Political business cycle theories generally rely on nominal rigidities and voter myopia. This paper offers an equilibrium theory which preserves some basic insights from earlier models, though with significant refinements. The "political budget cycle" emphasized here is in fiscal policy rather than output and inflation; it arises via a multidimensional signal process. One can consider the welfare implications of proposals to mitigate the cycle, and the effects of altering the electoral structure.

We show that, under fairly general conditions, lending to small countries must be supported by the direct sanctions available to creditors, and cannot be supported by a country's "reputation for repayment." This distinction is critically important for understanding the true underlying structure of sovereign lending contracts, and comparing policy alternatives for dealing with the developing country debt problem.

It appears likely that the number of currencies in the world, having proliferated along with the number of countries over the past 50 years, will decline sharply over the next two decades. The question I plan to pose here is: where, from an economic point of view, should we aim for this process to stop? Should there be a single world currency, as Richard Cooper (1984) boldly envisioned? Should there remain multiple major currencies but with a much stricter arrangement among them for stabilizing exchange rates, as say Ronald McKinnon (1984) or John Williamson (1993) recommended? Building on Maurice Obstfeld and Rogoff (2000b, d), I will argue here that the status quo arrangement among the dollar, yen, and euro (which I take to be benign neglect) is not far from optimal, not only for now but well into the new century. And it would remain a good system even if political obstacles to achieving greater monetary policy coordination (or even a common world currency) could be overcome. Again, this is not a paper on, say, the pros and cons of dollarization for small and medium-sized economies, but rather on arrangements among the core currencies. Any blueprint for the future core of the world currency system involves some crystal-ball gazing. But at the same time, recent research in international macroeconomics offers several important insights that can help inform the discussion.

The past decade has witnessed the growth of a large literature on international cooperation in trade and macroeconomic stabilization policy. Virtually all the models developed to date, however, are based on one of two extreme assumptions concerning governments' ability to commit to international agreements. Either they assume that governments can make constitutionally binding long-term agreements, or else they assume that governments have no ability to make legal commitments whatsoever. In the latter case, international policy cooperation is possible only to the extent that reputational factors will allow.' In this paper, I consider a world in which there is no legal mechanism for enforcing long-term international agreements, but where governments must still incur some small direct costs if they renege. These small costs might arise due to legislative or administrative frictions. I also allow for the possibility that international economic policy agreements can include small sidepayments. For example, in negotiating a bilateral reduction in tariffs, two allies could simultaneously agree to redistribute the burdens of defense expenditures.

In recent years, economists have increasingly debated whether multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, should switch from making subsidized loans to giving outright grants. It is no small question. The combined loans of the World Bank Group and brethren regional entities such as the Asian and Inter-American Development Banks, approach $300 billion. Their funds constitute a main channel through which rich country governments provide assistance to developing country governments. In Bulow and Rogoff (1990), we first developed the case for a shift to outright grants. We argued that under the status quo, a vastly disproportionate share of aid goes to middle income countries via disguised interest subsidies, rather than to the poorest countries. We also argued that a shift to grants would protect donor banks from sometimes having to play a “bad cop” role when trying to collect net repayments rather than fully rolling over loans. The “Meltzer Commission” (International Financial Institution Advisory Commission, 2000) report on government sponsored international lending institutions famously took a similar view. Supporters of the status quo often argue that development bank loans to middle income countries are in fact highly profitable, and are essential for allowing institutions like the World Bank to subsidize aid to poor countries. We shall argue that the Bank’s profitability is an accounting artifice that greatly underestimates the risks of the Bank’s portfolio. Another argument for loans is that multilateral development banks have a superior enforcement technology that helps international debt markets to function more efficiently. Thus loans allow financially strapped governments, including in middle-income countries, to borrow more than they could otherwise. We will argue that this benefit, too, is an illusion. In those cases when official lending does expand a developing country government’s borrowing capacity, it effectively enables the government to commit the country to repayment levels beyond that supported by domestic political consensus, creating moral hazard for shortsighted rulers. In theory, better credit access to finance, say, public infrastructure projects can be highly beneficial. In practice, however, the increased risk of debt crisis all too often outweighs any gain ordinary citizens might enjoy from the loans. Furthermore, moral hazard on the part of lenders, who may be able to induce rich countries into subsidizing the bailout of troubled middle-income borrowers, may mean that aggregate lending is excessive even if multilaterals merely displace equivalent private debt. We do not argue for eliminating assistance to middle-income countries. On the contrary, we would favor expanding aid in general, albeit in far greater proportion to the world’s poorest countries. Note that in principle, any country with market access could use grant flows to help defray interest rate costs on loans if it so chose, but development banks would never need to assume a “bad cop” role in enforcing debt.

This paper studies the implications of central bank credibility for long-run inflation and inflation dynamics. We introduce central bank lack of commitment into a standard nonlinear New Keynesian economy with sticky-price monopolistically competitive firms. Inflation is driven by the interaction of lack of commitment and the economic environment. We show that long-run inflation increases following an unanticipated permanent increase in the labor wedge or decrease in the elasticity of substitution across varieties. In the transition, inflation overshoots and then gradually declines. Quantitatively, inflation overshooting is persistent, and the welfare loss from lack of commitment relative to inflation targeting is large.

We examine the evolution of real per capita GDP around 100 systemic banking crises. Part of the costs of these crises owes to the protracted nature of recovery. On average, it takes about 8 years to reach the pre-crisis level of income; the median is about 6.5 years. Five to six years after the onset of crisis, only Germany and the United States (out of 12 systemic cases) have reached their 2007-2008 peaks in real income. Forty-five percent of the episodes recorded double dips. Post-war business cycles are not the relevant comparator for the recent crises in advanced economies.

The Federal Reserve's mandate has evolved considerably over the organization's hundred-year history. It was changed from an initial focus in 1913 on financial stability, to fiscal financing in World War II and its aftermath, to a strong anti-inflation focus from the late 1970s, and then back to greater emphasis on financial stability since the Great Contraction. Yet, as the Fed's mandate has expanded in recent years, its range of instruments has narrowed, partly based on a misguided belief in the inherent stability of financial markets. We argue for a return to multiple instruments, including a more active role for reserve requirements.

Newly developed historical time series on public debt, along with data on external debts, allow a deeper analysis of the debt cycles underlying serial debt and banking crises. We test three related hypotheses at both “world” aggregate levels and on an individual country basis. First, external debt surges are an antecedent to banking crises. Second, banking crises (domestic and those in financial centers) often precede or accompany sovereign debt crises; we find they help predict them. Third, public borrowing surges ahead of external sovereign default, as governments have “hidden domestic debts” that exceed the better documented levels of external debt.