Currency Diplomacy, now and then.

Time is like a river, and history repeats. Japan’s ‘novel’ idea of a currency union for Asia, is modelled partly on the experience of the Euro. But in fact a closer match for Asia’s current political-economy might well be Europe of 19th Century, rather than the 20th. Even then, in 1865, the idea of common regional currency was being debated in Europe, and its outcome is instructive for today’s currency politics in Asia.

In mid-1800s, Napoleon III of France launched a project to tie other European currencies to the Franc in what was called the Latin Monetary Union (LMU). At this time, France fixed the Franc to contain a certain quantity of silver (4.5 grams) and proposed that other currencies adopt its standard. Doing so, the French argued, would facilitate international trade by removing risks and transaction costs associated with exchanging one currency for another, or indeed due to movements within the bimetallic exchange rate. Harmonising the currencies of Europe was rational, scientific (metric!) and civilised argued the French. Notwithstanding the limits of the eventual agreement, (private persons/ Banks were not obliged to accept foreign minted but LMU-consistent coinage), the LMU did gather significant support – indeed lasting until the 1920s.

The French were particularly keen for the British to sign onto the scheme. And indeed, although Britain was on the gold standard rather than bimetallism, a minimal adjustment of the quantity of gold within the pound and a (much needed) technical reform (decimalising the currency) and the British could have joined the LMU, if they had wanted to, relatively easily. But here politics got in the way of economics. Britain had little love or trust for the revolutionary French, whatever the potential benefits. In fact, the British believed the LMU was a rouse, a part of the French master strategy to secure its economic hegemony in Europe and to wrestle away from London its status as a financial centre. With Britain refusing to sign on, the LMU was confined to France’s poorer, southern neighbours for whom the marginal cost of aligning their currencies to the French mint’s standards was perceived worthwhile in order to “facilitate international trade, import a better internal currency, acquire monetary credibility and gain access to international [French] financial markets”, see Einaudi.

Now, from Napoleon III’s Paris, we leap forward in time and space, roughly 150 years and more precisely 9738km, to Tokyo in the present. Here we find that, over the years since the Asian Financial Crisis, some within Japan have argued for a regional exchange rate mechanism for Asia.

While not identical to the LMU, the diplomacy surrounding the Asian Monetary Union (AMU) as it might be called does share some similar features. In terms of style, Japan’s Ministry of Finance has argued that it is rational for the nations of Asia to adopt a common currency, and a veritable “.pdf” tidal wave of scientific/economic research has been presented to support this vision - much the same way France postured in the mid-1800s minus the modern software. In terms of membership, like the LMU, the most receptive audience is the smaller, poorer nations to the south – in this case ASEAN states rather than Belgium et al.[1] And like the LMU, at least one major regional power is opposed to the scheme. China.

China has little love or trust for the Japanese, regardless of the possible benefits of a common Asian coin. Indeed, China has dismissed some of the proposed weightings for a future Pan-Asian currency which have been raised in various East Asian multilateral fora. This is because, in the first instance, China believes that the whole scheme is a rouse designed to ensure Japan’s economic hegemony and project its position as a financial centre for Asia; and, in the second instance, that as a matter of national pride the Yuan ought to be the most important currency in any “designer” Asian money. Taking its cue from Japan, China has starting arguing that others, including the ASEAN states should place greater weight on the Chinese Renminbi (RMB). Indeed, already smaller states close to the border of China are using the RMB in settling their international (and indeed some internal) trade. Of course, these are the same target states for Japan’s ‘scientific’ common currency proposals.

Of course, Japan is not France, China is not the UK and the AMU proposal is not the LMU. But if a lesson can be drawn from history it is that without a level of trust and cooperation among the major powers of the region, currency coordination efforts are doomed to become a competitive and futile exercise. Much like France of the 19th Century, Japan has not presented a unified vision. Moreover, Japan has copied some of France’s mistakes, linking membership in the proposed AMU to the political alignment of prospective member countries.[2] It is no surprise then that the plan is viewed suspiciously by Beijing. As Balassa suggests, if Japan and China are not even able to conclude a FTA between themselves, then cooperation in the creation of a regional currency is beyond them.[3]


[1] Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Greece, Romania, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Venezuela, Serbia, Montenegro, San Marino and later the Papal States, although the Papal States were later thrown out due to the practice of debasing their coins.
[2] Smaller German not yet part of Bismark’s second Reich looked to the LMU as a way of gaining French support for the independence. Taiwan and Hong Kong are playing similar games, as are countries such as Laos in the Mekong Delta.
[3] Bela Balassa, The Theory of Economic Integration (Homewood: Irwin, 1961).