What are the foundations of monetary power? David Andrews, in his introduction to this volume, distinguishes between two "pathways" for the exercise of monetary power – the macro level, linked to the problem of balance-of-payments disequilibrium; and the micro-level, working through the capacity of money to alter actor interests and identities. The purpose of this chapter is to promote a clearer understanding of the macro-level pathway – what we may call the macrofoundation of monetary power. Building in good part on earlier contributions of my own, I argue that the central issue at the macro-level is the distribution of the burden of adjustment to external imbalance. The macrofoundation of monetary power lies, first and foremost, in a capacity to avoid payments adjustment costs, either by delaying adjustment or by deflecting the burden of adjustment onto others. Ceteris paribus, the greater is a state's capacity to avoid adjustment costs, relative to that of other states, the greater is its power at the macro-level.

One of the most striking financial developments in recent years was the emergence of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) – large publicly owned investment portfolios, which until recently were growing rapidly in both number and size. In a global environment already roiled by a prolonged credit crisis, SWFs raise tricky and potentially controversial new questions for international financial regulation. One issue of concern to many in host countries is the possibility that some SWFs might be used for overt or tacit political purposes, posing a challenge for global monetary governance: a Great Tradeoff between, on the one hand, the world community’s collective interest in sustaining the openness of capital markets; and on the other hand, the legitimate national security concerns of individual host countries. Can some balance between the two be found that will be both stable and acceptable to all concerned? Individually as well as collectively, recipient countries have begun to address the regulatory challenge directly. To date, however, accomplishments have been slight and have failed to stem a noticeable drift toward financial protectionism. A review of some recent proposals suggests that there is no foolproof solution to the Great Tradeoff. But the potential for controversy could be significantly reduced by a negotiated agreement among host governments addressing three key issues: (1) definitions; (2) risk assessment; and (3) dispute resolution. The most logical venue for such an exercise would be the OECD, building on its already extensive experience with international investment issues.

Geopolitics, the dictionary tells us, is about international great-power rivalries – the struggle for dominance among territorially defined states. Conflict is at the heart of geopolitics. Geopolitical relations are dynamic, strategic, and hierarchical. In geopolitics, the meek definitely do not inherit the earth.

Today, much the same can be said about currencies, which in recent years have become increasingly competitive on a global scale. Monetary relations, too, have become conflictual and hierarchical; and the meek are similarly disadvantaged. At issue is a breakdown of the neat territorial monopolies that national governments have historically claimed in the management of money, a market-driven process that elsewhere I have described as the deterritorialization of money (Cohen 1998, 2003a). In lieu of monopoly, what we have now is more like oligopoly – a finite number of autonomous suppliers, national governments, all vying ceaselessly to shape and manage demand for their respective currencies. Since state are no longer able to exercise supreme control over the circulation and use of money within their own frontiers, they must instead do what they can to preserve or promote market share. As a result, the population of the monetary universe is becoming ever more stratified, assuming the appearance of a vast Currency Pyramid -- narrow at the top, where the strongest monies dominate; and increasingly broad below, reflecting varying degrees of competitive inferiority.

Accelerating cross-border competition among currencies is creating increasing turbulence in the international monetary environment. Are national currencies becoming obsolete? Currency competition compels governments to choose from among a limited number of strategies, only one of which involves preservation of a traditional territorial money. Many national currencies will disappear, leading to an increasing number of regional currencies of one kind or another – a distinctly new geography of money. But there is no sure way to predict what that new geography of money will ultimately look like. We have a fairly good idea of the principal factors that are likely to influence state preferences, but many configurations are possible and even probable.

What is America’s interest in dollarization? Formal adoption of the dollar by other governments creates both opportunities and risks for the United States, political as well as economic. But few benefits or costs can be estimated in advance, leaving much room for debate and disagreement. The argument of this paper is that no presumption can be established either way, whether for or against dollarization, from a strictly U.S. point of view. Unless directly challenged by efforts elsewhere to establish formal currency blocs, the United States has no interest in promoting a wider role for the greenback.

After nearly a century of dominance of the international monetary system, has the U.S. dollar finally met its match in the euro? When Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) came into existence in 1999, many observers predicted that the euro would soon join America’s greenback at the peak of global finance. Achievements, however, have fallen short of aspiration. After an initial spurt of enthusiasm, international use of the euro actually appears now to be leveling off, even stalling, and so far seems confined largely to a limited range of market sectors and regions. The euro has successfully attained a place second only to the greenback – but it remains, and is likely to remain, a quite distant second without a determined effort by EMU authorities to promote their money’s global role. The temptation will surely be great. In practical terms, it is difficult to imagine that EMU authorities will refrain entirely from trying to promote a greater role for the euro. But that, in turn, could turn out to be a recipe for discord with the United States, which has never made any secret of its commitment to preserving the greenback’s worldwide dominance. A struggle for monetary leadership could become a source of sustained tensions in U.S.-European relations. Fortunately, however, there seems relatively little risk of a destabilizing escalation into outright geopolitical conflict.

The aim of this essay is to provide the first building blocks for a positive theory of currency regionalization. In the spirit of the actor-oriented framework outlined by Kahler and Lake (Chapter 1), the analytical focus here is the state–specifically, central decisionmakers responsible for currency policy. The working assumption is that economic globalization is driving policymakers to reconsider their historical preference for strictly national money. The question is: What delegation of authority is most likely to emerge in individual countries? What conditions are most likely to influence the choice among available options?

The essay is organized as follows. I begin in the first section with a brief look back at the dramatic transformation of global monetary relations that has occurred in recent decades–a period during which many governments, finding it increasingly difficult to sustain the market position of uncompetitive national currencies, have begun to reflect instead on the possibility of a regional currency of some kind. Section II then highlights the considerable leeway available in designing alternative forms of either currency unification or dollarization, while Section III identifies key factors that can be expected to dominate the calculations of rational policymakers in thinking about the choices before them. Taking all factors into account, it is clear that for many states traditional sovereignty will remain the preferred option. But taking account of possible variations in the degree of regionalization, it is also clear that for many other countries some form of monetary alliance or subordination could turn out to be rather more appealing.

This essay looks at the dynamics of power and rule setting in the international monetary system. I begin with a brief discussion of the meaning of power in international monetary relations, distinguishing between two critical dimensions of monetary power, autonomy and influence. Major developments have led to a greater diffusion of power in monetary affairs, both among states and between states and societal actors. But the diffusion of power has been mainly in the dimension of autonomy, rather than influence, meaning that leadership in the system has been dispersed rather than relocated – a pattern of change in the geopolitics of finance that might be called leaderless diffusion. The pattern of leaderless diffusion, in turn, is generating greater ambiguity in prevailing governance structures. Rule setting in monetary relations increasingly relies not on negotiations among a few powerful states but, rather, on the evolution of custom and usage among growing numbers of autonomous agents. Impacts on governance structures can be seen at two levels: the individual state and the global system. At the state level, the dispersion of power compels governments to rethink their commitment to national monetary sovereignty. At the systemic level, it compounds the difficulties of bargaining on monetary issues. More and more, formal rules are being superceded by informal norms that emerge, like common law, not from legislation or statutes but from everyday conduct and social convention.

Few issues of public policy roil Canadians more than the idea of a North American Monetary Union (NAMU), establishing one currency for Canada and the United States. As other contributions to this special issue testify, opinions among Canadians differ sharply and divisions run deep. From the maritimes to the Pacific, Canadians are far from consensus regarding the future of their national money, the much belittled "loonie."

But what about opinion south of the longest unguarded border in the world? Largely lost in the din of debate among Canadians is the perspective of the United States, Canada's putative partner. America's interest in NAMU is rarely addressed in any systematic manner. This is surely a critical omission. Even if Canadians could unite in favor of currency union as a policy goal, a vital imperative would remain – namely, the need to gain support from Washington. How would Americans view a monetary initiative from Ottawa? Would the prospect of NAMU be greeted with open arms or with hostility? As a practical matter, a common currency would be impossible without the concurrence, or at least the compliance, of the United States.

This essay explores the NAMU issue specifically from a U.S. point of view, addressing both economic and political aspects. The big question is: What does the United States have to gain? The short answer, which will disappoint many Canadians, is: Not much. The U.S. greenback, as the world's leading international currency, already generates considerable benefits for Americans. That is the starting point from which analysis must proceed. As compared with the status quo of America's de facto market dominance, a formal monetary union with Canada, though not without advantages, would threaten more risks and losses for the United States than gains. Moreover, this negative assessment holds true no matter what form NAMU might take – whether modeled on Europe’s euro, substituting an entirely new North American money for the continent’s two existing dollars; or if instead it were simply to replace the Canada’s loonie with the greenback, a "dollarization" model. Either way, under present circumstances, the idea can be expected to elicit little interest among Americans and even less encouragement.