Much of the discussion of the costrbenefit balance of, and the appropriate
boundaries for, the single currency, Euro, area within the European Union have
Ž .been undertaken within the context of the M OCA model. If we should reject
that model, in favour of the C model, as is argued here, this would suggest a need
for reconsideration of the issues that arise.
The key relationship in the C team model is the centrality of the link between
political sovereignty and fiscal authority on the one hand and money creation, the
mint and the central bank, on the other. A key fact in the proposed Euro system is
that that link is to be weakened to a degree rarely, if ever, known before. A
Ž .primary constitutional feature of the European Central Bank ECB is to be its
Ž .absolute independence from government at any level . Meanwhile, the political
Žand fiscal powers of the various European institutions Parliament, Commission,
. Žetc., at the matching federal level are far weaker than has been the case in other
.previous federal states . That, in itself, raises constitutional and political issues,
such as what would happen if the wishes of the community, expressed through its
Ž .various democratic institutions, should not coincide with either the objectives or
Ž .the operations of the European System of Central Banks ESCB ?
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432410
Within the Euro area, the main political and fiscal powers are, instead, to
remain at the level of the nation state. Historically, the nation states have been
Žable, in extremis, whether in the course of war or other—often self-induced—cri.sis
, to call upon the assistance of the money-creating institutions, whether the
mint via the debasement of the currency, a Treasury printing press, or the Central
Ž . Ž .Bank. Whenever states as in the USA or Australia , provinces as in Canada ,
cantons, lander, etc., have joined together in a larger federal unity, both the main¨
political, the main fiscal and the monetary powers and competencies have similarly
emigrated to the federal level. The Euro area will not be like that.
In particular, the participating nation states will continue to have the main fiscal
responsibilities; but in the monetary field, their status will have changed to a
subsidiary level, in the sense that they can no longer, at a pinch, call upon the
monetary authority to create money to finance their domestic national debt. There
is to be an unprecedented divorce between the main monetary and fiscal authori-
ties.
The thrust of the M team’s theoretical analysis is that this divorce is all to the
good; indeed, it is largely the purpose of the exercise. The blame for recent
inflation has been placed on political myopia, via the time inconsistency analysis,
Ž .and the ability of the political fiscal authorities to bend and misuse monetary
powers for their own short-term objectives. While there is much truth and realism
in this analysis, the C team analysts worry whether the divorce may not have some
unforeseen side effects.
2. On the nature and origins of money
Many economists and historians have noted the severe transactions costs
involved in barter, and also the advantageous characteristics of the precious metals
Ž .as a medium of exchange e.g., durability, divisibility, portability, etc. . Clower
Ž .1969 is a good example. This conjunction has led numerous economists to
construct models showing how the private sector could evolve towards a monetary
economy as a function of a search for cost minimisation procedures within a
private sector system, within which government does not necessarily enter at all.
Ž .Kiyotaki and Wright 1989, 1993 provide the current state-of-the-art examples of
such models. Menger’s work from the Economic Journal, 1892, is, perhaps, the
most quoted early example.
ŽApart from their lack of historical support, not that any such has usually been
.considered to be necessary , the main drawback of such models is that they fail to
recognize the informational difficulties of using precious metals as money. As I
Ž . Ž .have previously noted Goodhart, 1989 p. 34 :
Precious metals in an unworked state have been used as a means of payment
in exchanges only under very special circumstances—e.g., in the various
gold rushes in California and Klondike—and even then the picture, immortalised,
for example, in a film by Charlie Chaplin, of merchants and bar
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 411
tenders weighing and checking the gold dust before accepting it in payment,
suggests that payment in unworked precious metals was more in common
with barter than with a monetary payment.
Ž .When the ordinary person goes into a jeweller’s shop, he or she has very little
capacity to judge the fineness, or weight, of a gold or silver object put before him.
We usually take on trust the jeweller’s claim about the carats involved, supported
by the fact that the claim is potentially objectively and independently verifiable,
and that the jeweller’s reputation depends on such verifiable claims being upheld.
Nevertheless, the cost and time involved in such verification is not small. The
Ž .whole thrust of the paper of Alchian 1977b is that money arises as a result of the
existence of a good whose identification costs are low, 10
but the costs of
identifying the quality of either unworked or fabricated precious metal for the
ordinary person is high. An individual could, of course, go to a money-changer for
expert advice, but that would also involve costs. So, such costs were probably
higher, for example, than the cost of identifying the value of items in common
Ževeryday use, e.g., salt, corn, nails or even perhaps cattle, most people in a rural
. 11
agricultural community would reckon to be able to assess the value of a cow .
Likewise, such costs are again greater than the cost of assessing the value of an
item which is acceptable by being part of a set of items needed for some
Ž . Ž .intra-societal functions e.g., religious or wergeld ; Grierson 1977 is a leading
Ž . Ž .advocate of this latter view see Appendix A ; also see Einzig 1949 .
The above argument may appear to be a straw-man; few people have argued
that precious metals would be used as a medium-of-exchange currency, until the
identification problem was largely resolved by the technical innovation of a mint
process, whereby the identification costs could be drastically reduced by means of
10
Ž . Ž .Now, if there is some good in which identification costs are both a low and b low for
eÕeryone, that will permit purchase of product identification information cheaply from the
Ž .specialized intermediary expert. If his costs of identifying that offered money good are less
than the reductions in costs by using the specialist for information about the basic goods, the
total costs of identification can be reduced.
Ž .p. 117 .
Costs of identifying qualities of a good are what counts. If costs for some good are low and
generally low across members of society, the good will become a medium through which
information costs can be reduced and exchange made more economical.
Ž . Ž .pp. 121–122 .Page numbers are from the reprint in Economic Forces at Work Alchian, 1977a .
11
Ž .Burns 1927 records that lumps, bars or instruments in copper became acceptable in exchange in
the early civilizations, e.g., Egypt, Babylon and China, but there was sometimes reluctance to switch
from the use of cattle for certain quasi-monetary purposes.
w x w xThe cattle unit in Rome died hard, for twenty years later circa 430 B.C. , it was necessary to
Ž .order by law the lex Papiria that payments in copper should replace payments in cattle.
Ž .p. 17 .
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432412
Ž .stamping a quality guarantee upon a coin see Appendix B . Thus, the argument is
that a combination of the innate characteristics of the precious metals, plus the
identification cost reduction allowed by minting, enabled the private sector to
evolve towards a monetary system.
Again, however, that analysis is historically flawed. Although, once the idea
and technical process is discovered, minting would seem to be as capable of being
done within the private sector as any other metal-working process, in practice,
minting has, in the vast majority of cases, been a government, public sector,
operation. 12
Amongst the experts on the historical evolution of minting coins are
Ž . Ž . Ž .MacDonald 1916 , Grierson 1977, 1979 and Craig 1953 . These authorities, in
turn, refer to hosts of other earlier writers. In those cases where the mint has been
run by the private sector, the government has in most cases both set the standards
of fineness and extracted a rent, or seigniorage tax, that collected most of the
available profits. This concentration of minting under the government’s aegis is
not accidental. There are two associated reasons why this is so.
First, a mint requires an inventory of precious metals. It will, therefore, act as a
magnet for opportunistic theft and violence. It will require protection, and the
Žprotector, who wields the force necessary to maintain law and order in the
.economic system , will therefore be able to extract most of the rent from the
system.
Ž .Second, the costs of identifying the true value quality of the metals included
in the minted coin leads to time inconsistency. The mint operator is bound to claim
that the quality will be maintained forever, but in practice will always be tempted
to debase the currency in pursuit of a quick and immediately larger return. 13
Ž .Olson 1996 has described how the development of a secure, dynastic regime
14 Ž .reduces time inconsistency in the ruler also see McGuire and Olson, 1996 .
12
Ž .‘‘And let no man have a minter but the King’’, from the ordinances of Aethelred Wantage, 1002
Ž .reported in Craig 1953 .
13
Ž . Ž .Craig 1953 pp. 27–28 records that:
The Chronicle of Winchester records that the current specie of this country was so much
debased in consequence of the great number of mints established in different cities, of which the
masters seemed to contend with each other who should enrich himself most at the expense of
the public, that it would pass neither in foreign markets nor even in our own.
14
Perhaps the most interesting evidence about the importance of a monarch’s time horizon comes
from the historical concern about the longevity of monarchs and from the once-widespread
belief in the social desirability of dynasties. There are many ways to wish a King well, but the
King’s subjects, as the foregoing argument shows, have more reason to be sincere when they
say ‘‘long live the King.’’ If the King anticipates and values dynastic succession, that further
lengthens the planning horizon and is good for his subjects. The historical prevalence of
dynastic succession, in spite of the near-zero probability that the oldest son of a king is the most
talented person for the job, probably owes something to an intuitive sense that everyone in a
domain, including the present ruler, gains when rulers have a reason to take a long run view.
Ž .Chap. 2, p. 25 .
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 413
ŽFew inventions are made by government bodies except perhaps within the
.military field, e.g., the Manhattan project . This has also been so in the monetary
field. The metallurgical developments and the invention of banknotes, in China
and the West, came initially from the private sector, but money’s initial role as a
Žmeans of payment, for wergeld, bride price, religious occasions, etc. which
.probably predated money’s role as a medium of exchange , and its role in
Ž .facilitating the fiscal basis of government, discussed further later , meant that
government made the monetary process, e.g., the guarantee through minting of the
fineness and at the outset of the weight of the coins, into a pillar of the sovereign
state. 15
There is, as set out by Grierson, a further argument leading to the same
conclusion. Society cannot work if violent behaviour is too prevalent. Some
people will always be violent. An initial act of violence provokes revenge and a
possibly endless feud. Feuds destroy society. One early crucial function of money,
Ž .wergeld, was to set a tariff, whereby the relatives of the initial offender could
recompense the damaged party. This practice spread to other inter-personal
Ž .relationships, bride-price, slaves , in some cases before formal markets and the
use of money in trade arose. 16
Also see Exodus 21:32,35 and Deuteronomy
Ž . Ž .22:13–19,28–29. Kleiman 1987b pp. 261–287 describes such compensations.
I take it as a maintained assumption that the establishment of law and order
Ž .involves and requires a governance structure. Others, for example, Benson 1990 ,
do not accept that; it is, indeed, a major underlying issue. If law and order, the
enforcement of contracts, and the whole infrastructure of settled behaviour that
Ž .makes markets and money work is really independent of the governance
structure of our societies, then, the M team approach becomes much sounder—the
more so, if governments are actually inimical to such necessary infrastructure, but
to me, the concept that the existence of law and order is independent of
Ž .government seems pure anarchist wish-fulfillment.
15
Ž . Ž .On this, see Gerloff 1952 and Laum 1924 .
16
Ž . Ž .Melitz 1974 pp. 39–42 , accepts that money in its guise of a means of payment for such´
intra-societal transfers antedated money as a general medium of exchange in markets. However, on p.
77, he defines money as a medium of exchange held ‘‘in order to economize on transaction costs in the
activity of trading a variety of other types of goods.’’ My argument is that the means of payment role
Ž .was usually prior in time and helped to facilitate and develop the subsequent more general medium of
exchange role. The temporal ordering of the various uses of money remains, however, a contentious
issue. The Bible, Genesis, 23: 16 and 37: 25, 28 indicate that silver was used as a medium of exchange
Ž .for large payments from a very early date. In early history, money and religion were often as closely,
or more closely, inter-related than money and the State. Temples were the great economic centers of
the ancient world. They provided an opportunity to trade, especially at the festivals marking the end of
the agricultural season; and having amassed considerable wealth from the gifts of their cult’s devotees,
they very often became lenders and ‘bankers’ on a great scale, hence, their need for a monetary
standard, which probably anteceded that of the State. I am indebted to Professor Kleiman for pointing
Ž . Ž .me in this direction. Also, see Kramer 1963 pp. 75–86 .
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432414
What is remarkable when reading the various histories of minting and currency
Ž .is the correlation between strong kings e.g., Charlemagne and Edward I and
successful currency reforms. Naturally, however, the temptation to debase the
Ž .currency increases when external pressures threaten the continuing life of a
government. Thus, Henry VIII’s debasement was related to war with France and
Scotland at a time when ‘‘The Exchequer’s poverty was extreme. . . ’’, Craig
Ž . Ž . Ž .1953 p. 108 . For a splendid account of how that process currency debasement
Ž . Ž . Žworked in practice, see Sargent and Smith 1995 . Glasner 1989 , and forthcom.
Ž .ing, Glasner, 1998 , emphasizes the value to governments facing military crises
of having control over money creation.
Under the C view of money creation, the collapse of strong government would
lead to the cessation, or downgrading of the quality, of minting and a reversion
towards barter. 17
Under the M view, once the private sector has established a
monetary equilibrium, thereby much reducing transactions costs, there is no
conceivable mechanism within the model which would lead back to barter. Let us
look at history. In Japan, for example,
Rice and fabrics had been commonly used as a medium of exchange after
the government ceased the mintage of coins in 958 AD . . .
Ž .Seno’o, 1996 and
by the end of the tenth century, money circulation ceased and the economy
regressed back to a barter economy.
Ž .Cargill et al., 1997 .
In Europe, during Roman times, all coins were minted on the state’s account;
Ž .according to Crawford 1970 , the fiscal needs of the state determined the quantity
Ž .of mint output and coin in circulation. As Redish 1992 notes:
Ž .Howgego 1990 has recently amplified this view suggesting that there was
no one-to-one correlation between state expenditures and new coinage. If the
state acquired bullion, it might be coined even in the absence of fiscal need.
On the other hand, expenditures could be met by older issues, for example,
coins received in taxes.
In any case, when the barbarians submerged Rome, strong government disintegrated.
Both governments and mints fragmented into weaker smaller units. MacŽ
. Ž . Ž .Donald 1916 describes the process see Appendix C as does Craig 1953 , who
also notes that amongst the ruling bodies operating mints at this time were Lords
17
In more recent centuries, however, the alternative, chosen by the private sector has been, instead,
to switch from using the inflationary currency of the domestic government to the more stable currency
Ž .of some other government, see Bernholz 1989 . The existence of such substitute currencies places
Ž .some high upper limit on the potential ravages of the inflation tax.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 415
Spiritual, as well as Temporal. 18
With governments being weaker and less secure,
their currencies became of lower quality, more likely to be debased, and less
Žacceptable in commerce much of the minting that occurred was not to finance
Ž .trade, but for Danegeld and other facets of military relationships between power
.centres . Meanwhile, most, but not all, commercial relationships reverted to barter.
This decline was halted by Charlemagne and his successor, Louis the Pious.
It is only when a settled and strong government has been established that the
authorities can offer both a sufficiently long time horizon and the necessary
control to establish a high quality mint. At the same time, the creation of money
greatly eased and benefited the authorities’ fiscal position, as well as much
reducing transactions costs for the general public. This may have been so even at
Ž . Ž .the very outset of coinage; as Redish 1992 notes also see Grierson, 1977 :
ŽNumismatists believe that the earliest coins were produced at Lydia now
.Western Turkey in the mid-seventh century BC. The coins were made of
electrum, a naturally occurring alloy of gold and silver. They had a design
on one side and were of uniform weight but had a highly variable proportion
Ž .of gold. In an influential article, Cook 1958 argued that these coins were
Ž .introduced to pay mercenaries, a thesis modified by Kraay 1964 who
suggested that governments minted coins to pay mercenaries only in order to
create a medium for the payment of taxes. Both interpretations stress the role
of the government in the introduction of coinage. 19
18
Ž . Ž .Thus, Craig 1953 p. 12 , writes that:
Mints run by ecclesiastics, on the other hand, were proprietary. Only two are known to have
survived from the earliest primitive period. The archbishop of Canterbury has two units.... The
single unit of the abbot of St Augustine’s was merged in this property in or before the tenure of
the See by the patron Saint of Goldsmiths, St. Dunstan. The saint’s three minters were serfs; he
was a hard man of affairs who once shocked his congregation by suspending Easter mass until
they hanged certain counterfeiters of his coin, whose trial the people would have delayed till
Monday out of respect for the day.
19
This interpretation has not gone unchallenged, as Redish again notes:
Ž .More recently, Price 1983 has observed that the early electrum coins were privately issued and
not issued by states. Further, he argues that the electrum coin, which was of uniform weight but
had a highly variable proportion of gold, would have been overvalued if it traded at a uniform
value. This he concludes makes it unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted it. Price’s
interpretation is that the early coins emerged in the context of a giftrexchange economy, and
provided a means for standard bonus payments, and that the imprint was used to identify the
issuer not to guarantee the coin’s value. Only later, according to Price, with the introduction of
gold and silver coin, did coin become a means of standardizing payments. However, Price does
not explain why individuals accepted overvalued coins as gifts. Indeed, it is not clear whether
these coins had a uniform value and at what point the pieces of stamped metal crossed the line
between medal and coin.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432416
The linkages between the creation of currency and taxation are multifaceted, 20
Žand the subject deserves a major study in its own right; it is largely because of the
domination of the M theory’s denial of the importance and necessity of such links
.for the creation of money, that this has not been forthcoming . First, without
money, it would be hard to place taxes on anything other than the production,
Ž .transport and trade of goods, since only goods or labour time could be delivered.
Once money exists, poll, income, and expenditure taxes, as well as taxes on the
production of services become easier to levy. When taxes are received in goods or
Ž .labour, the balance of goods and labour obtained will not be that required for
public sector expenditures; so, money reduces the transactions costs of governments,
pari passu with that of the private sector. By the same token, taxes payable
in monetary form raise the demand for base money. Since a government obtains
seigniorage from money creation, this benefits the fiscal position twice over, not
only from the taxes levied, but also from the seigniorage resulting from the
Ž .induced monetary demand. This was, as Lerner 1954 notes, one of the major
reasons for the introduction of Confederate currency by the South in the US Civil
War:
Secretary Memminger saw two immediate and indispensable benefits from
levying taxes payable in government notes. First, taxes created a demand for
the paper issued by the government and gave it value. Since all taxpayers
needed the paper, they were willing to exchange goods for it, and the notes
circulated as money. Second, to the extent that taxation raises revenue, it
reduced the number of new notes that had to be issued. Memminger’s
numerous public statements during the war show that he clearly realized that
increasing a country’s stock of money much faster than its real income leads
to runaway prices. They also show that he believed that a strong tax program
Ž .lessens the possibility of inflation. p. 508 .
ŽIndeed, the imposition of taxes, payable only in money and not in goods or in
.kind , has been used on numerous occasions in colonial history for the primary
Ž .purpose of forcing taxpayers out of a non-monetary subsistence economy and
into a cash economy producing goods for sale in the world economy; the receipt of
extra fiscal revenues was in some cases just a subsidiary motive, as recorded by
Ž . Ž . Ž .writers such as Ake 1981 , Rodney 1981 , and Amin and Pearce 1976 .
20
Ž .Selgin and White 1996 state that ‘‘Government monopoly in issuing currency can thus be
understood as part of the tax system.’’ That is certainly one key facet of the relationships between
money and government.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 417
There is, indeed, a large literature on the use of taxes, payable in monetary
form, as a means of driving peasants into a monetary relationship with a capitalist
economy. This is not only to be found in the literature on colonial development,
but also in the earlier development of capitalism in Europe, e.g., Hoppe and
Ž .Langton 1994 .
ŽOnce the close link between money creation and taxation and of both to the
.underlying structure and stability of government is understood, the move from
metallic currency to a fiat, paper, currency becomes much more straightforward to
understand. Even if one should accept the M theory of the evolution of metallic
coins as money, it is problematic to use that same theory in its pure 21
form to
explain why agents should suddenly all be willing to jump from using paper notes
Žwhich were ultimately claims on precious metals i.e., private or public sector
.bank notes convertible into such precious metals to paper notes which were
backed by no specific assets. 22
Instead those notes were, and are, backed by the
Ž .power of government e.g., legal tender laws and its ability to impose taxes
Ž . Žpayable and often only payable in that fiat currency as well as legal tender for
.the discharge of all other payments within the country .
Thus, the M-form theory has difficulties with explaining the introduction and
21
Pure in the sense that the move to fiat paper money is also capable of explanation as a
private-sector cost-minimisation process. Of course, if M theorists are prepared to accept that
Ž .government had taken over usurped the control of the monetary base by then, the rest is straightforŽ
.ward. The abandonment of convertibility into a real, metallic base was an unhappy act of government,
Ž .as is clear from history . What remains, perhaps, at issue between the M and C theorists is how much
Žof the subsequent acceptance of fiat money is due to the power of government, e.g., to impose taxes C
.theory , or to network factors and inertia encouraging people, without prompting from government, to
Ž .stay with the existing currency M theory . I am indebted to correspondence with Professor Kevin
ŽDowd for raising this issue with me, and also sending me his working paper with Selgin Dowd and
.Selgin, 1995 . Quite a number of economists combine the belief that M-form cost-minimisation search
theory explained the initial development of money, but that more recently, the State has clearly taken
over the provision of fiat currency. So, whether, or not, they like the result, they accept that the C-form
Ž .theory is at present, more realistic see Congdon, 1981 .
22
Ž .Ritter 1995 argues that a community could benefit from moving to a fiat money economy if the
Ž .issuers could commit to limiting the growth of such base money. Quite so, but as Selgin 1997 argues,
there is a, probably insuperable, co-ordination problem within society, unless the authorities can coerce
Ž .the residents simultaneously to switch, as with the introduction of the Euro in 2002 . Moreover, fiat
currency has, virtually without exception, been introduced at times of war and other crises, when the
rate of growth of base money has been high, on many reckonings ‘excessive’, and certainly not subject
to any credible limitation commitment.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432418
use of fiat currency. The C-form theory has no such difficulties. 23
The transition
was entirely natural. The interesting questions relate, instead, to the factors
determining the historical timing of the switch. The growing power of the nation
Žstate and the extra seigniorage that could be obtained particularly the need for
.such in war-times pushed for an earlier adoption of fiat currency. Historical
Žinertia, credibility effects time inconsistency problems were always foreseen and
legal tender fiat currency invariably had a bad reputation as potentially low quality
.money , and perhaps at times, concerns about counterfeiting, tended to delay the
switch.
Let me conclude this section by pointing out that the M-form theory finds it
difficult to account for the role, or existence, of money within a general equilibrium
model. Money in the utility function, or cash-in-advance models, are
proposed, without much conviction. This difficulty is not surprising given that
such models also abstract from the existence and role of government. While it is,
of course, the relationship between taxation and the demand for money that the
C-form theory emphasizes, it should also be remembered that it is the maintenance
of law and order, the form and enforcement of contracts, and the whole infrastrucŽ
.ture of regulation within society, that allows the epiphenomena of organized
Ž .private sector markets to occur at all.
A disclaimer may, however, also be needed. The purpose of this section was to
argue, first, that money frequently played an initial means-of-payment role in
inter-personal social and governmental roles before it played a major role as a
medium-of-exchange in market transactions, and second, that the relationship of
the State, the governing body, to currency in all its roles has almost always been
close and direct, but I do not claim that the private sector cannot, and has not,
ever been able to develop monetary systems without the involvement of state
authorities. Perhaps the most likely early historical example of purely private
Ž . Žsector monetary systems is the Aztec cocoa bean money Melitz, 1974 pp.´
.129–130 , but more recent examples include the cigarette money of POW camps,
23
Ž .Not surprisingly, Smith 1904 understood the relationship between taxation and fiat currency,
even before any widespread usage of the latter. Thus, Professor M. Forstater, of Gettysburg College,
has brought to my notice:
...the following sentence on p. 322 of the justly famous Cannan edition of The Wealth of
Nations:
A prince, who should enact that a certain proportion of his taxes should be paid in a paper
money of a certain kind, might thereby give a certain value to this paper money; even though
the term of its final discharge and redemption should depend altogether upon the will of the
prince.
Ž .Cannan’s ‘sidebar’ his summary of each paragraph given in the margin for this paragraph reads:
A requirement that certain taxes should be paid in particular paper money might give that paper
a certain value even if it was irredeemable.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 419
Ž . Ž .Radford 1945 pp. 189–201 , and the use of vehicle currencies in foreign
Ž .exchange trading, Swoboda, 1969; Hartmann, 1994a,b . Several national currencies
have in the course of history become widely accepted internationally, e.g., the
Byzantine Hperpyron or ‘Bezant’, the Florentine Guilder, the Venetian Ducat, and
more recently, the pound sterling, US dollar and in some countries, the
Deutschmark, in some cases against the wishes, and without any involvement, of
the issuing government. Indeed, many economic agents voluntarily hold money
issued by a state other than their own, e.g., US dollars almost everywhere,
Ž .Deutschmarks in East Europe, etc. see Cohen, 1996 . Other examples can be
added. Moreover, were the state authorities now consciously to choose to abdicate
their monetary role, the void would surely be taken up by commercial institutions.
3. The M-form spatial theory, or optimal currency areas
Ž .If the use of money can evolve through a search process of cost minimisation,
without any necessary intervention by a government, then, by analogous reasoning,
the spatial domain for any one money 24
can also evolve from such a similar
cost-minimisation search process. The optimal currency area analysis has, indeed,
followed that approach. It has broadly compared the benefit, in terms of transaction
cost minimisation, of having a single currency over a wider area against the
Ž .costs in terms of adjustment difficulties Krugman, 1993 . Those costs depend in
Žpart on market imperfections, whereby there is imperfect flexibility either spatial,
Ž . .i.e., migration, or in nominal wages in labour markets. The standard litany of
factors affecting OCAs then follows, such as size, openness, labour market
24
Ž . Ž .Dowd and Greenaway 1993 pp. 1180–1189 , have described how ‘network externalities’ will
Žtend to limit the use of money for ordinary retail purposes in any area to a single kind of money, in
.which, of course, there will be coinsrnotes of many values exchangeable at fixed, set ratios . When the
Ž .quality of money in an area declines sharply debasement, inflation , residents may turn increasingly to
Ž .a higher quality money dollarisation . The costs of overcoming such network externalities may make
such a switch partly irreversible. The dominance of a single currency in a single area does not, of
course, rule out multiple currency holdings near boundaries, nor holdings of foreign currencies by
Ž .residents for trade, travel and portfolio diversification reasons; on this latter view, see Cohen 1996 .
The proposed joint usage of national currencies and Euros during the change-over transition period
within EMU 1999–2002 is not a counter-example, since the ratio of the value of the Euro to the
national currency will be absolutely fixed and irreversible. What is, however, new is that this fixed
Žratio will be highly user-unfriendly, e.g., 1 Euros0.876534 National Units; it has been agreed that
.the rate will be applied to six significant figures , and not the standard user-friendly progression of
currency values, e.g., 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50.... There will, therefore, be serious additional information and
familiarization costs involved in the transition. Note that virtually all prior currency reforms involved
knocking zeros off existing currencies, e.g., 1 New Francs100 Old Francs. They were often
somewhat traumatic for residents; the switch to the Euro will be much more so.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432420
flexibility, concentration or diversity of production, nature of and specificity of
Ž .shocks whether symmetric or asymmetric , etc.
Note, however, that following M-form theory, the functions and role of
Ž .government do not necessarily, or even usually, enter this list. Under the pure
Ž .OCA theory Mundell, 1961 there is no reason why currency domains need to be
co-incident and co-terminous with sovereign states. There is no reason why such a
state should not have any number of currencies from zero to n, and an optimal
Ž .currency area, in turn, should be able, in theory, to incorporate parts of any
number of separate countries from one to n. Under the M-form OCA theory, there
should be a divorce between currency areas and the boundaries of sovereign states.
Most subsequent OCA applied research has, however, simply taken for granted the
initial starting concordance of sovereign governments and currencies, and then
applied the standard tenets of OCA theory to the question of monetary union
between such countries; but that ignores the ‘political economy’ factors that made
currency areas coincident with countries in the first place, and hence, likely to
overlook the crucial political economy factors that will determine the success, or
failure, of such unions, including EMU.
Such lack of concern for political economy considerations is not the case with
C-form theory. Since under this theory, money is intimately bound up with the
stable existence and fiscal functions of government in any area, the sovereign
government of that area is predicted to maintain its single currency within the
area’s boundaries.
Which theory has the better predictive and explanatory power? Si monumentum
Ž .requiris, circumspice! In a recent paper, Eichengreen 1996 , writes:
Michael Mussa is fond of describing how, each time he walks to the IMF
cafeteria, down the corridor where the currency notes of the member states
are arrayed, he rediscovers one of the most robust regularities of monetary
economics: the one-to-one correspondence between countries and currencies.
If monetary unification precedes political unification in Europe, it will be an
unprecedented event.
Ž .p. 12 .
Yet, the economics profession has taken little notice of this ‘robust regularity’
Ž .in its assessment of monetary theory national or international , and in its
adherence to the M-form theory of private sector evolution. Moreover, it is
difficult to see how several large countries, encompassing regions geographically
separate, sometimes at very different stages of development, often with regionally
concentrated production, could possibly meet the criteria for OCAs, e.g., USSR
before its collapse, Brazil, Australia, Canada, and even USA.
In how many countries do we find multiple currencies? Prospectively, there
will be, after 1997, one such country, China, where the Special Autonomous
Ž .Region of Hong Kong will keep its separate currency for 50 years . Given the
political circumstances of the planned arrangements, this could be described as an
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 421
exception that proves the rule. 25
In some countries which have suffered hyperinflation,
‘dollarisation’ has occurred, as in Argentina, Peru and—to some extent—
ŽRussia, and similarly with respect to the Deutschmark in Yugoslavia see Petrovic´
.and Vujosevic, 1996, on the Yugoslav hyperinflation of the 1990s . What isˇ ´
remarkable in these cases is how high the inflation tax rate on domestic currencies
has to climb before the public switches to an alternative foreign currency—although
once such a switch has occurred, it does not reverse easily or quickly, and
when the public does decide to abandon the inflating domestic paper currency, the
alternative, privately chosen, good money can virtually drive out the ‘bad’ official
Ž .money, Bernholz, 1989 .
There have, however, been a few historical examples where currencies from
several states were treated as equally acceptable in all of them. These included the
Ž . Ž . 26
Latin Monetary Silver Union 1865–1914 and the Scandinavian Monetary
Ž . 27, 28 Ž .Union 1873–1914 . Cohen 1993 has studied the historical cases of such
monetary union, 29
and concludes that the economic factors considered in standard
OCA theory have little, or no explanatory or predictive power to explain the varied
history of the sustainability of such unions, and that political considerations are
over-riding.
Only in one single respect does the M-form, OCA theory have much statisti-
25
Ž . Ž .Also, see Kleiman 1994 pp. 365–369 for a discussion of the agreement on currency usage in
the areas of the autonomous Palestinian authority. Andorra and Namibia also have more than one legal
tender.
26
w xT he union managed to hold together until the generalized breakdown of monetary relations
during World War I. Following Switzerland’s decision to withdraw in 1926, the LMU was
formally dissolved in 1927.
Ž . Ž .Cohen, 1993 p. 191 .
27
By the turn of the century, the SMU had come to function, in effect, as a single region for all
payments purposes, until relations were disrupted by the suspension of convertibility and
floating of individual currencies at the start of World War I. Despite subsequent efforts during
and after the war to restore at least some elements of the union, particularly after the members’
return to the gold standard in the mid-1920s, the agreement was finally abandoned, following
the global financial crisis of 1931.
Ž . Ž .Cohen, 1993 p. 191 .
28
The Gold Standard did not represent an example of such a monetary union. While foreign agents
could obtain national currencies at relatively low transaction cost by shipping gold in either coin or bar
form, the currency circulation within each participating country was as overwhelmingly national as
Žnow, and the gold value of national currencies could, and did, vary between time-varying physical
.arbitrage points .
29
Amongst current monetary unions, Cohen also studies the CFA and Eastern Caribbean Currency
Area. The CFA has been held together by French political, even including military, and financial
support, while the populations of the ECCA are so tiny that the entire region is still too small for
anything other than a currency board.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432422
Žcally significant explanatory power, that is, tiny States principalities like Liecht.enstein,
San Marino, Monaco, Andorra, etc. will generally not have their own
Ž .currencies; and that there is some statistical tendency for larger states to adopt
Žmore flexible exchange rates and smaller states pegged exchange rates see, for
.example, Al-Marhubi and Willett, 1996 ; but this is observationally equivalent, to
some considerable extent, with the belief that the tiny principalities have very little
sovereign power, and are in several cases, effectively vassal subsidiaries of their
larger neighbour. Consider, for example, the two small countries that use the US
dollar as currency—Panama and Liberia. Do these satisfy the OCA model, e.g.,
with similar shocks and an integrated labour market with the USA, or is the
rationale for such currency usage to be found in political history?
ŽIt is certainly true that sovereign states have at times chosen voluntarily and
.temporarily to relax part of their sovereignty by committing themselves to
maintaining pegged exchange rates against a precious metal, or against the
currency of another state. The gold standard was, perhaps, the best and most
Ž .successful example; but, as Panic 1992 emphasizes, the countries participating in
that did so by independent, voluntary choice, each maintaining, and on occasions
Ž . Ž .utilising, the right to withdraw. Moreover, as Glasner 1989 p. 39 has emphasized,
it can be optimal for a sovereign country to pre-commit to a regime which
Ž .will ensure price stability so long as that regime continues , but only if it retains
the ability to utilize its independent money creation powers in a crisis. 30
Perhaps the clearest indication of the relative predictive and explanatory power
of the C-form theory comes on the occasion of the break-up of existing federations
into separate States, as in the cases of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia
in the 1990s, and Austro-Hungary after World War I, or on the other hand, of the
unification of smaller States into a larger Federal State, e.g., the USA, 31
Ger-
30
One useful and illuminating way of thinking about EMU is to regard this as the monetary symbol
of a political pact between the two largest countries of Northern Europe, Germany and France, that
there cannot and must not ever in future be a serious crisis, let alone a war, in their bilateral
relationships. This line of thought comes naturally to C-team theorists and to politicians such as Kohl.
It makes no sense, of course, to M-form theorists who see no necessary or desirable connections
between monetary and political relationships.
31
‘‘When the First Continental Congress met in 1775 in Philadelphia, the first order of business was
Ž . Ž .to establish a national currency’’ Kohn 1991 p. 70 ; but States’ note issues were not then banned,
and that plus, of course, reliance on the issue of ‘Continentals’ to finance the War of Independence led
to major inflation. This led the Constitutional Convention to establish in Article 1 of the Constitution of
1789 that Congress, and not the States, ‘‘shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof
and of foreign coin’’, and that ‘‘No State shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold
Ž . Ž .and silver tender in payment of debts.’’ Davies, 1994 p. 466 .
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 423
many, 32
Italy, 33
etc., on their foundation. The C-form theory predicts that the
fragmentation of sovereignty will lead to a fragmentation into separate currencies,
and, per contra, that unification into an effective federal state will lead to the
unification of previously separate currencies.
The M-form theory has nothing useful to offer on this. If the USSR were an
optimal currency area before its break-up, it should have presumably remained so
afterwards. If Prussia and Bavaria had been OCAs before the unification of
Germany, they should presumably have remained so afterwards.
There is, however, one qualification to the above argument, that is, the acts and
existence of a sovereign government in a particular geographical domain may
serve to make that domain an OCA, whereas had there been several governments
in the same domain, it would not have been an OCA. For example, if the existence
of a unified-governmental fiscal system should be helpful in mitigating asymmetric
shocks affecting regions in that domain, then, it would be more likely to be an
OCA. Again, a sovereign government is likely to impose laws and to encourage
Ž .behaviour e.g., use of a single dominant language that usually serve to make
Ž .labour markets far more flexible within, than between, such countries. Similarly,
the actions taken by such governments can be regarded as idiosyncratic shocks.
For such reasons, it is possible that some of the explanatory factors determining
OCAs could be argued to make them co-incident with sovereign states. Cesarano
Ž .1997 proposes that the boundaries of the nation state define an equilibrium
currency area. Nevertheless, the speed, and the patent political involvement,
attending the association of monetary and sovereign fragmentation or federal
32
In its pamphlet, entitled The Reichsbank, which the Reichsbank published on its 25th anniversary
in 1900, the opening paragraphs read as follows:
The newly established German Empire found in the organization of the coinage, paper money,
and bank-note systems, an urgent and difficult task. Probably in no department of the entire
national economic system were the disadvantages of the political disunion of Germany so
clearly defined as in this; in no economic department were greater advantages to be expected
Ž .from a political union. Although the customs union Zollverein had happily united the greater
part of Germany in a commercial union, similar attempts in monetary affairs had met with but
modest success, and were absolutely fruitless in banking. The inconvenience most complained
Ž .of was the multiplicity and variety of the different coinage systems seven in all in the different
states, also the want of an adequate, regulated circulation of gold coins.
Ž .Reichsbank, 1900 .
33
Ž . Ž .As reported by Canovai 1911 p. 26 :
The prior political fragmentation of Italy left the country at the beginning of the 1870s with
w x‘‘...conditions of the institutions of issue and the paper currency that were abnormal and
unorganized, since there was a mixture of institutions, different in nature and privilege, and a
hybrid circulation, partly private and partly belonging to the State, which could not truly serve
the economic and monetary conditions of the country.’’
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432424
unification over geographical areas makes it extremely hard to claim that this
follows, or was caused by, some kind of private sector evolutionary search
process.
What, of course, is remarkable and unique about the move to EMU and the
Euro is the absence of an accompanying federalisation of governmental and fiscal
Ž .functions. This divorce between monetary federal centralisation and governmental
decentralisation at the level of the nation state, especially with the main fiscal
functions remaining at that lower, national level is the source of potential tensions.
It was, in part, to address such tensions that the Maastricht fiscal criteria and the
subsequent Waigel ‘growth and stability pact’ were introduced.
ŽWe should ask why M-form theory maintains such a grip as contrasted with
.the C-form theory over most economic thought. For the reasons outlined in this,
and the previous section, it can hardly be because it provides a positive explanation
of observable events. Compared with the success of the C-form theory, the
Ž .explanatory or predictive capacity of the M-form theory is nugatory. As CeŽ
.sarano 1997 also notes: ‘‘The standard theory of optimum currency areas is
Ž .falsified by the empirical evidence.’’ p. 57 .
One possible rationale is that the M-form theory was never meant to be a
positive, explanatory theory, but instead a normative theory, of what should be. As
one referee commented: ‘‘OCA theory is a normative, not a positive theory.’’ A
weak form of this would be to recognize that, in practice, monetary institutions are
inherently and au fond associated with considerations of political sovereignty, but
that the subsidiary function of M-form OCA theory is to assess the balance of
purely economic benefits and costs that this may generate. The problem with this
is that the historical record of the association of money creation with the
establishment and maintenance of a stable sovereign power is so overwhelming
Ž .apart from the case of tiny, and by the same token politically weak, states that
the balance of purely economic benefits and costs entailed by OCA must presumably
be of second order importance.
One implication of the C-form theory is that the value of fiat currency will
depend on expectations of the future existence of the current government, and the
prospective treatment of that currency by a successor government. This suggests
that a currency’s valuation should be affected both by war ‘news’ and news on a
defeated country’s treatment, post-bellum, independently of the past and prospective
future rate of expansion of such money supply. This line of thought has been
Ž . Ž .advanced by economists such as Mitchell 1903 and Dacy 1984 , but the
methodologies used in their exercises could be improved.
A much stronger version of such a normative approach is again to accept that
Ž . Žgovernments have almost always historically and traditionally taken over usu.
Ž .rped the primary role in high-powered, base money creation, but to argue, using
M-form theory, that this was neither necessary, nor desirable. Governments have
Žoften used their money creation powers to support and benefit themselves via
.debasement and the inflation tax , though usually when they are weak andror
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 425
threatened, especially by war. Clearly, access to the inflation tax benefits such
governments. Whether it has benefited, or harmed, the public depends on the
circumstances, e.g., the relative value to them of maintaining their existing
government. A properly organized system of privately determined money creation
could, so it is argued, provide a monetary system with a superior quality. This is
Ž .the approach taken by economists such as Hayek, many but not all monetarists
and the Free Banking School. In the absence of any more radical move in this
direction, the separation of the powers of money creation in an independent
ŽCentral Bank, which under the Maastricht Treaty is required not to take instrucŽ
.. Ž .tions from government s , is usually seen as, at least, a step in the right
direction by M-form theorists.More generally, there has been an overlap between
M-form theorists and those who believe that the intervention of government within
Ž .the economy is excessive, unnecessary in most cases and should be reduced.
Ž .There is, therefore, a disguised, but not hidden agenda of M-form theory in
advocating a reduced role for the State in economic affairs. By contrast, C-form
theorists tend to believe that government intervention is an inevitable concomitant
Ž .of the operation and organization of our political system, and many worry
Ž .whether the prospective European Central Bank ECB may not suffer from a
‘democratic deficit’—a larger issue which we shall not pursue further here.
4. Conclusion
OCA theory has little, or no predictive or explanatory capacity. Unlike the
C-form theory, it is unable to account for the close relationship between sovereignty
and currency areas—a relationship that tenaciously persists through the course of
the creation, and break-up, of federal states. The empirical weakness of OCA
theory, the spatial facet of M-form theory, throws further doubts on the ability and
value of the latter to explain the evolution and nature of money as well as C-form
theory can. The main advantages of the M-form theory appear to be technical, in
that it lends itself better to mathematical formalisation, and ideological, in that it is
based on a process of private sector cost minimisation, rather than a messier
political economy process. It is, however, a pity to suspect that monetary
economics may be driven more by technical and ideological purity than by
empirical and predictive capacity.
Ž .If, then, the key issue is the political relationship between control over money
and sovereign power, we need to consider carefully what problems this may
portend for the future Euro single currency area. In the Euro area, the traditional
historical links between money creation and sovereignty will be broken to a
unique extent. Money creation will be the responsibility of a federal body, the
European System of Central Banks, intentionally made, by the Maastricht Treaty,
Ž .entirely independent of Government s , whereas most other fiscal and other
powers will remain in the hand of the participating nation states.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432426
Acknowledgements
My thanks are due to Philip Arestis, Peter Bernholz, Jerry Cohen, Tim
Congdon, Kevin Dowd, Mathew Forstater, Arye Hillman, Ephraim Kleiman,
Jacques Melitz, Allan Meltzer, Warren Mosler, Morris Perlman, George Selgin,´
Christopher Waller and three anonymous referees of this journal.
Appendix A. Grierson’s views on the societal origins of money
Ž . Ž .In his pamphlet on The Origins of Money, Grierson 1977 pp. 19–21 writes:
In any case, the generalized application of monetary values in commodities
could scarcely have come about before the appearance of market economies,
and monetary valuations were already in existence in what Sir John Hicks
has felicitously christened ‘customary’ and ‘command’ pre-market societies,
Ž . Ž . ŽA theory of economic history, London, 1969 , p. 2 ff. Hicks, 1969 rise of
. Ž .the market , pp. 63–68 origins of money . He has to some extent telescoped
the invention of money and the invention of coinage, and in my view, he
exaggerates the ‘store of value’ element in early money. Nor, if my
argument that money antedated the development of the market is correct, it
is the case that the standard ‘‘should be something that is regularly traded’’.
In such societies, they provide a scale of evaluating personal injuries in the
institution which the Anglo-Saxons termed the wergeld, and it is in this
institution that the origin of money as a standard of value must, I believe, be
sought. The practice of wergeld, that of paying a compensation primarily for
the killing of a man, but the term by extension covering compensations for
injuries to himself or his family and household, is most familiar to us in its
Indo-European setting . . . The general object of these laws was simple, that
of the provision of a tariff of compensations which in any circumstances
their compilers liked to envisage would prevent resort to the bloodfeud and
all the inconvenient social consequences that might flow therefrom. . . . The
object of the laws is that of preventing retaliation by resort to force, and the
principle behind the assessments is less the physical loss or injury suffered,
than the need to assuage the anger of the injured party and make good his
loss in public reputation. It would cost one four times as much to deprive a
Russian of his moustache or beard as to cut off one of his fingers . . . . Karl
Menger, in an impressive article on the origins of money published many
years ago, argued ingeniously that one would expect monetary standards to
be based on the commodities most commonly and easily exchanged in the
market, since these would have the maximum saleability. The law codes
suggest that while this may be true of money substitutes, it is not true, or at
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 427
least is not necessarily true, of the commodities used as standards them-
selves.
w xnota bene, for detailed references see the original.
Appendix B. Limits to the ability of early mints to guarantee the quality of
coins
Although the development of mints provided a major advance in identifying
and guaranteeing the quality and weight of coins, several problems however
remained. Until a process was found to give coins milled edges, coins could be
Ž . Ž .clipped, and thereby lose weight. Also, as Melitz 1974 p. 71 notes:´
Through most of the Middle Ages, many individual coins of the same issue
differed substantially in weight and fineness. Indeed, prior to the 13th
century, coinage methods hardly permitted less than a 5 to 10 percent
variation in weight between individual coins struck from the same plate.
Thus, accounting prices of different coins belonging to the same denomination
and issue often varied. Differences in weight and fineness, along with a
host of other factors, like varying admixtures, ordinary wear, clipping, and
sweating, continued to produce differences in accounting prices of money
units of the same denomination and issue all the way down to the 17th and
18th centuries.
With coins of varying weight, but of a known, given fineness, transactors
would have to make a difficult choice between weighing coins, a time-consuming
Ž .exercise, or of getting a specialist to assess them , or accepting them as
equivalent, without weighing, e.g., by tale, which carried the risk that some
Ž .underweight coins would not be subsequently acceptable. See, for example,
Ž .Sargent and Smith 1995 .
Ž .Kleiman 1987a notes that a defrauded party, when overcharged, could revoke
a deal within a certain time span.
Ascertaining the ‘right’ price of an article was thus supposed to be a matter
of, at most, several hours. The only exception was deficient coins, of which
w xit was said: Until when is one permitted to revoke the deal ? In cities, until
w x wone can show the coin to a moneychanger; and in villages—until the
xfollowing Sabbath eve. To understand, we have to remember that the
coinage circulating in the Roman world of the first two centuries AD was
most variegated.
Moreover, it was sometimes difficult to check whether the fineness of the coin
was as stated, without complex, and destructive, metallurgical testing. During the
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432428
Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan, not only was the fineness of the coins never
Ž .published, see Ueda et al., 1996 , but also:
In spite of enormous differences in the fineness of the Kobans created by a
series of recoinages, the color of the surface did not deteriorate much and
the surface generally shines with a golden color. The Kobans of low
fineness, namely the Genroku Koban and the Gembun Koban do look
slightly inferior in the surface color to other types of Kobans, but other
Kobans minted in and after the Bunsei era show just as beautiful a golden
color as the high fineness Keicho and Kyoho Kobans even though their
fineness is even more inferior. This phenomenon is produced by the last
Žprocess in the minting of the Koban called ‘color dressing’ color improve.ment
or coloring . This process dissipates the silver element on the surface
of Koban by heating it after coating the surface with chemical substances.
This process seems to be unique to Japan in the history of minting and we
have not heard of any similar instances in other countries. . . .
Appendix C. MacDonald’s description of the monetary disorders after the fall
of Rome
Ž .In his book on The EÕolution of Coinage 1916 , MacDonald describes the
monetary consequences of the collapse of the Roman Empire in the following
Ž .terms pp. 29–31 :
When Rome fell, the triumphant invaders took over the institution of
coinage from the rulers whose power they had destroyed. The earliest money
of the new nations was entirely composed of direct, and not always very
skilful, imitations of the imperial currency. This was partly because the
barbarian chiefs sometimes chose to maintain the fiction that they were
merely the vassals of the Emperor of the East, partly because they were
aware that their own issues were more likely to be readily accepted if they
conformed in outward appearance to what the mass of the population had for
generations been accustomed to use. Even after a certain amount of independence
had been developed, the confusion that the Empire had bequeathed
showed no sign of passing away. On the contrary, once the restraining hand
of a centralized control had been removed, the evil tended to become more
and more sharply accentuated. The number of persons in whose names coins
were struck multiplied rapidly . . . Delegation of authority was the pivot on
which the whole of that system turned, and the multiplication of mints by
which its development was attended did not, therefore, imply—in theory at
least—any breach of the cardinal principle that the right of striking money
was an attribute of the sovereign power. In point of fact, the penalties that
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 429
waited on transgressors were more severe now than at any other period of
the world’s history . . . A similar desire for self-assertion was unquestionably
operative in the case of the feudal lords generally, but in the majority of
instances, there was a baser motive present too. The business of minting
could be made personally profitable, if one chose to play fast and loose with
the responsibility which the possession of the right implied. The usual
practice was to call in the current issues from time to time, or to collect a
supply of pieces struck by a neighbour, and adulterate the metal or reduce
the weight, and then give out a larger number of coins than had been
originally received, the nominal value of each being the same but the
intrinsic worth considerably less. This money the people had perforce to use,
except in so far as they were able to transact business, as they did to a
certain extent, through exchanging actual commodities. The hardships they
endured in consequence are testified to by many contemporary witnesses.
And there were various aggravations. Minting authorities often made exorbitant
charges under the guise of dues. Again, bad as the money was, worse
was frequently imported from abroad. Lastly, there was ‘clipping’, a species
of fraud which consists in paring the edges of coins in circulation, in order
to accumulate silver.
References
Ž .Aethelred, 1002. Ordinances of Wantage .
Ake, C., 1981. A political economy of Africa. Longman, Harlow.
Al-Marhubi, F., Willett, T.D., 1996. Determinants of the choice of exchange rate regime, Manuscript.
Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA, April.
Alchian, A., 1977a. Economic Forces at Work. Liberty Press, Indianapolis.
Alchian, A., 1977b. Why money? Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 9, 133–140.
Amin, S., Pearce, B., 1976. Unequal development: an essay on the social formations of peripheral
Ž .capitalism B. Pearce, Trans. . Harvester Press, Hassocks.
ŽAristotle, circa BC 340. The Politics, Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1887 reprinted in English and
.edited by W. Newman .
Benson, B.L., 1990. The enterprise of law. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco.
Bernholz, P., 1989. Currency competition, inflation, Gresham’s law and exchange rate. Journal of
Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 145,¨
465–488.
Ž . Ž . Ž .Bible, King James Translation, 1611, i Genesis 23,37; ii Exodus 21; iii Deuteronomy 22.
Brunner, K., 1971. The uses of money: money in the theory of an exchange economy. American
Economic Review 61, 784–805.
Burns, A.R., 1927. Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Canovai, T., 1911. The banks of issue in Italy, Banking in Italy, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Japan.
National Monetary Commission, XVIII, Washington, D.C.
Cargill, T., Hutchison, M., Ito, T., 1997. The Political Economy of Japanese Monetary Policy. MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts.
Cesarano, F., 1997. Currency areas and equilibrium. Open Economics Review 8, 51–59.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432430
Clower, R.W., 1969. Monetary theory: selected readings, Penguin modern economics readings.
Harmondsworth.
Cohen, B.J., 1993. Beyond EMU: the problem of sustainability. Economics and Politics 5, 187–202.
Cohen, B.J., 1996. Optimum currency area theory: bringing the market back in, Manuscript. Department
of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
Congdon, T., 1981. Is the provision of a sound currency a necessary function of the state?, Paper
presented at a Conference on Liberty and Markets, organized by the Liberty Fund. Oxford, April
Ž .24r26 reprinted by L. Messel and Sons Ltd. 100 Old Broad Street, London .
Cook, R.M., 1958. Speculation on the origins of coinage. Historia 7, 257–267.
Craig, J., 1953. The Mint. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Crawford, M., 1970. Money and exchange in the Roman world. Journal of Roman Studies 60, 40–48.
Dacy, D., 1984. The effect of confidence on income velocity in a politically unstable environment:
wartime South Vietnam. Kyklos 17, 414–423.
Davies, G., 1994. A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day. Univ. of Wales Press,
Cardiff.
Dowd, K., Greenaway, D., 1993. Currency competition, network externalities and switching costs:
towards an alternative view of optimum currency areas. Economic Journal 103, 1180–1189.
Ž .Dowd, K., Selgin, G., 1995. On the non emergence of fiat money, Manuscript. Dept. of Economics,
Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Eichengreen, B., 1996. A more perfect union? The logic of economic integration, Essays in International
Finance, No. 198. Princeton International Finance Section, Princeton, N.J.
Einzig, P., 1949. Primitive money in its ethnological, historical and economic aspects, 2nd edn.
Pergamon, New York, 1966.
´Fontana, C., 1996. The credit theory of Emile Mireaux: les miracles du credit, paper given at the´
Money, Macro and Finance Group Conference, London Business School, Manuscript. School of
Business and Economic Studies, Leeds University, UK.
Gerloff, W., 1952. Die entstehung des geldes und die anfilnze des geldwesens. V. Klostermann,
Frankfurt.
Glasner, D., 1989. Free banking and monetary reform. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Glasner, D., 1998. An evolutionary theory of the state monopoly over money, forthcoming. In:
Ž .Timberlake, R. Ed. , Money and the Nation State.
Goodhart, C.A.E., 1989. Money, information and uncertainty, 2nd edn. Macmillan, London.
ŽGrierson, P., 1977. The origins of money, pamphlet. Athlone Press, Univ. of London reprinted and
.revised from Creighton Lecture, Cambridge, 1970 .
Grierson, P., 1979. Dark age numismatics, Variorum Reprints. London.
Hartmann, P., 1994. Vehicle currencies in the foreign exchange market, DELTA Discussion Paper, no.
94-13. DELTA, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris.´
Hartmann, P., 1996. Monnaies vehiculaire sur le marche des change, PhD thesis. Ecole des Hautes´ ´
Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris.
Hicks, J.R., 1969. A Theory of Economic History. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hoppe, G., Langton, J., 1994. Peasantry to Capitalism. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Howgego, C.J., 1990. Why did ancient states strike coins? Numismatic Chronicle 150, 1–25.
Jevons, W.S., 1875. Money and the Mechanism of Exchange. Henry S. King, London.
Keynes, J.M., 1935. A Treatise on Money. Macmillan, London.
Kiyotaki, N., Wright, R., 1989. On money as a medium of exchange. Journal of Political Economy 97,
927–954.
Kiyotaki, N., Wright, R., 1993. A search-theoretic approach to monetary economics. American
Economic Review 83, 63–77.
Kleiman, E., 1987a. Just price in Talmudic literature. History of Political Economy 19, 23–45.
Kleiman, E., 1987b. Opportunity cost, human capital and some related economic concepts in Talmudic
literature. History of Political Economy 19, 261–287.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432 431
Kleiman, E., 1994. The economic provisions of the agreement between Israel and the PLO. Israel Law
Review 28, 347–373.
ŽKnapp, G., 1905. The State Theory of Money. Macmillan, London, 1924 a translation of the 4th
.German edn., 1923; 1st German edn .
Kohn, M., 1991. Money, banking and financial markets. The Dryden Press, Chicago.
Kraay, C.M., 1964. Hoards, small change and the origin of coinage. Journal of Hellenic Studies 84,
76–91.
Kramer, S.N., 1963. The Sumerians. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Krugman, P., 1993. What do we need to know about the international monetary system?, Essays in
International Finance, No. 193. Princeton International Finance Section, Princeton, N.J.
Laum, B., 1924. Heiliges Geld. J.C.B. Mohr, Tubingen.¨
Lerner, E.M., 1954. The monetary and fiscal programs of the Confederate Government, 1861–65.
Journal of Political Economy 62, 506–522.
Ž .Locke, J., 1960. In: Laslett, P. Ed. , Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge.
MacDonald, G., 1916. The Evolution of Coinage. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
McGuire, M.C., Olson, M. Jr., 1996. The economics of autocracy and majority rule: the invisible hand
and the use of force. Journal of Economic Literature 34, 72–96.
Melitz, J., 1974. Primitive and Modern Money: an Interdisciplinary Approach. Addison-Wesley´
Publishing, Reading, Massachussetts.
Menger, K., 1892. On the origin of money. Economic Journal 2, 238–255, translated from German by
C.A. Foley.
Mireaux, E., 1930. Les Miracles du Credit. Editions des Portigues, Paris.´
Mises, L.V., 1912. The Theory of Money and Credit, 1st German edn. Jonathan Cape, London, 1934
Ž .English Translation, 1934 .
Mitchell, W.C., 1903. A History of the Greenbacks. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mundell, R.A., 1961. The theory of optimum currency areas. American Economic Review 51,
657–664.
Olson, M., 1996. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, draft of book. Dept. of Economics, Univ. of
Maryland.
Panic, M., 1992. European Monetary Union: Lessons from the Gold Standard. Macmillan, London.
Petrovic, P., Vujosevic, Z., 1996. The monetary dynamics in the Yugoslav hyperinflation of 1991–1993:´ ˇ ´
the Cagan money demand. European Journal of Political Economy 12, 467–483.
Polanyi, K., 1957. The semantics of money uses, Explorations, Vol. 8, 19–29, reprinted in Dalton, G.
Ž .Ed. , 1968, Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economics: Essays of Karl Polanyi. Doubleday, New
York.
Price, M., 1983. Thoughts on the beginnings of coinage. In: Brooke, C., Stewart, B., Pollard, J., Volk,
Ž .T. Eds. , Studies in Numismatic Method. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Ž .Pufendorf, S., 1744. In: Mascovius, G. Ed. , On the Law of Nature and of Nations in Eight Books.
Marcus-Michael Bousquet, Lausanne and Geneva.
Radford, R.A., 1945. The economic organization of a P.O.W. camp. Economica 12, 189–201.
Redish, A., 1992. Coinage, development of, New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance, Vol. 1,
pp. 376–378.
Reichsbank, 1900. The Reichsbank, 1876–1900, 25th anniversary pamphlet. Berlin.
Ritter, J., 1995. The transition from barter to fiat money. American Economic Review 85, 134–149.
Rodney, W., 1981. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Howard Univ. Press, Washington, D.C.
Sargent, T.J., Smith, B., 1995. Coinage, debasement and Gresham’s Laws, Unpublished Manuscript,
August.
Selgin, G., 1997. Network effects, adaptive learning and the transition to fiat money. Dept. of
Economics, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA, Work in Progress, April.
Selgin, G., White, L.H., 1996. An evolutionary fiscal theory of government monopoly in money. Dept.
of Economics, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA, Work in Progress, Draft, August.
( )C.A.E. GoodhartrEuropean Journal of Political Economy 14 1998 407–432432
Seno’o, M., 1996. Yamada Hagaki and the history of paper currency in Japan, Bank of Japan, Institute
for Monetary and Economic Studies, Discussion Paper 96-E-25.
ŽSmith, A., 1904. The wealth of nations, Cannan Edition originally published in 1904; reprinted by
.Methuen, London, 1961 .
Swoboda, A., 1969. Vehicle currencies and the foreign exchange market: the case of the dollar. In:
Ž .Aliber, R. Ed. , The International Market for Foreign Exchange. Praeger, New York City, pp.
30–40.
Ueda, M., Taguchi, I., Saito, T., 1996. Non-destructive analysis of the fineness of kobans in the Yedo
Period, Bank of Japan, Institute of Monetary and Economic Studies, Discussion Paper 96-E-26.