Opinion is divided on whether it is better to have a single world  money or variable exchange rates.  Pope, Selten and von Hagen (2003)  propose that fresh light would be shed via an analysis that allows  for seven complexity impacts on the exchange rate that are  underplayed (where not entirely absent) from current analyses: 1) the  role of official sector, including its central bank; 2) the numerous  official and private sector goals; 3) the disparate degrees of market  power of different sorts of private agents; 4) the documentation that  essentially all shocks to the exchange rate are generated by human  decisions; 5) the non-maximising heuristics that in the complex  economy agents use; 6) heterogenous beliefs.  This paper analyses a  closed form game theoretic solution of version 1 of a model that  combines impacts 1 to 4 with the conventional finance assumption that  all agents maximise their utility.  Impact 1) precludes private  agents being able to destabilise the exchange rate against the  cooperation of the central banks required by the game theoretic  solution.  Impact 4) excludes random events and other exogenous  shocks such as meteors falling from the sky.  The rational maximising  assumption in turn precludes all other sources of shocks and thus any  need for a variable exchange rate to equilibrate after shocks.  We  then modify version 1 of our model substituting for the maximising  assumption impacts 5 to 7, impacts that allow shocks from humans to  be consistently incorporated.  We do so by means of an experimental  investigation which indicates that central bankers less than fully  cooperate, leaving scope for private speculators to support their  preferred currency.  From the viewpoint of the game theoretic  equilibrium, the resultant exchange rate changes render equilibrium  unspecified.  A single world money avoids disruptive exchange rate  changes from less than fully cooperating central banks, exchange rate  changes caused by central bank conflicts and that cannot be  classified as equilibrating.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by University of Bonn, Germany in its series Bonn Econ Discussion Papers with number
bgse18_2007.
Length: 33 Date of creation: Dec 2007 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:bon:bonedp:bgse18_2007
Contact details of provider: Postal: Bonn Graduate School of Economics, University of Bonn, Adenauerallee 24 - 26, 53113 Bonn, Germany Fax: +49 228 73 9221 Web page: http://www.bgse.uni-bonn.de/index.php?id=494
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Daniel Park).
Find related papers by JEL classification: F31 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Foreign Exchange F33 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - International Monetary Arrangements and Institutions B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General B59 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Other C79 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Other C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: