On the Asymmetric Impacts of a Common Monetary Policy in Europe

  • A. J. Hughes Hallett
  • Laura Piscitelli
  • T. Warmedinger
Part of the ZEI Studies in European Economics and Law book series (ZEIS, volume 1)


Economists have long feared that economic convergence towards monetary union might be superficial or short-lived; more the product of political will than of economic advantage or market incentives. The worry is the convergence criteria were defined in nominal terms, and for one particular moment of time. This says nothing about convergence in structures and responses, or about the ability to remain converged over a period of time. If significant differences remain in structures, or in the national responses to policy changes, shocks, or other events, then it is inevitable that common policies — and a common monetary policy in particular — will have different impacts in different places. That could delay convergence, if not start to drive the union’s economies apart.


Exchange Rate Interest Rate Monetary Policy Fiscal Policy European Central Bank 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayoumi, T. and B. Eichengreen. (1994) “Shocking aspects of European monetary unification.” in F. Giavazzi and F. Tones (eds) Adjustment and growth in the European monetary union. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Carlino, G. and R. De Fina. (1998) “Monetary policy and the US states and regions: some implications for the European monetary union.” WP 98–17, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  3. Collard, F. and H. Dellas. (1998) Exchange rate systems and macroeconomic stability. Department of Economics (VWI), University of Bern, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  4. de Grauwe, P. and W. Vanhevebeke. (1993) “Is Europe an optimum currency area? Evidence from regional data.” in P. Masson and M. Taylor (eds) Policy Issues in the operation of currency areas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Demertzis, M., A. Hughes Hallett and O. Rummell. (1998a) “Does a core-periphery regime make Europe into an optimal currency area?” in P. Welfens (ed) European monetary union. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Demertzis M., A. Hughes Hallett and O. Rummell. (1998b) “Is a 2-speed system in Europe the answer to the conflict between Germany and the Anglo-Saxon models of monetary control?” in S. Black and M. Moersch (eds) Competition and convergence in financial markets — the German and Anglo-American models. Elsevier, North Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Dornbusch R., C. Favero and F. Giavazzi. (1998) “Immediate challenges for the European central bank.” in EMU: prospects and challenges for the Euro, Blackwell & Co, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. EC. (1990) “One market, one money.” European Economy, No. 44, EC Publications, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  9. Fair R.C. (1994) Testing macroeconomic models. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Frankel, J. and A. Rose. (1998) “The endogeneity of the original currency area criteria.” Economic Journal 108, 1009–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes Hallett A. (1989) “Econometrics and the theory of economic policy: the Tinbergen-Theil contributions 40 years on.” Oxford Economic Papers 41, 189–214.Google Scholar
  12. Hughes Hallett, A. (1998) “The UK and preparations for stage three of economic and monetary union.” Evidence to the treasury select committee of the House of Commons, HC5–3 - Vol. III, pp. 66–94, HMSO London.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes Hallett, A. and D Vines. (1993) “On the possible costs of European monetary union.” Manchester School 61, 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horvath, M. (1998) Empirical evidence on common money and uncommon regions in the US. Department of Economics, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Krugman, P. and A. Venables. (1996) “Integration, specialisation and adjustment.” European Economic Review 40, 959–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laxton, D., P. Isard, H. Faruque, E. Prasad and B. Turtleboom. (1998) “MULTIMOD Mark III: the core dynamic and steady state models.” IMF Occasional Paper, No. 167, IMF, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  17. McKibbin, W. and J. Sachs. (1991) Global linkages: macroeconomic interdependence and cooperation in the world economy. Brookings Institution, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  18. Mitchell, P., J. Sault, P. Smith and K. F. Wallis. (1998) “Comparing global economic models.” Economic Modelling 15, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smets, F. (1997) “Measuring monetary policy in the G7 countries: interest rates vs. exchange rates.” paper presented to the CEPR conference “Model specification, identification and estimation in empirical macroeconomics”, Perguia, January.Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, J. (1993) Macroeconomic policy in a world economy. Norton and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  21. Wieland, V. (1996) “Mcnetary policy targets and the stabilisation objective: a source of tension in the EMS.” Journal of Intern,. aional Money and Finance 15, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Hughes Hallett
    • 1
  • Laura Piscitelli
    • 1
  • T. Warmedinger
    • 1
  1. 1.University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations