I am writing as a non-economist.
I am wondering, amidst all the problems the Euro is currently having,
about historical and comparative and theoretical treatments of
similar currency/integration problems, because I have seen none,
except for what can be gleaned from *The Economist*.
What interests me, for instance, is that people talk of how different
the Greek political economy is from the German and how therefore they
cannot exist together with the same currency without great strains
.... perhaps so great that the Greeks should leave, or the Euro will
fall apart.
But -- and here is where I am really clearly a non-economist, sorry
-- when I look at the US, now or in 1787 or 1890, I see a country as
diverse as Europe economically, but maintaining a single currency.
Why the difference?
Or, when nascent states were introducing single currencies (the
English pound into Scotland and Ireland, the German mark throughout
the newly consolidated Empire in the latter half of the 19th
century), were there similar concerns about the single currency?
How would various economic theorists treat these
historical/comparative issues? Are there any economic theoretical
treatments about bringing together disparate economies into one unit?
(sorry, again, my ignorance)
As a political theorist, I'd be inclined to think that political
power played a role, at least in my above examples: the silver
battles of the populist times were the equivalent of the Greeks, the
losers in the unified economic organization, trying to change the
rules; but the powerful East Coast financial interests would not let
them. I'd suspect the same was true about the English pound in
Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (pre-1923).
But I would like to get some good, history of economy theory answers.
Can you help.
Thanks, Peter
--
Peter G. Stillman
Department of Political Science
Vassar College (#463)
124 Raymond Avenue
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0463
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.vassar.edu/stillman/
http://petergstillman.wordpress.com/about/
|
