logo
Trump's Fed attacks puncture veneer of central bank independence: McGeever

Trump's Fed attacks puncture veneer of central bank independence: McGeever

Zawya7 days ago
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)
ORLANDO, Florida - If U.S. President Donald Trump's public attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell have achieved one thing, it has been to thrust the issue of central bank independence firmly into the spotlight. But this raises the question, what does 'independence' really mean?
Central bank independence is widely considered a bedrock of modern-day financial markets. Economists, investors and policymakers almost universally agree that monetary policy should be set for the long-term good and stability of the economy, free from short-term and capricious political influence.
But maintaining that theoretical separation between policymakers and politicians is very challenging in practice.
Ultimately, central banks are creations of – and, to varying degrees, extensions of – their national governments. The legislatures determine their statutes, parameters, goals, and key policymaking personnel.
One need only look at the intertwined and often coordinated responses of countries' central banks and governments to the global financial crisis and pandemic for evidence that complete independence doesn't actually exist.
DE FACTO OR DE JURE
'Independence' has two primary meanings in studies of monetary policy.
Academic studies often refer to 'de jure' independence, essentially legal or institutional independence, and 'de facto' or operational independence. Importantly, de jure independence is no guarantee of de facto independence or vice versa.
Perhaps surprisingly, the U.S. scores pretty low on a de jure basis, mainly because the Fed's statutes have barely changed since it was created over a century ago in 1913.
Davide Romelli, associate professor at Trinity College Dublin, has updated a central bank independence index created by Alex Cukierman, Steven Webb, and Bilin Neyapti in the 1990s. The index, in which 0 is no independence and 1 is total independence, shows the US scoring 0.61. That suggests the Fed is a less institutionally independent body than the European Central Bank, which scored 0.90, and even the People's Bank of China, which scored 0.66.
But on a de facto basis, the Fed would almost certainly rank as higher than the PBOC, given its design, transparency, and accountability mechanisms such as the chair's regular press conferences and appearances before Congress.
And look at how the Fed resisted the clamor to raise interest rates when inflation first exploded after the pandemic as well as its patience in lowering them now given the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. trade agenda. You can argue the wisdom or folly of the Fed's actions in either case, but both episodes put its operational independence on full display.
'BANANA REPUBLIC'
When experts talk about threats to central bank independence, they are usually referring to concerns about de facto independence.
Indeed, this is why Fed-watchers have grown increasingly troubled by Trump's excoriating verbal attacks on Powell over the last six months for not cutting interest rates. If there is a line demarcating political interference, however amorphous, Trump has crossed it.
"The words that Trump uttered are the ones one expects from the head of a banana republic that is about to start printing money to fund fiscal deficits," former Fed Chair and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told The New Yorker earlier this month.
Of course, even if Trump were to replace Powell with a more amenable chair, this would not completely eliminate Fed independence. The Fed chair does not single-handedly set interest rates and represents only one of 12 votes at each policy meeting.
But in many ways he or she is the first among equals, as University of Maryland's Thomas Drechsel shows in a recent working paper.
Analyzing over 800 personal interactions between Fed officials and each U.S. president from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama in 2016, Drechsel found that 92% were with the Fed chair. President Richard Nixon interacted with Fed officials 160 times, reflecting his infamous efforts to influence then chair Arthur Burns, while only six interactions took place during Bill Clinton's two terms.
To be sure, not all meetings or telephone calls involve political pressure, and for purely logistical reasons, it makes sense that the president would prioritize speaking with the head of the monetary policy body as opposed to all its members.
As such, appointing the governor is a key area where a central bank's independence can be damaged. In a 2022 academic paper titled "(In)dependent Central Banks" revised in February analyzing 317 governor appointments in 57 countries between January 1985 and January 2020, the authors noted that as central banks' powers – and perceived independence – have expanded, political incentives to control them have intensified, "especially in an era of growing global populism."
Thus, in many cases, the more power a central bank has to ignore political pressure, the more motivated government leaders are to apply it. If that is a global trend, Trump appears to be at the vanguard.
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)
(By Jamie McGeever. Editing by Mark Potter)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gold falls to near 3-week low as US-EU deal boosts risk appetite ahead of Fed meeting
Gold falls to near 3-week low as US-EU deal boosts risk appetite ahead of Fed meeting

Khaleej Times

timean hour ago

  • Khaleej Times

Gold falls to near 3-week low as US-EU deal boosts risk appetite ahead of Fed meeting

Gold fell to a near three-week low on Monday as a U.S.-European Union trade accord lifted the dollar and risk sentiment, while investors awaited fresh cues on rate policy from this week's Federal Reserve meeting. Spot gold fell 0.6% to $3,316.03 per ounce as of 11:36 a.m. ET (1536 GMT), after touching its lowest level since July 9, earlier in the session. U.S. gold futures were down 0.7% at $3,313.2 per ounce. The U.S. dollar index rose to a one-week high, making bullion more expensive for overseas buyers. "I think the more trade announcements we get, the more the dollar increases. These tariff deals are dollar friendly, lowering the allure of gold and driving the sell-off amid a risk-on sentiment," said Marex analyst Edward Meir. A weekend deal between U.S. President Donald Trump and the European Commission imposed a 15% tariff on EU goods, half the rate initially threatened, easing fears of a broader trade war. That pact came on the heels of last week's U.S.-Japan agreement, while U.S. and Chinese officials will resume talks in Stockholm on Monday, aiming to extend their trade truce by another 90 days. However, a U.S. trade representative said no major breakthrough was expected with China, noting discussions would focus on monitoring and implementing existing commitments. "You're not seeing a huge move on the downside in gold because the deals could still prove to be either difficult to implement or unrealistic," said Meir. The U.S. Federal Reserve is expected to keep its benchmark rate in the 4.25%–4.50% range when its two-day meeting concludes on Wednesday. Markets, meanwhile, continue to price in a potential September rate reduction. Gold tends to do well in a low-interest-rate environment. Elsewhere, spot silver was down 0.1% at $38.12 per ounce and platinum fell 0.6% to $1,393.25, while palladium gained 2.1% to $1,245.52.

EU-US tariff deal draws mixed reaction with French calling it 'submission'
EU-US tariff deal draws mixed reaction with French calling it 'submission'

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

EU-US tariff deal draws mixed reaction with French calling it 'submission'

US President Donald Trump's tariff deal with the European Union drew mixed reviews from the bloc's leaders, with some criticising the agreement that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck. As part of the deal, the EU will pay a 15 per cent tariff on most goods, including cars, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. The rate is half of what Mr Trump had previously threatened to impose on imports from the bloc. The EU also agreed to purchase billions of dollars worth of US energy and weapons as part of the deal which also involves no tariffs on US exports to Europe. The EU defended the deal on Monday. 'I'm 100 per cent sure that this deal is better than a trade war with the United States,' Reuters reported EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic as saying. Ms von der Leyen said it was the 'best we could get'. Other leaders across the bloc, however, were less enthusiastic. 'It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission,' French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou wrote on X. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has a close relationship with Mr Trump, said the EU Commissioner did not stand a chance against the US President. 'It wasn't a deal that President Donald Trump made with Ursula von der Leyen. It was Donald Trump eating Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast,' he said on his podcast. The agreement was the latest announced by Washington in Mr Trump's attempts to reset the country's trade relations with its partners. As well as Japan, he announced deals with the UK and Vietnam, and has agreed to a truce with China under which the two economic powers will drastically lower tariffs on each other while negotiations continue. The EU-US agreement was similar to the one Mr Trump made with Japan, in which he set his so-called reciprocal tariffs at 15 per cent. Military dimensions "That was the template for this deal but that does not completely explain why the EU had to sign this deal,' Simon J Evenett, professor at IMD Business School in Lausanne, told The National. 'The principal reason the EU had to sign this deal is because of the continued US military support for Ukraine. That is the geopolitical overlay which created the imperative for the EU signing this deal. "Halving the tariff rate on the bloc would be an obvious attractive proposition for EU exporters, but we should be under no illusion about the importance of the military dimension here.' Together, the EU and US represent about 30 per cent of global trade in goods and services and 43 per cent of global gross domestic product, according to figures from the European Council and the Council of the EU. The EU and US trade in goods last year was valued at €867 billion ($1.01 trillion), with total transatlantic trade in goods and services valued at more than €1.68 trillion, the councils said. Leaders from Sweden and Denmark joined Mr Orban and Mr Bayrou in expressing disappointment with the agreement. Sweden's Minister for Foreign Trade Benjamin Dousa noted that the deal would bring the highest tariff rate on Europe in nearly eight decades. 'The agreement doesn't make anyone richer but it may be the least bad option," he said on X. "Increased tariffs are primarily paid by the country's own citizens, which is why most wealthy countries have lowered tariffs against the rest of the world over the past 100 years." Some members of the bloc, however, defended the deal for bringing some clarity to the trade tension between the US and EU. 'This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy hard,' Reuters quoted German Chancellor Friedrich Merz as saying. Finland's Prime Minister Petteri Orpo also said the agreement brings 'much-needed predictability' to Finnish companies and the world economy. 'Work must continue to dismantle trade barriers. Only free transatlantic trade benefits both sides the most,' he wrote. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who also has a friendly relationship with Mr Trump, said she considers it 'positive that there is an agreement'. 'But if I don't see the details I am not able to judge it in the best way,' she said.

OPEC+ panel stresses need for full compliance with output limits
OPEC+ panel stresses need for full compliance with output limits

Zawya

timean hour ago

  • Zawya

OPEC+ panel stresses need for full compliance with output limits

An OPEC+ panel on Monday stressed the need for full compliance with oil production agreements, ahead of Sunday's separate gathering of eight OPEC+ members to decide on increasing oil output for September. Ministers from the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee, which includes top energy ministers from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies led by Russia, convened online for brief talks. The JMMC meets every two months and has the power to call for a full meeting of OPEC+ to address market developments if deemed necessary. "The committee reiterated the critical importance of achieving full conformity and compensation," OPEC said in a statement after the meeting. Compensation cuts are those that some countries, such as Iraq and Kazakhstan, are being asked to carry out to make up for earlier overproduction. The JMMC asked countries that are not fully compliant to submit updated compensation plans by August 18. OPEC, in a post on X late on Friday, said the committee does not hold decision-making authority over production levels, and "its role is limited to monitoring conformity with production adjustments and reviewing overall market conditions". OPEC+, which pumps about half of the world's oil, has been curtailing production for several years to support the market. But it reversed course this year to regain market share, and as U.S. President Donald Trump demanded OPEC pump more to help keep a lid on gasoline prices. Eight members began to raise output in April and since then have accelerated the hikes. Their most recent decision calls for an oil output increase of 548,000 barrels per day in August. The eight countries hold a separate meeting on August 3 and remain likely to agree to a further 548,000 bpd increase for September, three OPEC+ sources said last week, as reported by Reuters earlier this month. This would mean that, by September, OPEC+ would have unwound its most recent production cut of 2.2 million bpd, and the United Arab Emirates would have delivered a 300,000 bpd quota increase ahead of schedule. Oil prices have remained supported despite the OPEC+ increases thanks to summer demand and the fact that some members have not raised production as much as the headline quota hikes have called for. Brent crude was trading above $70 a barrel on Monday. (Reporting by Ahmad Ghaddar, Olesya Astakhova and Alex Lawler. Editing by Mark Potter)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store