Is that a good thing, keeping the banks free to run the mechanics of policy without political considerations, or a source of risk (see: United States)?
Leaving aside the question of whether it is a good idea to use these reserves to pay off international creditors – something that perhaps only the future will tell – is there a good reason why central banks should be “independent” of their elected governments?
The business press, which has the support of the vast majority of economists on this question, thinks there is. The basic argument is that if the central bank is not able to determine monetary policy free of “political considerations”, then politicians will force the bank to be “too loose” with monetary policy and the country will end up with dangerously high levels of inflation.
This would seem to be a tough argument to swallow for anyone who believes in representative democracy. Fiscal policy – the government’s decisions with regard to spending and taxation – is also a major determinant of economic activity. There are important tradeoffs that affect the livelihood, income and employment of most of the population. Yet in the US, these decisions are entrusted to our elected representatives in Congress, together with the executive.
There is no obvious reason why monetary policy – the central bank’s decisions with regard to interest rates and money supply – is so different from other major policy decisions that it should be specially insulated from the electorate. There is no valid analogy, for example, to the independence of the judiciary – which is based on a theory of separation of powers, or checks and balances, ostensibly to limit abuses of power or infringements on civil rights and liberties.
via Answer to the people, not big finance | Mark Weisbrot | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.
