Hubbry Logo
Fixed exchange rate systemFixed exchange rate systemMain
Open search
Fixed exchange rate system
Community hub
Fixed exchange rate system
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fixed exchange rate system
Fixed exchange rate system
Fixed exchange rate system
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Foreign exchange
Exchange rates
Markets
Assets
Historical agreements
See also

A fixed exchange rate, often called a pegged exchange rate or pegging, is a type of exchange rate regime in which a currency's value is fixed, or pegged, by a monetary authority against the value of another currency, a basket of other currencies, or another measure of value, such as gold or silver.

There are benefits and risks to using a fixed exchange rate system. A fixed exchange rate is typically used to stabilize the exchange rate of a currency by directly fixing its value in a predetermined ratio to a different, more stable, or more internationally prevalent currency (or currencies) to which the currency is pegged. In doing so, the exchange rate between the currency and its peg does not change based on market conditions, unlike in a floating (flexible) exchange regime. This makes trade and investments between the two currency areas easier and more predictable and is especially useful for small economies that borrow primarily in foreign currency and in which external trade forms a large part of their GDP.

A fixed exchange rate system can also be used to control the behavior of a currency, such as by limiting rates of inflation. However, in doing so, the pegged currency is then controlled by its reference value. As such, when the reference value rises or falls, it then follows that the values of any currencies pegged to it will also rise and fall in relation to other currencies and commodities with which the pegged currency can be traded. In other words, a pegged currency is dependent on its reference value to dictate how its current worth is defined at any given time. In addition, according to the Mundell–Fleming model, with perfect capital mobility, a fixed exchange rate prevents a government from using domestic monetary policy to achieve macroeconomic stability.

In a fixed exchange rate system, a country's central bank typically uses an open market mechanism and is committed at all times to buy and sell its currency at a fixed price in order to maintain its pegged ratio and, hence, the stable value of its currency in relation to the reference to which it is pegged. To maintain a desired exchange rate, the central bank, during a time of private sector net demand for the foreign currency, sells foreign currency from its reserves and buys back the domestic money. This creates an artificial demand for the domestic money, which increases its exchange rate value. Conversely, in the case of an incipient appreciation of the domestic money, the central bank buys back the foreign money and thus adds domestic money into the market, thereby maintaining market equilibrium at the intended fixed value of the exchange rate.[1]

In the 21st century, the currencies associated with large economies typically do not fix (peg) their exchange rates to other currencies. The last large economy to use a fixed exchange rate system was the People's Republic of China, which, in July 2005, adopted a slightly more flexible exchange rate system, called a managed exchange rate.[2] The European Exchange Rate Mechanism is also used on a temporary basis to establish a final conversion rate against the euro from the local currencies of countries joining the Eurozone.[3][4][5]

History

[edit]
Main article: International monetary systems

Chronology

[edit]

Timeline of the fixed exchange rate system:[6]

1880–1914 Classical gold standard period
April 1925 United Kingdom returns to gold standard
October 1929 United States stock market crashes
September 1931 United Kingdom abandons gold standard
July 1944 Bretton Woods Conference
March 1947 International Monetary Fund comes into being
August 1971 United States suspends convertibility of dollar into gold – Bretton Woods system collapses
December 1971 Smithsonian Agreement
March 1972 European snake with 2.25% band of fluctuation allowed
March 1973 Managed float regime comes into being
April 1978 Jamaica Accords take effect
September 1985 Plaza Accord
September 1992 United Kingdom and Italy abandon European Monetary System (EMS)
August 1993 European Monetary System allows ±15% fluctuation in exchange rates

Gold standard

[edit]
Main article: Gold standard

The gold standard is a monetary system in which a country's currency or paper money has a value directly linked to gold. With the gold standard, countries agreed to convert paper money into a fixed amount of gold upon demand.

Bretton Woods system

[edit]
Main article: Bretton Woods system

The Bretton Woods System is a set of unified rules and policies that provided the framework necessary to create fixed international currency exchange rates. Essentially, the agreement called for the newly created IMF to determine the fixed rate of exchange for currencies around the world

Current monetary regimes

[edit]

A current monetary system is a system by which a government provides money in a country's economy. Modern monetary systems usually consist of the national treasury, the mint, the central banks and commercial banks.

Mechanisms

[edit]

Open market trading

[edit]

Typically, a government wanting to maintain a fixed exchange rate does so by either buying or selling its own currency on the open market.[7] This is one reason governments maintain reserves of foreign currencies.

If the exchange rate drifts too far above the fixed benchmark rate (it is stronger than required), the government sells its own currency (which increases supply) and buys foreign currency. This causes the price of the currency to decrease in value (Read: Classical Demand-Supply diagrams). Also, if they buy the currency it is pegged to, then the price of that currency will increase, causing the relative value of the currencies to approach what is intended.

If the exchange rate drifts too far below the desired rate, the government buys its own currency in the market by selling its reserves. This places greater demand on the market and causes the local currency to become stronger, hopefully back to its intended value. The reserves they sell may be the currency it is pegged to, in which case the value of that currency will fall.

Fiat

[edit]

Another, less used means of maintaining a fixed exchange rate is by simply making it illegal to trade currency at any other rate. This is difficult to enforce and often leads to a black market in foreign currency. Nonetheless, some countries are highly successful at using this method due to government monopolies over all money conversion. This was the method employed by the Chinese government to maintain a currency peg or tightly banded float against the US dollar. China buys an average of one billion US dollars a day to maintain the currency peg.[8] Throughout the 1990s, China was highly successful at maintaining a currency peg using a government monopoly over all currency conversion between the yuan and other currencies.[9][10][11]

Open market mechanism example

[edit]
Fig.1: Mechanism of fixed exchange-rate system

Excess demand for dollars

[edit]
Fig.2: Excess demand for dollars

Excess supply of dollars

[edit]
Fig.3: Excess supply of dollars

Types of fixed exchange rate systems

[edit]

The gold standard

[edit]
Main article: Gold standard

The gold standard is the pegging of money to a certain amount of gold.

Price specie flow mechanism

[edit]

Reserve currency standard

[edit]

Currency board arrangements are the most widespread means of fixed exchange rates. Currency boards are considered hard pegs as they allow central banks to cope with shocks to money demand without running out of reserves.[12] CBAs have been operational in many nations including:

Gold exchange standard

[edit]

Hybrid exchange rate systems

[edit]
De facto exchange-rate arrangements in 2023 as classified by the International Monetary Fund.
  Floating (floating and free floating)
  Soft pegs (conventional peg, stabilized arrangement, crawling peg, crawl-like arrangement, pegged exchange rate within horizontal bands)
  Hard pegs (no separate legal tender, currency board)
  Residual (other managed arrangement)

Basket-of-currencies

[edit]

Crawling pegs

[edit]
Main article: Crawling peg

Pegged within a band

[edit]

Currency boards

[edit]

Currency substitution

[edit]

Monetary co-operation

[edit]

Monetary co-operation is the mechanism in which two or more monetary policies or exchange rates are linked, and can happen at regional or international level.[15] The monetary co-operation does not necessarily need to be a voluntary arrangement between two countries, as it is also possible for a country to link its currency to another countries currency without the consent of the other country. Various forms of monetary co-operations exist, which range from fixed parity systems to monetary unions. Also, numerous institutions have been established to enforce monetary co-operation and to stabilise exchange rates, including the European Monetary Cooperation Fund (EMCF) in 1973[16] and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)[17][unreliable source]

Monetary co-operation is closely related to economic integration, and are often considered to be reinforcing processes.[18] However, economic integration is an economic arrangement between different regions, marked by the reduction or elimination of trade barriers and the coordination of monetary and fiscal policies,[19] whereas monetary co-operation is focussed on currency linkages. A monetary union is considered to be the crowning step of a process of monetary co-operation and economic integration.[18] In the form of monetary co-operation where two or more countries engage in a mutually beneficial exchange, capital among the countries involved is free to move, in contrast to capital controls.[18] Monetary co-operation is considered to promote balanced economic growth and monetary stability,[20] but can also work counter-effectively if the member countries have (strongly) differing levels of economic development.[18] Especially European and Asian countries have a history of monetary and exchange rate co-operation,[21] however the European monetary co-operation and economic integration eventually resulted in a European monetary union.

Example: The Snake

[edit]

In 1973, the currencies of the European Economic Community countries, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg and the Netherlands, participated in an arrangement called the Snake. This arrangement is categorized as exchange rate co-operation. During the next 6 years, this agreement allowed the currencies of the participating countries to fluctuate within a band of plus or minus 2¼% around pre-announced central rates. Later, in 1979, the European Monetary System (EMS) was founded, with the participating countries in ‘the Snake’ being founding members. The EMS evolves over the next decade and even results into a truly fixed exchange rate at the start of the 1990s.[18] Around this time, in 1990, the EU introduced the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), as an umbrella term for the group of policies aimed at converging the economies of member states of the European Union over three phases [22]

Example: The baht-U.S. dollar co-operation

[edit]

In 1963, the Thai government established the Exchange Equalization Fund (EEF) with the purpose of playing a role in stabilizing exchange rate movements. It linked to the U.S. dollar by fixing the amount of gram of gold per baht as well as the baht per U.S. dollar. Over the course of the next 15 years, the Thai government decided to depreciate the baht in terms of gold three times, yet maintain the parity of the baht against the U.S. dollar. Due to the introduction of a new generalized floating exchange rate system by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1978 that gave a smaller role to gold in the international monetary system, this fixed parity system as a monetary co-operation policy was terminated. The Thai government amended its monetary policies to be more in line with the new IMF policy.[18]

Fixed exchange rate system advantage

[edit]

Disadvantages

[edit]

Lack of automatic rebalancing

[edit]

One main criticism of a fixed exchange rate is that flexible exchange rates serve to adjust the balance of trade.[23] When a trade deficit occurs under a floating exchange rate, there will be increased demand for the foreign (rather than domestic) currency which will push up the price of the foreign currency in terms of the domestic currency. That in turn makes the price of foreign goods less attractive to the domestic market and thus pushes down the trade deficit. Under fixed exchange rates, this automatic rebalancing does not occur.

Currency crisis

[edit]

Another major disadvantage of a fixed exchange-rate regime is the possibility of the central bank running out of foreign exchange reserves when trying to maintain the peg in the face of demand for foreign reserves exceeding their supply. This is called a currency crisis or balance of payments crisis, and when it happens the central bank must devalue the currency. When there is the prospect of this happening, private-sector agents will try to protect themselves by decreasing their holdings of the domestic currency and increasing their holdings of the foreign currency, which has the effect of increasing the likelihood that the forced devaluation will occur. A forced devaluation will change the exchange rate by more than the day-by-day exchange rate fluctuations under a flexible exchange rate system.

Freedom to conduct monetary and fiscal policy

[edit]

Moreover, a government, when having a fixed rather than dynamic exchange rate, cannot use monetary or fiscal policies with a free hand. For instance, by using reflationary tools to set the economy growing faster (by decreasing taxes and injecting more money in the market), the government risks running into a trade deficit. This might occur as the purchasing power of a common household increases along with inflation, thus making imports relatively cheaper.[citation needed]

Additionally, the stubbornness of a government in defending a fixed exchange rate when in a trade deficit will force it to use deflationary measures (increased taxation and reduced availability of money), which can lead to unemployment. Finally, other countries with a fixed exchange rate can also retaliate in response to a certain country using the currency of theirs in defending their exchange rate.[citation needed]

Fixed exchange rate regime versus capital control

[edit]

The belief that the fixed exchange rate regime brings with it stability is only partly true, since speculative attacks tend to target currencies with fixed exchange rate regimes, and in fact, the stability of the economic system is maintained mainly through capital control. A fixed exchange rate regime should be viewed as a tool in capital control.[neutrality is disputed][citation needed]

FIX Line: Trade-off between symmetry of shocks and integration

[edit]
  • The trade-off between symmetry of shocks and market integration for countries contemplating a pegged currency is outlined in Feenstra and Taylor's 2015 publication "International Macroeconomics" through a model known as the FIX Line Diagram.
  • This symmetry-integration diagram features two regions, divided by a 45-degree line with slope of -1. This line can shift to the left or to the right depending on extra costs or benefits of floating. The line has slope= -1 is because the larger symmetry benefits are, the less pronounced integration benefits have to be and vice versa. The right region contains countries that have positive potential for pegging, while the left region contains countries that face significant risks and deterrents to pegging.
  • This diagram underscores the two main factors that drive a country to contemplate pegging a currency to another, shock symmetry and market integration. Shock symmetry can be characterized as two countries having similar demand shocks due to similar industry breakdowns and economies, while market integration is a factor of the volume of trading that occurs between member nations of the peg.
  • In extreme cases, it is possible for a country to only exhibit one of these characteristics and still have positive pegging potential. For example, a country that exhibits complete symmetry of shocks but has zero market integration could benefit from fixing a currency. The opposite is true, a country that has zero symmetry of shocks but has maximum trade integration (effectively one market between member countries). *This can be viewed on an international scale as well as a local scale. For example, neighborhoods within a city would experience enormous benefits from a common currency, while poorly integrated and dissimilar countries are likely to face large costs.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Fixed exchange rate system

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A fixed exchange rate system is a monetary regime in which a country's central bank commits to maintaining its currency's value at a predetermined parity against a foreign currency, a basket of currencies, or a commodity like gold, typically through active intervention in foreign exchange markets using official reserves. This peg establishes a nominal anchor that disciplines monetary policy by limiting the authorities' ability to finance deficits via money creation, thereby promoting price stability in economies vulnerable to inflationary pressures from fiscal laxity or seigniorage temptations. To sustain the peg, the must buy or sell foreign assets to offset excess supply or demand for the domestic currency, which requires substantial reserve holdings and may necessitate adjustments in interest rates or to align internal balance with the external constraint. Fixed regimes facilitate and by reducing exchange rate uncertainty and transaction costs, often yielding lower and more predictable compared to floating alternatives, though empirical evidence indicates they do not inherently outperform on growth or volatility unless underpinned by credible institutions. Historically, fixed exchange rates underpinned the classical until and the Bretton Woods agreement from 1944 to 1971, during which currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar backed by gold convertibility, fostering postwar recovery but ultimately collapsing under asymmetric adjustment burdens and speculative pressures. In contemporary settings, variants persist in currency boards like Hong Kong's dollar peg or the area's internal irrevocably fixed rates, demonstrating resilience in open economies with strong policy credibility, yet exposing vulnerabilities to sudden stops in capital flows or terms-of-trade shocks that exhaust reserves. Defining controversies revolve around : while fixed pegs can enforce discipline against domestic policy errors, misalignments from productivity differentials or external imbalances invite speculative attacks, as reserves dwindle without realignment, underscoring the causal primacy of inconsistent fundamentals over market irrationality in regime breakdowns.

Theoretical Foundations

Definition and Core Mechanics

A fixed exchange rate system, also known as a , establishes the value of a domestic at a predetermined fixed rate relative to another , a basket of currencies, or a such as . In this arrangement, the government or commits to defending the peg through active intervention in market, ensuring the rate remains stable rather than fluctuating based on market . This contrasts with floating regimes where rates adjust freely to economic conditions. The core mechanics revolve around central bank operations to counteract deviations from the fixed rate. If market pressures create excess demand for foreign currency—indicating depreciation risk—the central bank sells foreign reserves to buy domestic currency, thereby supporting its value and contracting the domestic money supply. Conversely, excess supply of foreign currency—signaling appreciation pressure—prompts the central bank to purchase foreign currency with domestic currency, expanding the money supply and accumulating reserves. These interventions directly link the exchange rate target to reserve levels and domestic monetary conditions, subordinating independent monetary policy to the peg's maintenance. Sustainability of the peg hinges on sufficient and policy credibility to deter speculative attacks. In pegs to a single , the domestic rate aligns with the 's, while basket pegs weight multiple currencies to reflect patterns, requiring periodic to maintain alignment. Failure to intervene effectively can lead to reserve depletion or abrupt , as seen in historical crises where imbalances overwhelmed capacity.

Theoretical Rationale for Fixed Rates

Fixed exchange rates are theoretically justified as a mechanism to impose monetary discipline on governments prone to inflationary policies. By committing to defend a peg against a stable anchor currency, such as the U.S. dollar, central banks relinquish independent monetary expansion, as excessive would trigger reserve losses through capital outflows or trade imbalances, forcing corrective . This effect anchors expectations, particularly in economies lacking institutional trust in domestic central banks, by importing the anchor's low-inflation dynamics and stabilizing import prices against domestic wage-price spirals. Empirical models, including the Mundell-Fleming framework, illustrate how fixed regimes preclude competitive depreciations while channeling toward external balance, though at the cost of monetary autonomy under open capital accounts. Proponents argue that fixed rates minimize volatility, which distorts relative prices and hampers intertemporal planning in and . In open economies, this stability reduces hedging costs and risk premia, facilitating deeper financial integration akin to a common area, especially for smaller nations with high openness. theory conditionally supports pegs when labor mobility is low and differentials are contained, as the absence of adjustment via enforces real flexibility and convergence. However, this rationale assumes the anchor's stability; historical pegs to volatile currencies have amplified shocks, underscoring the need for sufficient reserves to sustain the commitment. From a first-principles perspective grounded in causal mechanisms, fixed rates align domestic prices with global benchmarks via , preventing persistent deviations from that floating regimes permit through nominal rigidities. This promotes long-term growth by prioritizing export competitiveness and , as evidenced in studies linking pegged regimes to higher investment ratios in emerging markets, albeit with potential short-term output costs from adjustment rigidity. Critics, including monetarists, contend that such systems invite speculative attacks absent perfect credibility, yet the theoretical case persists for economies where floating rates exacerbate boom-bust cycles due to policy inconsistencies.

Historical Evolution

Classical Gold Standard Era (19th Century)

The classical gold standard, prevailing from the 1870s until the outbreak of World War I in 1914, constituted a paradigmatic fixed exchange rate regime in which participating nations pegged their currencies to gold at legally defined par values, rendering inter-country exchange rates immutable as long as convertibility held. Each country's monetary authority guaranteed redemption of paper currency or coinage into a fixed quantity of gold upon demand, constraining money supply growth to increments in global gold reserves and enforcing discipline through automatic arbitrage. This framework obviated the need for ongoing central bank coordination, relying instead on market-driven gold flows—termed the price-specie-flow mechanism—to equilibrate balance-of-payments imbalances: trade deficits prompted gold outflows, contracting domestic money supplies and prices until competitiveness restored. Adoption accelerated in the latter 19th century, with the serving as the anchor after formally resuming full gold convertibility on May 1, 1821, following suspension during the from 1797 to 1821. transitioned to gold in 1871 upon unification, abandoning silver; the nations, led by , aligned effectively by 1878; and the resumed specie payments in 1879, establishing de facto adherence after the Civil War greenback era. By the 1890s, most European powers and their colonies, alongside (1897) and other emerging economies, had joined, with median adoption for previously fiat-issuing countries occurring around 1896. Empirical performance underscored stability, with average annual inflation across core adherents hovering between 0.08% and 1.1% from 1870 to 1914, exhibiting no secular trend and low short-term variability compared to bimetallic or antecedents. Global trade volumes expanded markedly, benefiting from predictability that reduced transaction costs and hedging needs, while real persisted robustly—U.S. per capita real income, for example, surged over 60% across this span amid technological advances and capital mobility. Deviations from parities remained confined within "gold points" defined by and minting costs, typically 0.5-1%, facilitating reversion without frequent crises until wartime strains.

Bretton Woods System (1944–1971)

The Bretton Woods system was established at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held from July 1 to July 22, 1944, in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, attended by 730 delegates from 44 Allied nations seeking to design a postwar international monetary framework to prevent the competitive devaluations and trade barriers of the interwar period. The agreement created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to oversee exchange rate stability and provide short-term financing for balance-of-payments difficulties, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, later World Bank) for long-term lending to war-torn economies. The IMF's Articles of Agreement were signed on July 22, 1944, and entered into force on December 27, 1945, after ratification by governments holding 85% of voting shares. Under the system, participating currencies maintained fixed par values against the US dollar within a ±1% band, with the dollar itself pegged to at $35 per , establishing a gold-exchange standard where dollars served as the primary reserve asset for international settlements. Countries committed to intervene in markets to defend their pegs, using official reserves or IMF borrowing, while adjustments to parities required IMF consultation and were permitted only for "fundamental disequilibrium" in balances of payments. This adjustable peg mechanism aimed to combine exchange rate stability for trade promotion with flexibility to address persistent imbalances, contrasting with the rigid classical by allowing controlled devaluations or revaluations. The system's operations relied on the US dollar's central role, as foreign central banks accumulated dollars from trade surpluses with the US, which the redeemed for upon request, enforcing discipline on US monetary policy through constraints. However, as global trade expanded in the and , the US ran persistent current account deficits to supply dollar liquidity—embodying the , where the issuer's need to export currency conflicted with maintaining convertibility confidence—leading to rapid growth in dollar holdings abroad exceeding US stocks. By 1971, US s had fallen to about 8,100 metric tons from a 1950s peak, while foreign dollar claims surpassed $40 billion, fueling speculative pressures and drains on . The system's collapse culminated in the "" on August 15, 1971, when President unilaterally suspended dollar-gold for foreign official holders, citing domestic inflation from Vietnam War spending and Great Society programs, alongside balance-of-payments deficits that eroded US gold reserves by over 50% since 1960. This action, part of a broader including a 90-day wage-price freeze and a 10% import surcharge, effectively ended the fixed-rate regime, as currencies floated amid ensuing negotiations like the in December 1971, which attempted realignments but failed to restore . The breakdown highlighted the asymmetry of adjustment burdens, where deficit countries like the faced no automatic correction mechanism, while surplus nations such as and resisted revaluation, exacerbating global imbalances.

Post-Bretton Woods Shifts and Pegged Regimes

Following the collapse of the in 1973, major industrialized economies transitioned to floating exchange rates, with the G-10 nations approving a joint float of six European Community currencies against the U.S. dollar in March 1973. However, numerous smaller and developing economies retained or adopted pegged regimes to anchor monetary policy and combat inflation, often tying their currencies to the U.S. dollar or a basket like the . The (IMF) documented a diverse array of arrangements post-1973, including conventional pegs, where currencies were fixed to another currency or composite, reflecting a de facto persistence of fixed rates despite the nominal shift to flexibility. In , the (EMS), established in March 1979, introduced the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) to stabilize intra-European exchange rates through adjustable pegs centered on the (ECU), with fluctuation bands initially set at ±2.25% for most members. This system aimed to reduce volatility and foster monetary cooperation but faced strains from divergent economic policies, culminating in the 1992 ERM crisis—known as —where speculative pressures forced the and to suspend their pegs on September 16, 1992, after depleting reserves in defense efforts. The crisis highlighted the vulnerabilities of soft pegs to asymmetric shocks, such as Germany's post-reunification tight , leading to wider bands and eventual evolution toward the euro's fixed rates by 1999. In , implemented a regime in April 1991 under the , pegging the peso one-to-one with the U.S. dollar and requiring full reserve backing to restore credibility after exceeding 3,000% annually in 1989. The arrangement stabilized prices and spurred growth initially, with inflation dropping to single digits by 1995, but fiscal rigidities and external shocks, including Brazil's 1999 devaluation, contributed to its collapse in January 2002 amid a banking and default on $100 billion in debt. This episode underscored the risks of hard pegs without sustained fiscal discipline and real flexibility. East Asian economies prior to the 1997 financial crisis maintained dollar pegs to support export-led growth, with Thailand fixing the baht at approximately 25 to the dollar until July 2, 1997, when speculative attacks overwhelmed reserves, prompting a float and devaluation of over 50%. Similar peg collapses in Indonesia, South Korea, and Malaysia exposed fragilities from short-term foreign debt mismatches and moral hazard in financial liberalization, leading to GDP contractions of up to 13% in affected countries by 1998. In contrast, Hong Kong's currency board, enacted on October 17, 1983, has sustained a tight peg at HK$7.8 per U.S. dollar through automatic interest rate adjustments and ample reserves, weathering crises like 1997-1998 without devaluation due to credible commitment and fiscal buffers exceeding 20% of GDP in reserves-to-M2 ratio. These varied outcomes illustrate how pegged regimes post-Bretton Woods offered nominal anchors but demanded robust fundamentals to resist speculative pressures and external imbalances.

Contemporary Fixed Regimes (1980s–Present)

In the decades following the end of the , fixed exchange rate regimes experienced a resurgence, particularly in emerging markets and transition economies seeking to anchor inflation expectations and restore monetary credibility amid high inflation episodes in the and post-communist transitions in the . These regimes often took the form of unilateral pegs to the US dollar or other major currencies, currency boards requiring full reserve backing for the , or informal dollarization, driven by the need for nominal stability in economies lacking institutional trust in central banks. By the , proponents argued that hard pegs imposed fiscal and monetary discipline superior to floating rates in volatile environments, though empirical outcomes varied based on reserve adequacy, , and external shocks. Hong Kong exemplifies a successful long-term fixed regime, adopting a currency board arrangement in October 1983 that pegged the Hong Kong dollar to the US dollar at HK$7.80 per USD, backed by 100% foreign reserves. This followed a speculative crisis in 1982–1983, where the floating rate depreciated sharply, eroding confidence; the peg restored stability, with inflation averaging below 3% annually since the 1990s and supporting sustained GDP growth exceeding 4% per year through integration with global trade. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority maintains the peg through automatic interventions, accumulating over $400 billion in reserves by 2023, demonstrating resilience to shocks like the 1997 Asian financial crisis and global liquidity strains. In contrast, Argentina's 1991 currency board law pegged the peso 1:1 to the USD, converting the austral at a fixed rate and requiring full reserve backing to halt exceeding 3,000% in 1989. The regime initially succeeded, reducing to single digits by 1995 and fostering , but rigid adherence without fiscal reforms led to overvaluation, rising (reaching 50% of GDP by 2001), and vulnerability to the 1998–2002 global downturn and Brazilian . The peg collapsed in 2002, triggering a 75% peso , GDP contraction of 11%, and default on $100 billion in debt, underscoring how fixed regimes amplify adjustment costs when domestic imbalances persist. Eastern European transitions featured currency boards for rapid stabilization: Estonia implemented one in June 1992, pegging the kroon to the (later ) at 8:1 with full reserve backing, which curbed from 1,069% in 1992 to 36% by 1993 and supported EU accession. Bulgaria followed in July 1997 amid 1,000%+ , establishing a pegged to the at 1,000:1 (lev to post-1999), backed initially by IMF loans; this enforced zero of deficits, reducing to under 3% by 2000 and enabling entry preparations, though at the cost of limited monetary autonomy during the 2008–2009 crisis. Oil-exporting Gulf states adopted dollar pegs to align fiscal revenues with trade invoicing: fixed the riyal at 3.75:1 to the USD in 1986 after a floating period, maintaining it through central bank interventions funded by petrodollar surpluses, with reserves exceeding $400 billion by 2023; this stabilized the economy but faced pressures during low oil prices, as in 2014–2016 when reserves drew down by 30% before stabilizing. Similar pegs persist in the UAE (3.6725:1 since 1997), (since 1980 with tight bands), and , supporting low inflation (averaging 1–2%) but exposing economies to US monetary policy spillovers. Dollarization emerged as an extreme fixed variant: unilaterally adopted the USD in January 2000 after a banking and 96% depreciation in 1999, halting triple-digit but forfeiting (estimated 1–2% of GDP loss) and facing procyclicality tied to rates. followed in 2001, achieving below 2% post-adoption, though growth remained modest amid remittances dependence. As of the 2023 IMF Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements, approximately 40 countries maintain de facto fixed pegs or hard pegs (including currency boards and dollarization), concentrated in small open economies and commodity exporters, representing about 20% of global GDP when weighted; these regimes correlate with lower average inflation (4% vs. 6% in floaters) but higher crisis risk in unadjusted economies.
Selected Contemporary Fixed RegimesTypeAnchorAdoption YearOutcome
Currency BoardUSD1983Sustained; low inflation, high growth
Conventional PegUSD1986Sustained; reserve-backed stability
Currency BoardUSD1991Abandoned 2002; crisis after initial stabilization
Currency BoardEUR (ex-DM)1997Sustained; inflation control in transition
DollarizationUSD2000Sustained; ended hyperinflation but lost policy tools

Operational Mechanisms

Central Bank Interventions and Reserves

In a fixed exchange rate regime, intervene in market to counteract deviations from the targeted rate, primarily by buying or selling foreign currencies using their official reserves. When excess demand for foreign currency threatens to depreciate the domestic below the peg, the sells foreign reserves to absorb the excess supply of domestic , thereby supporting its value. Conversely, if excess supply of foreign currency pressures the domestic to appreciate beyond the peg, the purchases foreign currency, issuing domestic to prevent the appreciation. These sterilized interventions aim to isolate the exchange rate defense from broader effects, though they often require careful reserve management to avoid inflationary spillovers. Foreign exchange reserves serve as the primary buffer for these interventions, providing liquidity to defend the peg against speculative attacks or external shocks, while signaling credibility to markets. Adequate reserves reduce the likelihood of balance-of-payments crises by enabling sustained purchases or sales without immediate depletion, with emerging markets often accumulating reserves equivalent to 3-6 months of imports as a precautionary measure. However, prolonged one-sided interventions can erode reserves, as seen in cases where underlying macroeconomic imbalances—such as persistent current account deficits—undermine the peg's sustainability, forcing eventual or floating if reserves fall critically low. Central banks may also draw on swap lines or IMF facilities to supplement reserves during acute pressures, though these carry conditionalities that can constrain policy autonomy. Empirical examples illustrate the scale and risks of reserve-dependent interventions. The (HKMA) has repeatedly defended the Hong Kong dollar's peg to the dollar at 7.75-7.85 HKD per USD since 1983, intervening on May 5, 2025, and June 25, 2025, by selling over HKD 100 billion in reserves to counter depreciation pressures amid capital outflows and rate differentials. Similarly, Saudi Arabia's central bank maintains the riyal's peg to the USD at 3.75 SAR per USD, established in 1986, through substantial oil-revenue-backed reserves exceeding $400 billion as of 2023, enabling interventions without depletion during oil price volatility. In contrast, the Swiss National Bank's 2011-2015 peg of the to the at 1.20 CHF per EUR required interventions totaling over CHF 500 billion, leading to reserve accumulation but ultimate abandonment in 2015 due to unsustainable costs and instability. These cases highlight that while reserves facilitate short-term defense, interventions prove ineffective against fundamental misalignments without complementary fiscal-monetary adjustments.

Adjustment Processes Under Fixed Rates

In fixed exchange rate regimes, (BOP) imbalances trigger adjustment processes aimed at restoring external equilibrium without altering the nominal peg, primarily through changes in reserves, domestic prices, or policy responses. Under classical commodity-money systems like the gold standard, David Hume's price-specie flow mechanism provided an automatic adjustment: a persistent deficit led to specie () outflows, contracting the domestic , reducing price levels, enhancing export competitiveness, and curbing imports until balance was restored. Empirical analysis of the period 1872–1913 confirms this mechanism operated, with flows influencing national money supplies and prices, though actions sometimes sterilized inflows, mitigating full adjustment. In fiat-based fixed regimes, central banks maintain the peg via interventions, selling domestic (or reserves) to defend against pressures in deficits or purchasing it in surpluses, which alters the unless sterilized. Unsterilized interventions mimic the price-specie effect by contracting in deficit countries, fostering deflationary pressures that improve the real through lower nominal prices or wages. The Mundell-Fleming model under fixed rates and high capital mobility illustrates this: BOP deficits prompt reserve losses and monetary contraction, neutralizing independent while allowing fiscal tightening to boost net exports via reduced absorption. Persistent imbalances under fixed pegs often necessitate internal adjustments, such as fiscal to compress domestic demand, structural reforms for gains, or relative price flexibility to realign competitiveness. However, downward price and wage rigidities frequently impede smooth adjustment, shifting the burden to output contraction or external borrowing rather than relative , as evidenced in IMF studies of pegged economies where expansions lagged but reserves depleted under deficits. Empirical evidence indicates fixed regimes delay current account corrections compared to floats, with adjustment speeds averaging 20–30% slower in pegged systems due to reliance on rigid internal mechanisms over flexibility. Surplus countries face symmetric pressures, accumulating reserves that expand money supply and risk inflation unless sterilized or offset by contractionary policies, potentially leading to real appreciation and export erosion over time. In cases of failed adjustment, speculative attacks deplete reserves rapidly, as seen in theoretical models where credibility loss amplifies outflows, forcing devaluation or regime collapse. Successful long-term pegs, such as currency boards, enforce discipline by prohibiting sterilization, compelling automatic monetary adjustments akin to the gold standard.

Examples of Market Interventions

The (SNB) exemplified intervention against currency appreciation in its euro-Swiss peg from September 6, 2011, to January 15, 2015. Amid safe-haven inflows during the European sovereign debt crisis, the SNB imposed a floor of 1.20 CHF per EUR and purchased foreign currencies—primarily —to enforce it, resulting in reserve accumulation that expanded its balance sheet from CHF 118 billion in mid-2011 to over CHF 600 billion by late 2014, with reserves peaking at nearly 150% of Swiss GDP. These operations involved issuing domestic liquidity to absorb excess demand, temporarily stabilizing the rate but incurring valuation losses upon discontinuation, when the appreciated sharply by over 20% against the . Hong Kong's Monetary Authority (HKMA) routinely intervenes to defend its peg of 7.75–7.85 HKD per USD, established in 1983 and refined via convertibility undertakings that trigger automatic buys or sales at band edges. In response to 2025 capital inflows amid U.S. differentials and local distributions, the HKMA sold HKD to buy USD at the strong-side trigger (7.75), reducing banking system liquidity; on May 3, it injected HK$46.54 billion equivalent, followed by multiple July operations totaling over HK$72 billion in HKD sales to counter appreciation pressures from carry trades. These actions narrowed the local interbank rate spread to the U.S. , restoring equilibrium without depleting reserves, as Hong Kong's system backs HKD issuance fully with USD assets exceeding HK$3 trillion. The Bank of England's 1992 efforts during the (ERM) crisis illustrate intervention against depreciation. To hold the pound above its ERM floor of 2.778 Deutsche marks (central rate 2.95 DM/GBP), the Bank sold foreign reserves—primarily marks—totaling approximately $15 billion on September 16 (), while hiking base rates twice to 12% and 15% intraday; supplemented by Bundesbank swaps, total outlays reached $22 billion equivalent, yet speculative selling overwhelmed defenses, forcing ERM suspension and a 15% pound . Saudi Arabia's Monetary Authority (SAMA) has defended the riyal's fixed peg at 3.75 SAR per USD, in place since June 1986, through targeted spot and forward interventions amid oil revenue swings. During low oil price periods, such as 2014–2016 when fell below $50/barrel, SAMA sterilized inflows/outflows by trading forwards to manage liquidity without altering the spot rate, drawing on reserves that peaked at $737 billion in 2014 before stabilizing; this approach mitigated speculative bets while aligning domestic rates with U.S. policy.

Classifications and Variants

Pure Fixed Pegs and Gold Standards

Pure fixed pegs represent the most rigid form of exchange rate commitment, where a country's currency is anchored at a constant, unalterable rate to a single foreign currency or commodity, such as , with the central bank pledging unlimited foreign exchange interventions to defend the parity without margins for fluctuation or discretionary adjustments. In this regime, is fully subordinated to the peg, requiring the domestic to align with the anchor currency's dynamics, often through reserve accumulation or depletion, as any deviation triggers automatic adjustments in economic activity rather than exchange rate flexibility. Unlike hybrid systems with bands or crawling adjustments, pure fixed pegs demand credible, irrevocable , minimizing but exposing economies to balance-of-payments pressures if reserves prove insufficient. The classical , operational from approximately 1870 to 1914 among major economies, embodied this pure fixed peg mechanism by defining currencies in fixed weights of , enabling unrestricted convertibility of and deposits into the metal at the official parity. Under this system, international flows enforced and automatic balance-of-payments corrections via David Hume's price-specie flow mechanism: trade surpluses increased inflows, expanding money supplies and prices until competitiveness eroded, while deficits prompted outflows, contraction, and to restore equilibrium. Britain's adherence since 1821 set the precedent, with the joining effectively in 1879 after the demonetized silver, leading to widespread adoption that facilitated global trade growth at low inflation rates averaging near zero percent annually. Contemporary pure fixed pegs, though less common without supplementary structures like currency boards, persist in resource-dependent economies, such as Saudi Arabia's riyal fixed at 3.75 to the U.S. since June 1986, supported by oil revenues funding reserve interventions to match dollar liquidity. This setup mirrors discipline by constraining monetary expansion to foreign reserve inflows, promoting export predictability but risking depletion during commodity price downturns, as evidenced by brief pressures in the early before stabilization. In essence, both and pure pegs prioritize external anchor credibility over domestic policy autonomy, historically correlating with stable long-term price levels but vulnerable to shocks absent symmetric global adherence.

Currency Boards and Reserve-Backed Systems

A arrangement represents a rigid variant of fixed regimes, wherein a monetary authority commits to exchanging the domestic for a specified foreign at a fixed rate, with full backing provided by high-quality foreign reserves. This system mandates that the —comprising and —be entirely supported by equivalent foreign assets, typically eliminating the authority's ability to conduct independent or create unbacked domestic credit. In operation, the currency board adheres to a strict monetary rule: it issues domestic notes or electronic money only upon surrender of the anchor currency, and redeems them at the fixed parity without limit, ensuring automatic . Interest rates are not directly set by the board but emerge from tied to the anchor currency's conditions, as the board holds no over beyond reserve management. Unlike conventional central banks, currency boards forgo seigniorage revenue from and typically lack a lender-of-last-resort function, imposing fiscal and banking discipline to prevent reserve drains. Reserve-backed systems encompass currency boards but extend to broader hard-peg mechanisms where domestic issuance is constrained by reserve holdings, often at 100% or near-full coverage, to maintain credibility against speculative pressures. These differ from softer pegs by minimizing policy flexibility, as reserve adequacy directly limits expansion; deviations risk immediate crises if backing falls below the threshold. Empirical analyses indicate that such systems enforce tighter macroeconomic discipline than adjustable pegs, with base money growth mirroring reserve inflows rather than domestic credit demands. Prominent implementations include Hong Kong's , reestablished on October 17, 1983, pegging the to the U.S. dollar at HK$7.80 per USD with full reserve backing, which stabilized the economy post-1970s volatility and supported sustained growth averaging over 5% annually through the 1990s and 2000s. Bulgaria adopted a on July 1, 1997, fixing the lev to the (later ) at 1:1,000, halting exceeding 1,000% in 1997 and fostering GDP recovery with average annual growth of 4.5% from 1998 to 2008. Estonia's kroon board, launched in June 1992, pegged to the and backed 100% by reserves, curbed post-Soviet from 1,000% in 1992 to single digits by 1995, enabling EU accession preparations before adoption in 2011. These cases demonstrate reserve-backed systems' efficacy in restoring confidence during crises, though success hinges on complementary fiscal restraint and banking reforms.

Hybrid Systems: Pegs, Bands, and Crawls

Hybrid exchange rate regimes, classified by the (IMF) as intermediate or "soft peg" arrangements, blend stability from fixed rates with limited flexibility to accommodate economic adjustments, such as differentials or external shocks. These systems anchor the currency to a central rate or path but permit controlled deviations, contrasting with rigid pegs that require constant intervention to maintain parity. Key variants include crawling pegs, where the rate adjusts discretely in small steps; horizontal bands, allowing fluctuation within fixed margins around a stable central rate; and crawling bands, which combine band widths with gradual shifts in the central parity. In a , the periodically revises the official —typically by 1-2% at a time—in response to fundamentals like relative or changes, without a preannounced but often following a trend to preserve competitiveness. This de jure classification requires official confirmation of the adjustment mechanism, imposing constraints similar to fixed pegs, as reserves must back interventions to signal . Introduced in the 1950s and popularized in during the 1960s-1970s, crawling pegs addressed chronic ; for example, implemented a "tabular" variant in 1964, linking adjustments to past price indices to mitigate exceeding 90% annually by the late 1960s. Advantages include smoother corrections that avoid abrupt devaluations, reducing speculative pressures, though risks persist if adjustments lag fundamentals, potentially eroding reserves as seen in Argentina's 1970s experience with accelerating outpacing peg crawls. Exchange rate bands permit the to vary within predefined horizontal limits—commonly ±2% to ±10%—around a fixed central parity, with authorities intervening at boundaries to prevent breaches while allowing to influence the rate interiorly. Band width calibrates flexibility: narrow bands (e.g., ±1%) mimic pegs, demanding high reserve usage for defense, whereas wider bands (e.g., ±7.5%) afford more policy room but heighten volatility risks. The (ERM I, 1979-1993) exemplified this, setting ±2.25% bands (later widened to ±15% for some) around bilateral central rates versus the , fostering monetary convergence ahead of the but exposing weaker currencies to speculative attacks, as in the 1992-1993 crises that forced and Italian exits. Bands promote discipline by signaling commitment to the central rate, yet require transparent rules to avoid that could undermine confidence. Crawling bands integrate crawling adjustments into banded structures, with the central parity shifting gradually (e.g., monthly by differentials) while the trades within symmetric or widening margins around it—often starting at ±2% and expanding over time. This hybrid allows trend-aligned flexibility without full floats, suiting economies with persistent disequilibria; the degree of variability scales with band width, and interventions focus on edges rather than constant peg maintenance. For instance, some proposals for global management, like John Williamson's 1990s "crawling bands" or "target zones," advocated bands crawling at PPP-based rates to stabilize trade, though adoption has been limited; empirical IMF data shows such regimes in select emerging markets, where they balance export competitiveness with anti- anchors. These systems mitigate fixed-rate rigidity but demand robust reserves and policy , as miscalibrated crawls or band defenses have historically amplified crises in mismatched environments.

Empirical Advantages

Inflation Control and Macroeconomic Discipline

Fixed exchange rate regimes, particularly hard pegs and currency boards, impose macroeconomic discipline by constraining central banks' ability to expand the money supply independently, as maintaining the peg requires aligning domestic monetary conditions with those of the anchor currency, typically a low-inflation one like the U.S. dollar or . This mechanism limits revenue from money printing and forces fiscal restraint to avoid depleting foreign reserves through balance-of-payments pressures, thereby anchoring inflation expectations and reducing the temptation for inflationary financing of deficits. Empirical analyses indicate that such regimes foster lower by importing the anchor's , with studies showing that pegged arrangements correlate with reduced monetary growth and compared to floating rates, provided the peg is credible and backed by sufficient reserves. Cross-country evidence supports the inflation-control benefits of hard pegs. A study of arrangements found average inflation under them to be about 4 percentage points lower than under other pegged regimes, attributing this to the strict reserve-backing rule that eliminates discretionary and enhances credibility. Similarly, hard pegs demonstrate superior inflation performance over soft pegs or floats, with lower consumer price inflation and monetary expansion in developing economies adopting them. In BRICS nations, pegged regimes have empirically yielded significantly lower inflation rates than floating ones, underscoring the disciplinary effect on policy. Notable examples illustrate these dynamics. Argentina's 1991 convertibility plan, establishing a currency board pegging the peso 1:1 to the U.S. dollar, ended hyperinflation—reducing annual rates from over 3,000% in 1989 to 8% by 1993—through enforced monetary restraint and restored confidence, though sustainability required complementary fiscal adjustments. Hong Kong's linked exchange rate system, formalized in 1983 with a currency board-like peg to the dollar, stabilized inflation after earlier volatility, averaging around 4% annually from 1984 onward despite periods of higher prices due to productivity growth differentials, outperforming many regional peers without such anchors. These cases highlight how fixed regimes promote discipline by making inflationary policies self-defeating via reserve outflows, though success hinges on institutional commitment to avoid devaluation risks.

Trade Promotion and Investment Attraction

Fixed exchange rates mitigate currency volatility, thereby reducing for exporters and importers who face lower hedging costs and more predictable pricing in international transactions. This stability facilitates smoother enforcement and long-term agreements, as businesses can plan without the disruptions of fluctuating rates that might otherwise erode profit margins or alter competitiveness. Empirical analyses, such as those examining flows, indicate that exchange rate depresses volumes, with fixed regimes associated with higher integration compared to floating systems, though results vary by size and development level. In practice, countries maintaining credible fixed pegs, such as Hong Kong's link to the U.S. dollar since 1983, have leveraged exchange rate predictability to expand export-oriented trade, with non-oil exports growing at an average annual rate of over 7% from 1990 to 2019 amid sustained peg stability. Similarly, currency boards in places like prior to adoption (pegged to the from 1992) correlated with trade openness rising from 60% of GDP in 1995 to over 100% by 2002, attributed in part to reduced transaction risks that encouraged intra-regional commerce. However, the trade-promoting effects are not uniform; studies find stronger benefits in developed economies or those with deep financial markets, where fixed rates signal policy discipline without frequent realignments. Regarding investment attraction, fixed exchange rates enhance credibility by committing policymakers to monetary discipline, deterring inflationary surprises that could devalue returns on capital inflows. This fosters (FDI) by minimizing risks and stabilizing real asset values, with econometric evidence showing fixed s draw 20-30% more inward FDI than floating ones in panels of developing countries from 1980-2010. For instance, theory posits that pegs to anchor currencies like the U.S. dollar reduce the option value of waiting for investors, prompting earlier commitments; panel regressions confirm this, particularly in emerging markets where volatility under floating rates deters long-horizon projects. Yet, the FDI boost depends on —abandonments, as in Argentina's 2001 peg collapse, reverse gains by eroding trust, underscoring that perceived enforceability, not the peg per se, drives attraction.

Evidence from Successful Long-Term Pegs

One prominent example of a successful long-term fixed exchange rate peg is Hong Kong's currency board arrangement, linking the Hong Kong dollar to the US dollar at a rate of 7.8 HKD per USD since November 1983. This regime has maintained stability through multiple global financial stresses, including the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global recession, by enforcing strict convertibility backed by foreign reserves exceeding 150% of the monetary base as of 2023. Empirical outcomes include consistently low inflation averaging below 2% annually from 1990 to 2020, fostering Hong Kong's transformation into a major international financial center with sustained GDP growth averaging 3.5% per year over the same period, attributed to the peg's credibility in anchoring expectations and attracting foreign investment. Bulgaria's currency board, established in July 1997, pegged the lev initially to the Deutsche Mark and later to the euro at a fixed rate of 1.95583 BGN per EUR, providing over 25 years of uninterrupted adherence until its planned euro adoption in 2026. Introduced amid a hyperinflation crisis peaking at 242% monthly in February 1997, the board rapidly restored stability, reducing annual inflation to 1% by end-1998 and maintaining single-digit rates thereafter, while rebuilding international reserves from near depletion to over 100% of base money coverage. This discipline supported average annual GDP growth of 3.2% from 2000 to 2019, with the regime credited for eliminating exchange rate risk and enhancing fiscal prudence, as evidenced by a decline in public debt from 100% of GDP in 1997 to under 20% by 2020. Denmark's fixed policy, targeting the krone's stability against the within narrow ERM II fluctuation bands (±2.25%) since the early , has endured for over four decades without major realignments, even through the 1992-1993 EMS crisis and the 2008-2009 downturn. The regime has delivered macroeconomic stability, with average of 1.5% annually from 1990 to 2022, closely tracking euro-area levels and facilitating seamless trade integration as Denmark's exports to the EU average 70% of total. Empirical links this longevity to proactive interventions maintaining the peg, correlating with low output volatility (standard deviation of GDP growth at 1.8% from 1980-2020, below the OECD average) and bolstered investor confidence, as reflected in Denmark's AAA and sustained inflows.

Risks and Criticisms

Susceptibility to Speculative Attacks and Crises

Fixed exchange rate systems are vulnerable to speculative attacks when market participants perceive the peg as unsustainable due to underlying economic imbalances, such as excessive fiscal deficits or current account discrepancies that erode foreign reserves. In the canonical first-generation model of currency crises, governments attempting to maintain a peg despite inconsistent policies—like monetizing deficits—gradually lose reserves, prompting rational speculators to short the domestic en masse once reserves approach a critical threshold, forcing an abrupt . This dynamic arises because defending the peg requires selling reserves to meet excess for foreign currency, but finite reserves limit the central bank's ability to withstand coordinated attacks. Speculative pressure intensifies under fixed regimes lacking , as investors anticipate policy reversals and bet against the to profit from expected depreciations. Central banks may raise interest rates or intervene directly, but these measures often prove insufficient if fundamentals are weak, leading to rapid reserve depletion and crisis. For instance, during the 1992 (ERM) crisis, the faced massive short-selling of the on September 16, known as , as speculators like exploited divergences in economic conditions and overvalued exchange rates within the ERM band. The spent approximately £3.3 billion in reserves and hiked interest rates to 15% but ultimately withdrew from the ERM, resulting in a 15% of the pound and costing the UK an estimated £27 billion. Similar vulnerabilities manifested in the , where countries like maintained dollar pegs amid growing external debts and banking fragilities. On July 2, 1997, abandoned its peg after speculative attacks depleted over $8 billion in reserves in preceding months, triggering devaluations across the region: the fell 56% by January 1998, the over 80%, and regional GDPs contracted sharply, with Indonesia's shrinking 13.1% in 1998. These collapses highlighted how fixed pegs to the appreciating US dollar amplified competitiveness losses, inviting attacks once reserve buffers thinned. The 2001 Argentine crisis further exemplifies reserve exhaustion under a rigid pegging the peso 1:1 to the US dollar since 1991. Mounting public , fiscal rigidities, and a recession eroded confidence, leading to and a run on reserves; by late 2001, the lost over $10 billion defending the peg, culminating in default on $102 billion in , a 75% peso , and a 28% GDP contraction from 1998 to 2002. These episodes underscore that while can precipitate crises, it typically exploits pre-existing policy inconsistencies rather than creating them ex nihilo, rendering fixed systems prone to sudden, self-fulfilling panics absent robust fundamentals or flexible defenses.

Constraints on Domestic Policy Autonomy

In a fixed exchange rate regime, particularly one combined with capital account openness, domestic monetary policy autonomy is severely limited by the need to defend the peg against the anchor currency. According to the Mundell-Fleming , a cannot simultaneously maintain a fixed , allow free capital mobility, and conduct independent ; policymakers must prioritize exchange rate stability over domestic objectives such as output stabilization or tailored to local conditions. This constraint arises because any divergence in domestic interest rates from those of the anchor economy triggers capital flows that pressure the exchange rate, forcing the to intervene by buying or selling foreign reserves or aligning rates to restore equilibrium. The mechanism operates through balance of payments adjustments: expansionary domestic monetary policy, such as lowering interest rates below the anchor level, attracts capital outflows and depreciative pressure on the currency, necessitating reserve depletion or policy reversal to uphold the peg. Conversely, to counter a recession, the central bank cannot independently ease policy without risking the fixed rate, as seen in historical systems like Bretton Woods (1944–1971), where member countries largely shadowed U.S. Federal Reserve actions rather than pursuing autonomous countercyclical measures. In modern examples, such as currency boards in (pegged to the USD since 1983) or (pegged to the since 1997), monetary authorities forfeit base discretion, with endogenously determined by foreign reserve inflows rather than domestic . Fiscal policy faces analogous restrictions, as unchecked government borrowing or spending can exacerbate inflationary pressures or current account deficits, eroding confidence in the peg and compelling monetary tightening or reserve drawdowns. Under fixed rates, fiscal expansions often require offsetting measures, such as higher taxes or spending cuts, to avoid unsustainable reserve losses, effectively subordinating fiscal choices to external balance requirements. Empirical analysis of pegged regimes indicates that fiscal deficits above 3–5% of GDP frequently correlate with peg vulnerabilities, as in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism crises of 1992–1993, where high-deficit countries like and the abandoned pegs amid incompatible fiscal-monetary mixes. This dynamic enforces discipline but curtails the government's ability to deploy fiscal tools for short-term stimulus, prioritizing long-term sustainability over immediate domestic priorities.

Evidence from Failed Peg Defenses

The defense of fixed exchange rate pegs often involves depleting foreign reserves, imposing capital controls, or raising interest rates sharply, but from historical failures demonstrates these measures frequently exacerbate economic distress rather than sustaining the peg. In cases where underlying imbalances such as persistent current account deficits, overvalued currencies, and fiscal rigidities exist, defensive efforts prove unsustainable, leading to speculative attacks that overwhelm interventions. Analyses of multiple episodes reveal that peg abandonments are typically preceded by rapid reserve losses—averaging over 50% of gross reserves in the quarter before collapse—and followed by sharp devaluations exceeding 30% on average, with GDP contractions of 5-10% in the ensuing year. The 1997 Thai baht crisis exemplifies failed defenses against speculative pressure under a peg to a U.S. dollar basket maintained since 1984. Thailand's intervened by selling approximately $25 billion in reserves between 1995 and mid-1997 while imposing capital controls and hiking short-term interest rates above 1,000% annualized in some instances, yet these actions could not stem capital outflows driven by a current account deficit reaching 8% of GDP and nonperforming loans surging to 13% of banking assets. The peg collapsed on July 2, 1997, with the baht devaluing over 50% against the dollar by year-end, triggering a regional contagion that saw Thailand's GDP shrink by 10.5% in 1998 and unemployment triple to 4.4%. Argentina's currency board regime, established in 1991 with a 1:1 peso-dollar backed by reserves, faced similar defensive exhaustion amid fiscal deficits and exceeding 50% of GDP by 2000. Authorities defended the peg through 2001 by borrowing internationally and sterilizing reserve losses, but a failed debt rollover in July 2001 depleted net reserves by 70% within months, prompting a default on $100 billion in obligations and the peg's abandonment on January 6, 2002. The peso subsequently depreciated over 70%, contributing to a 20% rate surge and an 11% GDP contraction in 2002, underscoring how rigid convertibility amplified recessionary pressures by constraining monetary expansion during downturns. The 1994 Mexican peso crisis further illustrates the vulnerability of quasi-pegs, where a crawling band against the was defended via $28 billion in reserve expenditures and hikes to 100% by December. Triggered by political assassinations and a current account deficit of 7% of GDP, the regime unraveled with a 15% initial on December 20, 1994, followed by a 50% further plunge, necessitating a $50 billion U.S.-led to avert default; GDP fell 6.9% in 1995, with inflation spiking to 52%. These cases highlight a pattern where defensive policies signal weakness to markets, accelerating outflows and rendering peg restoration costlier than preemptive adjustment.

Comparative Analysis

Fixed Versus Floating Regimes: Theoretical Trade-offs

Fixed exchange rate regimes theoretically provide a credible nominal anchor that disciplines monetary authorities, reducing the incentive for inflationary policies due to the need to maintain and reserves. This stems from the time-inconsistency problem in , where fixed pegs limit discretionary expansion by tying domestic to foreign reserves, fostering long-term in economies prone to fiscal dominance. In contrast, floating regimes sacrifice this anchor, potentially allowing central banks greater leeway for output stabilization but risking higher inflation volatility if is undermined by inconsistent policy. Under the Mundell-Fleming model for open economies with capital mobility, fixed rates eliminate independence, as interest rates must align with the anchor currency to defend the peg, rendering domestic monetary expansions ineffective without reserve losses. gains effectiveness in fixed regimes by boosting demand without exchange rate offsets, but external shocks—such as terms-of-trade deteriorations—cannot be absorbed through depreciation, necessitating adjustments via output or fluctuations. Floating rates reverse this: influences output via interest rate differentials that appreciate or depreciate the , providing automatic stabilization against asymmetric shocks, though at the potential cost of amplified financial volatility from speculative flows. Optimum currency area theory, as formalized by Mundell, posits that fixed rates (or common currencies) maximize welfare when participating economies exhibit synchronized business cycles, high labor mobility, and integrated fiscal transfers to offset idiosyncratic shocks; otherwise, the rigidity of fixed rates exacerbates adjustment costs compared to floating flexibility. For small, open economies with diversified trade partners, fixed pegs to a stable anchor minimize transaction costs and uncertainty, enhancing trade volumes by 10-20% in some estimates, but large economies with independent cycles favor floating to preserve policy tools for domestic cycles. These trade-offs hinge on the : no regime can simultaneously deliver stability, capital mobility, and monetary , forcing policymakers to prioritize based on shock types and integration depth.
AspectFixed Regime Advantages/DisadvantagesFloating Regime Advantages/Disadvantages
Inflation DisciplineHigh credibility reduces inflation bias; limits seigniorage temptation. / Vulnerable to imported inflation from anchor.Allows targeted inflation control via domestic policy. / Prone to pass-through volatility and credibility erosion.
Shock AbsorptionStabilizes predictable trade flows; insulates from nominal shocks if peg credible. / Rigid to real shocks, requiring painful internal devaluation.Currency adjusts to real shocks, preserving competitiveness. / Exposes to nominal volatility and sudden stops.
Policy AutonomyEnforces discipline, aiding convergence to low-inflation anchors. / Sacrifices monetary tools to peg defense.Enables independent stabilization of output gaps. / Demands sophisticated institutions to manage volatility.

Empirical Outcomes: Growth, Stability, and Volatility

Empirical analyses of fixed versus regimes indicate context-dependent outcomes, with fixed regimes often delivering superior control at the expense of flexibility in growth and output smoothing. A comprehensive IMF study covering 145 countries from to classified regimes as pegged, intermediate, or floating based on de facto behavior and found pegged regimes associated with average annual of 8%, compared to 16% under floating regimes, alongside lower variability when parities remained stable. This discipline arises from the nominal anchor fixed regimes provide, constraining excesses and fostering credible expectations, particularly in emerging markets prone to fiscal laxity. However, the same study reported higher volatility in GDP growth and employment under pegged regimes, as external shocks cannot be absorbed through adjustments, leading to procyclical fiscal or monetary responses. On economic growth, evidence suggests floating regimes edge out fixed ones in aggregate per capita terms, though results vary by development level. The aforementioned IMF analysis documented 1.7% annual per capita GDP growth under floating regimes versus 1.4% under pegged, attributed to faster productivity and trade expansion in flexible systems that avoid overvaluation risks. In advanced economies, flexible regimes exhibit higher growth without elevated inflation, with durability exceeding 88 years post-1975 and no systematic growth penalty from floats. Conversely, for developing countries, durable pegs correlate with low inflation and no growth sacrifice, as the stability attracts investment; yet in emerging markets, short-lived pegs (averaging 8.4 years post-1975) yield neutral growth impacts amid higher crisis probabilities. Intermediate regimes, blending fixity with occasional adjustments, often achieve the fastest growth—about 0.5% higher annually than pure floats—by mitigating overvaluation while retaining some discipline. Volatility metrics further highlight trade-offs, with fixed regimes minimizing nominal and real fluctuations to support and capital flows, but at potential cost to domestic output stability. Pegged systems reduce volatility, enhancing export predictability and , as evidenced by lower real effective swings in credible pegs. Floating regimes, however, dampen GDP and volatility by allowing depreciation to cushion shocks, particularly goods-market disturbances, though they expose economies to imported volatility. In emerging contexts, fixed regimes' vulnerability to speculative pressures amplifies crisis-induced volatility, with banking crisis probabilities reaching 11.4% under pegs versus lower incidence in floats. Overall, while fixed rates curb short-term exchange volatility, empirical patterns show floating systems better insulate real activity from asymmetric shocks in integrated economies.

Interaction with Capital Controls and Integration

The impossible trinity, also known as the Mundell-Fleming , posits that a country cannot simultaneously maintain a fixed , unrestricted capital mobility, and an independent . To sustain a fixed while retaining monetary autonomy for domestic goals like inflation control, governments must impose capital controls to limit cross-border flows that could undermine the peg through speculative pressures or differentials. These controls, such as restrictions on foreign outflows or inflows, insulate the domestic economy from external shocks but often distort resource allocation and reduce efficiency by encouraging black markets or evasion. Capital controls thus enable fixed exchange regimes in countries seeking policy flexibility, as seen in , where stringent limits on transactions have supported a managed peg to the U.S. dollar since the mid-1990s, allowing the to prioritize growth-oriented monetary easing amid global volatility. Similarly, post-1997 Asian , nations like temporarily tightened controls to defend their pegs, demonstrating how such measures can buy time for adjustment but at the expense of investor confidence and long-term capital access. However, empirical studies indicate that prolonged controls under fixed rates correlate with lower and slower financial deepening, as investors perceive heightened risks of arbitrary policy shifts. Economic integration amplifies these tensions, as deeper trade and financial linkages typically demand freer capital movement to facilitate intra-regional and risk-sharing. Fixed exchange rates paired with controls can hinder such integration by erecting barriers to cross-border flows, limiting the benefits of efficiencies or portfolio diversification within blocs like . In contrast, advanced integration schemes, such as the European Monetary Union established in 1999, resolved the by eliminating national currencies and controls among members, enforcing a uniform fixed rate via the while ceding to the . This approach, however, requires fiscal and structural convergence to avoid asymmetric shocks, as evidenced by the 2010-2012 sovereign debt crisis, where peripheral countries lacking independent policy tools suffered output contractions exceeding 25% in . In developing regions, attempts at fixed-rate integration without full monetary union often falter without controls, leading to devaluations or policy reversals, while controls preserve pegs but stall liberalization goals. For instance, Argentina's 1991 currency board peg to the dollar initially spurred integration with trade partners but collapsed in 2001 amid , partly due to incomplete controls failing to stem outflows. Overall, fixed regimes with controls offer short-term stability for integration but impose long-run costs in foregone efficiency gains, underscoring the between peg maintenance and open-market dynamism.

Global Prevalence and Recent Developments

Countries Maintaining Fixed Rates in 2025

In 2025, fixed exchange rate regimes remain in place across diverse economies, often to anchor and mitigate volatility in commodity-dependent or small open economies. These arrangements, classified by the as conventional pegs, currency boards, or no separate legal tender, typically involve fixing the domestic currency to the US dollar, , or another stable anchor, with central banks intervening to defend the parity using foreign reserves. While global trends favor floating regimes, fixed pegs persist where fiscal resources or institutional credibility support sustainability, as seen in oil-exporting nations and dollarized states. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries exemplify enduring fixed pegs to the US dollar, leveraging hydrocarbon revenues to maintain and low . pegs the riyal at 3.75 SAR per USD, a fixed rate upheld since 1986 through Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority interventions funded by sovereign wealth. The fixes the dirham at 3.6725 AED per USD, the dinar at 0.376 BHD per USD (or 2.6596 per USD effectively), the riyal at 3.64 QAR per USD, and the rial at 0.3845 OMR per USD (or 2.598 per USD). employs a conventional peg to an undisclosed basket dominated by the USD, adjusted periodically but stable in 2025. maintains a fixed peg of the dinar to the USD at 0.709 JOD per USD since 1995, supported by IMF programs and remittances. These pegs constrain independent but align interest rates with the , fostering trade ties with the . Dollarized economies forgo national currencies entirely, adopting the as to eliminate risk and import credibility. uses the USD since 2000, following ; since 2001, retaining the colon alongside but phasing it out; and since 1904, with the balboa as a subunit. These unilateral adoptions, lacking formal US agreement, stabilize prices but sacrifice and lender-of-last-resort functions, relying on fiscal discipline. Other notable fixed regimes include Hong Kong's currency board arrangement, linking the to the USD at 7.75-7.85 HKD per USD since 1983, enforced by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority's 100% reserve backing. In , operates a currency board pegging the lev to the at 1.95583 BGN per EUR, a commitment since 1997 that facilitated EU accession preparations. African franc zone members, such as those in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (using the pegged to the at 655.957 XOF per EUR) and Central African Economic and Monetary Community, maintain fixed convertibility guaranteed by , though debates over de-pegging persist amid efforts.
Country/RegionArrangement TypeAnchor CurrencyFixed Rate (as of 2025)
No separate legal tenderUSDN/A (uses USD)
No separate legal tenderUSDN/A (uses USD)
No separate legal tenderUSDN/A (uses USD)
USD7.8 HKD/USD (midpoint)
Conventional pegUSD3.75 SAR/USD
UAEConventional pegUSD3.6725 AED/USD
Conventional pegUSD0.376 BHD/USD
Conventional pegUSD3.64 QAR/USD
Conventional pegUSD0.3845 OMR/USD
Conventional pegUSD0.709 JOD/USD
EUR1.95583 BGN/EUR
WAEMU/CEMAC countries (e.g., , )Conventional pegEUR655.957 CFA/EUR
This table highlights select examples; comprehensive IMF data lists approximately 40 economies with pegged arrangements, though sustainability varies with reserve adequacy and external shocks.

Trends and Challenges Post-2020

Post-2020, the global prevalence of fixed exchange rate regimes has continued a long-term decline, with only approximately 25% of world GDP under explicit pegs as of mid-2025, compared to over 75% during the Bretton Woods era. This trend reflects a broader shift toward greater flexibility amid heightened economic volatility, driven by the pandemic's supply disruptions, subsequent surges, and geopolitical shocks such as the 2022 . While hard pegs persist in regions like the (GCC) states—where currencies remain anchored to the U.S. dollar to facilitate oil trade and maintain investor confidence—many emerging markets have faced mounting pressures, leading to increased foreign exchange interventions rather than outright abandonment. For instance, the International Monetary Fund's de facto classifications in its 2023 on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions indicate that hard pegs and currency boards account for a minority of regimes, with stabilized arrangements (soft pegs) more common but still challenged by external shocks. Key challenges have stemmed from divergent monetary policies and dynamics. The U.S. Federal Reserve's aggressive rate hikes from 2022 to 2023, aimed at curbing post-pandemic peaking at 9.1% in June 2022, forced peg-maintaining central banks to align domestic rates, limiting fiscal stimulus and exacerbating debt burdens in import-dependent economies. In GCC countries, the dollar peg amplified import cost fluctuations as the U.S. dollar strengthened against other currencies, contributing to imported amid oil price volatility— surged above $120 per barrel in mid-2022 before stabilizing. Despite ample reserves from hydrocarbon exports, which exceeded $2 trillion regionally by 2023, these pegs constrained independent responses to domestic overheating, with real appreciations eroding non-oil competitiveness. Emerging markets like encountered acute strains, devaluing the pound by over 50% in March 2024 under an IMF program to address reserve depletion and parallel market premiums exceeding 30%, effectively transitioning from a tight peg to a more flexible arrangement. Geopolitical tensions and de-dollarization efforts have added further complexity. The Ukraine conflict disrupted energy supplies, prompting speculative pressures on pegs in energy-importing nations and reserve drawdowns for defense; for example, several West African CFA franc peggers to the experienced heightened volatility from commodity shocks and pandemic fiscal strains. Discussions within and GCC forums since 2022 have explored alternatives to dollar pegs, including basket anchors or settlements, amid U.S. sanctions on that accelerated non-dollar trade—over 70 countries reportedly reduced dollar reliance in bilateral deals by 2025—yet few have dismantled fixed systems due to the stability they provide against . Overall, while fixed regimes have demonstrated resilience in reserve-rich economies, the era's shocks underscore their to asymmetric global tightening cycles and policy trade-offs, with showing elevated intervention costs during the 2022-2023 episode.

References

  1. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/pdf/basics.pdf
  2. https://www.imf.org/external/np/mfd/er/2004/eng/0604.htm
  3. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/12/ghosh.htm
  4. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w6867/w6867.pdf
  5. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues/issues38/ei38.pdf
  6. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w4661/w4661.pdf
  7. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fixedexchangerate.asp
  8. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/foreign-exchange/fixed-exchange-rate/
  9. https://www.imf.org/external/np/mfd/er/2003/eng/1203.htm
  10. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781484375686/ch002.xml
  11. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_international-economics-theory-and-policy/s25-04-central-bank-intervention-with.html
  12. https://biz.libretexts.org/Courses/Prince_Georges_Community_College/BMT_2630%253A_International_Management_%28COOKS_2021%29/13%253A_Fixed_Exchange_Rates/13.04%253A_Central_Bank_Intervention_with_Fixed_Exchange_Rates
  13. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08132.pdf
  14. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/journals/022/0023/003/article-A011-en.pdf
  15. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/06/ghosh.htm
  16. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5191/w5191.pdf
  17. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL31204/RL31204.5.pdf
  18. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/MRCBG_FWP_2011_16-2011_Frankel_Exchange_Rate.pdf
  19. https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/exchangerate/advantages-disadvantages-fixed/
  20. https://www.piie.com/commentary/testimonies/alternative-exchange-rate-systems-and-reform-international-financial
  21. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/Miscellaneous/English/2022/mcm-technical-assistance-handbook/choice-of-exchange-rate-arrangement.ashx
  22. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/206/Appendix_2_0.pdf
  23. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues2/
  24. https://www.gold.org/history-gold/the-classical-gold-standard
  25. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/gold-standard.asp
  26. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c11125/c11125.pdf
  27. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html
  28. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1982/01/1982a_bpea_cooper_dornbusch_hall.pdf
  29. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9233/w9233.pdf
  30. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6739/c6739.pdf
  31. https://aier.org/article/the-economics-of-the-classical-gold-standard/
  32. https://academic.oup.com/book/55793/chapter/434324135
  33. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/the-economy/monetary-policy/lessons-learned-from-the-gold-standard-implications-for-inflation-output-and-the-money-supply
  34. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created
  35. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/98681.htm
  36. https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/IMF-at-a-Glance
  37. https://www.worldbank.org/en/archive/history/exhibits/Bretton-Woods-and-the-Birth-of-the-World-Bank
  38. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/
  39. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp
  40. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/bretton-woods
  41. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-launched
  42. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends
  43. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23189/w23189.pdf
  44. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock
  45. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/how-the-nixon-shock-remade-the-world-economy
  46. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nixon-shock.asp
  47. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/operation-and-demise-bretton-woods-system-1958-1971
  48. https://pressbooks.pub/openipe/chapter/finance-after-bretton-woods-2/
  49. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09211.pdf
  50. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ems.asp
  51. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/the-birth-of-inflation-targeting-why-did-the-erm-crisis-happen
  52. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2017.1370443
  53. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2002/08/argentina-currency-crisis-lessons-for-asia/
  54. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589063808/ch001.xml
  55. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/411111468768684008/pdf/wps3322.pdf
  56. https://www.bot.or.th/en/our-roles/special-measures/Tom-Yum-Kung-lesson.html
  57. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/asian-financial-crisis
  58. https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/money/linked-exchange-rate-system/
  59. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1998/06/imfstaff.htm
  60. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/wp03160.pdf
  61. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781557754196/ch007.xml
  62. https://www.banque-france.fr/en/publications-and-statistics/publications/remarkable-resilience-hong-kongs-exchange-rate-regime
  63. https://aric.adb.org/pdf/aem/external/financial_market/Sound_Practices/hkcb.pdf
  64. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/foreign-exchange-regimes-around-the-world-idUSKBN1XA295/
  65. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Annual-Report-on-Exchange-Arrangements-and-Exchange-Restrictions/Issues/2024/12/19/Annual-Report-on-Exchange-Arrangements-and-Exchange-Restrictions-2023-541890
  66. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap104y.pdf
  67. https://www.imf.org/external/np/spr/ara/
  68. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap104a_rh.pdf
  69. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/10/10/when-foreign-exchange-intervention-can-best-help-countries-navigate-shocks
  70. https://www.investing.com/news/forex-news/hong-kongs-central-bank-intervenes-to-maintain-currency-peg-4023369
  71. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-25/hong-kong-intervenes-to-defend-fx-peg-as-local-currency-drops
  72. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-peg.asp
  73. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c11137/c11137.pdf
  74. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~jlbroz/Courses/PS245/handouts/Lecture3_Intl_Finance.pdf
  75. https://www.mit.edu/~14.02/S05/Ch21.pdf
  76. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14146.pdf
  77. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/book/9780939934287/ch03.pdf
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8546199/
  79. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/frankel/files/on_the_yuan_proofs_0.pdf
  80. https://www.snb.ch/public/publication/en/www-snb-ch/publications/research/working-papers/2024/working_paper_2024_04/0_en/working_paper_2024_04.pdf
  81. https://www.snb.ch/en/publications/communication/speeches/2015/ref_20150326_zur
  82. https://www.bis.org/publ/work652.pdf
  83. https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/hong-kong-authority-intervenes-market-check-local-currencys-rise-2025-05-03/
  84. https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/news-and-media/insight/2025/05/20250520/
  85. https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/money/linked-exchange-rate-system/how-does-the-lers-work/
  86. https://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/S84.pdf
  87. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781557752901/ch13.xml
  88. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap73v.pdf
  89. https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/062600.htm
  90. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1998/12/enoch.htm
  91. https://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/20/1iie2229.pdf
  92. https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/other-information/a-modern-day-currency-board-system/
  93. https://www.cato.org/outside-articles/currency-boards
  94. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency_board.asp
  95. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/wp9808.pdf
  96. https://www.nationalbanken.dk/media/2wzp2zif/2000-mon2-curr-85.pdf
  97. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/09/gulde.htm
  98. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31093.html
  99. https://www.imf.org/EXTERNAL/PUBS/FT/ISSUES13/INDEX.HTM
  100. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crawlingpeg.asp
  101. https://www.econweb.com/macro/international/notes.html
  102. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/06/fischer.htm
  103. https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/crawling-bands-or-monitoring-bands-how-manage-exchange-rates-world
  104. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp0097.pdf
  105. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/documents/discussion-papers/03-15.pdf
  106. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638199.2024.2386276
  107. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2002/10/learning-from-argentina-crisis/
  108. https://www.galbithink.org/topics/cred/argcb.htm
  109. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/hkg/hong-kong/inflation-rate-cpi
  110. https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/news-and-media/insight/2013/10/20131014/
  111. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/wp98107.pdf
  112. https://www.nber.org/papers/w10696
  113. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/inecon/v70y2006i2p359-383.html
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560617301390
  115. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46474395_Foreign_Direct_Investment_and_Exchange_Rate_Regimes
  116. https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/files/11473648/Final_ER_regimes_FDI_revised_JIMF_version_2017_07_12.pdf
  117. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/602231
  118. https://www.cato.org/commentary/long-live-lev-bulgaria-should-hold-its-currency-board
  119. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/pdp/1999/pdp03.pdf
  120. https://www.bis.org/review/r221031i.pdf
  121. https://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/what-we-do/stable-prices-monetary-policy-and-the-danish-economy/learn-about-inflation-interest-rates-and-the-fixed-exchange-rate-policy
  122. https://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/crises.html
  123. https://stonecenter.gc.cuny.edu/files/1979/08/krugman-a-model-of-balance-of-payment-crises-1979.pdf
  124. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9803/c9803.pdf
  125. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w8035/w8035.pdf
  126. https://www.london.edu/news/erms-1992-crisis-offers-lessons-for-today-2099
  127. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/nft/op/236/op236.pdf
  128. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/5fbf2f91-6cdf-4e70-8ff2-620ba901fc4c/argentina-s-economic-crisis---06-13-03.pdf
  129. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap35c.pdf
  130. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trilemma.asp
  131. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/policy-and-theory-of-international-finance/s16-04-monetary-autonomy-and-exchange.html
  132. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/exchange-rate-regimes-can-give-nations-varying-levels-autonomy-over-monetary
  133. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/display/book/9781557751331/ch010.pdf
  134. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Fiscal-Discipline-and-the-Choice-of-Exchange-Rate-Regime.pdf
  135. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/conferences/shared/pdf/20191114_CEPR/Born.pdf
  136. https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/12/2/92
  137. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/staffp/2004/00-00/pathak.pdf
  138. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/1997/11/lessons-from-thailand/
  139. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/economists/pesenti/whatjapwor.p
  140. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/f2d65dac-fecc-5f39-b180-654ce710aaca
  141. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/display/book/9781589063808/ch004.pdf
  142. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/1996/396lead.pdf
  143. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-mexican-peso-crisis-the-foreseeable-and-the-surprise/
  144. https://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%2520Writing/1996/EconomicPolicy_1996_CollapseofMexicanPeso_April1996.PDF
  145. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2018/dec/pdf/understanding-exchange-rates-and-why-they-are-important.pdf
  146. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Conferences/2022/10/3rd-workshop-international-capital-flows-financial-policies/5/a-theory-of-fear-of-floating.ashx
  147. https://users.ox.ac.uk/~sedm1375/Teaching/Macro/openeconomy.pdf
  148. https://web.econ.ku.dk/okocg/VM/VM-general/Kapitler%2520til%2520bog/Ch21-2013-1.pdf
  149. https://www.sfu.ca/~kkasa/mundell_61.pdf
  150. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/wp99-16.pdf
  151. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogoff/files/51_jme2005.pdf
  152. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/impossible-trinity-0
  153. https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/pb00-05.pdf
  154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572308924001207
  155. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2011/06/why-are-capital-controls-so-popular?lang=en
  156. https://web.pdx.edu/~ito/handbook_aizenman_ito.pdf
  157. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/pdp/2001/pdp01.pdf
  158. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/history-arts-culture/archives/delors/documents/shared/data/ecb.dr.delors880101_FinalVersionRegionalPolicyIntegration.fr.pdf?79bea84ed6cafcc7365d6578f16ed47d
  159. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/op/243/243ch5.pdf
  160. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/646/
  161. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-there-a-dilemma-with-the-trilemma/
  162. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/News/Seminars/2025/first-imf-middle-east-and-north-africa-research-conference/session-2-ahmed-kamaly.ashx
  163. https://www.ranenetwork.com/blog/solid-fundamentals-shield-gcc-economies-from-global-volatility
  164. https://www.piie.com/commentary/testimonies/dollarization-emerging-market-economies-and-its-policy-implications-united
  165. https://www.marmoremena.com/en/insights/saudi-arabia-and-its-us-dollar-peg-dilemma/
  166. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/exchange-rate-regime-by-country
  167. https://augustdeepthink.medium.com/countries-still-use-fixed-exchange-rates-in-2025-9bc16c6ad12e
  168. https://bankunderground.co.uk/2025/06/26/how-fixed-are-global-exchange-rates/
  169. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2023/413/article-A001-en.xml
  170. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/monetary-policy-and-exchange-rates-during-the-global-tightening-20240510.html
  171. https://www.agbi.com/analysis/economy/2025/08/perils-of-the-peg-weaker-dollars-impact-on-gulf-economies/
  172. https://agsi.org/analysis/rethinking-the-currency-peg-in-the-gulf-arab-states/
  173. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/fixation-fixed-exchange-rates-harms-developing-countries
  174. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15140326.2025.2558965
  175. https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/1f34d-de-dollarization-surge-70-countries-abandoning-the-us-dollar
  176. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2020/English/wpiea2020173-print-pdf.ashx
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.