Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Central to ongoing debates over the desirability of monetary unions is a supposed trade-off, outlined by Mundell (1961): a monetary union reduces transactions costs but renders stabilization policy less effective. If shocks across countries are sufficiently correlated, then, according to this argument, delegating monetary policy to a single central bank is not very costly and a monetary union is desirable. This paper explores this argument in a setting with both monetary and fiscal policies. In an economy with monetary policy alone, we confirm the presence of the trade-off and find that indeed a monetary union will not be welfare improving if the correlation of national shocks is too low. However, fiscal interventions by national governments, combined with a central bank that has the ability to commit to monetary policy, overturn these results. In equilibrium, such a monetary union will be welfare improving for any correlation of shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cooper et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: