ABSTRACT
The sphere in which the practical adoption of monetary reform after the war attained the highest degree was that of international co-operation. Admittedly, to the advocates of international currency, the progress made towards monetary internationalism during the period of post-war stability may appear totally inadequate. Viewed from the angle of the pre-war situation, however, the change was almost revolutionary. Co-operation between Central Banks or Governments was not, it is true, altogether a post-war development. In the past arrangements were occasionally made for one Central Bank or Government to assist another in a temporary financial embarrassment. The best known and most frequently quoted instance was that of the Baring crisis in the ’nineties when the Bank of France came to the rescue of the Bank of England. Such cases, however, were only isolated instances. Generally speaking, it may safely be stated that co-operation between the monetary authorities of various countries was the exception and not the rule. Had anybody suggested in 1913 that Central Bank governors should hold monthly meetings to exchange views on the international monetary situation and on the particular situation of each country; that Central Banks should systematically exchange statistical and other information; that they should communicate to one another their impending acts such as bank rate changes or decisions to suspend the gold standard; that they should systematically assist one another technically and support one another financially; that occasionally they would even modify their own monetary policies to suit the convenience of some other country, such a prophet would have been denounced as a Utopian dreamer. Had he dared to suggest that in less than two decades there would be an international bank controlled by Central Banks, the main object of which was to be to endeavour to co-ordinate monetary policies and place international collaboration on a systematic basis, in all probability his sanity would have been called in question. Thus, while we may argue that progress towards monetary internationalism has not been satisfactory, to claim that there has been no progress at all would bring us into conflict with facts.
