{"id":39238,"date":"2025-04-18T13:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-18T13:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=39238"},"modified":"2025-04-19T05:05:52","modified_gmt":"2025-04-19T05:05:52","slug":"trumps-attacks-on-central-bank-threaten-its-independence-%e2%88%92-and-that-isnt-good-news-for-sound-economic-stewardship-or-battling-inflation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/trumps-attacks-on-central-bank-threaten-its-independence-%e2%88%92-and-that-isnt-good-news-for-sound-economic-stewardship-or-battling-inflation\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s attacks on central bank threaten its independence \u2212 and that isn\u2019t good news for sound economic stewardship (or battling inflation)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Cristina Bodea<\/a>, Michigan State University<\/a><\/em> and Ana Carolina Garriga<\/a>, University of Essex<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly every country in the world has a central bank \u2013 a public institution that manages a country\u2019s currency and its monetary policy<\/a>. And these banks have an extraordinary amount of power. By controlling the flow of money and credit in a country, they can affect economic growth, inflation, employment and financial stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are powers that many politicians \u2013 including, currently, U.S. President Donald Trump \u2013 would seemingly like to control<\/a> or at least manipulate. That\u2019s because monetary policy can provide governments with economic boosts at key times, such as around elections or during periods of falling popularity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that short-lived, politically motivated moves may be detrimental to the long-term economic well-being of a nation. They may, in other words, saddle the economy with problems further down the line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is why central banks across the globe tend to receive significant leeway to set interest rates independently<\/a> and free from the electoral wishes of politicians<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, monetary policymaking that is data-driven<\/a> and technocratic<\/a>, rather than politically motivated, has since the early 1990s been seen as the gold standard<\/a> of governance of national finances<\/a>. By and large, this arrangement, in which central bankers keep politicians at arm\u2019s length, has achieved its main purpose: Inflation has been<\/a> relatively low<\/a> and stable<\/a> in countries with independent central banks, such as Switzerland or Sweden \u2013 certainly until the pandemic and war in Europe began pushing up prices globally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In comparison, countries such as Lebanon and Egypt, where independence was never extended, or Argentina and Turkey, where it has been curtailed, have experienced more bouts of high inflation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But despite independence being seen to work, central banks over<\/a> the past decade<\/a> have come under increased pressure<\/a> from politicians. They hope to keep interest rates low<\/a> and reap voter gratitude for a humming economy and cheap loans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump is one recent example. In his first term as president, he criticized<\/a> his own choice to head the U.S. Federal Reserve and demanded lower interest rates<\/a>. After Fed Chair Jerome Powell warned that tariffs are \u201chighly likely\u201d to trigger inflation<\/a>, Trump lashed out on April 17, 2025<\/a>, in an online post in which he accused Powell<\/a> of being \u201cTOO LATE AND WRONG\u201d on interest rate cuts, while suggesting that the central banker\u2019s \u201ctermination cannot come fast enough!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As political economists<\/a>, we are<\/a> not surprised to see politicians try to exert influence on central banks. Monetary policy, even with independence, has always been political<\/a>. For one thing, central banks remain part of the government bureaucracy, and independence granted to them can always be reversed<\/a> \u2013 either by changing laws or backtracking on established practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the reason politicians may want to interfere in monetary policy<\/a> is that low interest rates remain a potent, quick method to boost an economy. And while politicians know that there are costs to besieging an independent central bank \u2013 financial markets may react negatively<\/a> or inflation may flare up<\/a> \u2013 short-term control of a powerful policy tool can prove irresistible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legislating independence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If monetary policy is such a coveted policy tool, how have central banks held off politicians and stayed independent? And is this independence being eroded?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Broadly, central banks are protected by laws<\/a> that offer long tenures to their leadership, allow them to focus policy primarily on inflation, and severely limit lending to the rest of the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, such legislation cannot anticipate all future contingencies, which may open the door for political interference or for practices that break the law<\/a>. And sometimes central bankers are unceremoniously fired<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, laws do keep politicians in line. For example, even in authoritarian countries, laws protecting central banks from political interference have helped reduce inflation<\/a> and restricted central bank lending to the government<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In our own research, we have detailed the ways<\/a> that laws<\/a> have insulated central banks<\/a> from the rest of the government, but also the recent trend of eroding this legal independence<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Politicizing appointees<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Around the world, appointments to central bank leadership are political \u2013 elected politicians select candidates based on career credentials, political affiliation and, importantly, their dislike or tolerance of inflation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But lawmakers in different countries exercise different degrees of political control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 2025 study<\/a> shows that the large majority of central bank leaders \u2013 about 70% \u2013 are appointed by the head of government alone or with the intervention of other members of the executive branch. This ensures that the preferences of the central bank are closer to the government\u2019s, which can boost the central bank\u2019s legitimacy in democratic countries, but at the risk of permeability to political influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alternatively, appointments can involve the legislative power or even the central bank\u2019s own board. In the U.S., while the president nominates members of the Federal Reserve Board, the Senate can and has rejected unconventional<\/a> or incompetent<\/a> candidates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, even if appointments are political, many central bankers stay in office long after the people who appointed them have been voted out. By the end of 2023,<\/a> the most common length of the governors\u2019 appointment is five years, and in 41 countries the legal mandate was six years or longer. Powell is set to stay on as Fed chair until his term expires in 2026. The Fed chair position has traditionally been protected by law, as Powell himself acknowledged in November 2024<\/a>: \u201cWe\u2019re not removable except for cause. We serve very long terms, seemingly endless terms. So we\u2019re protected into law. Congress could change that law, but I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any danger of that.\u201d But Trump\u2019s firing of leaders of other independent federal agencies has set up a legal challenge that could affect the Fed, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 2000s, several countries shortened the tenure of their central banks\u2019 governors to four or five years. Sometimes, this was part of broader restrictions in central bank independence, as was the case in Iceland in 2001, Ghana in 2002 and Romania in 2004.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The low inflation objective<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As of 2023<\/a>, all but six central banks globally had low inflation as their main goal<\/a>. Yet many central banks are required by law to try to achieve additional and sometimes conflicting goals<\/a>, such as financial stability, full employment or support for the government\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the case for 38 central banks that either have the explicit dual mandate of price stability and employment or more complex goals. In Argentina, for example, the central bank\u2019s mandate is to provide \u201cemployment and economic development with social equity<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Poor monetary policy can lead to rising prices in Argentina. AP Photo\/Natacha Pisarenko<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Conflicting objectives can open central banks to politicization. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate<\/a> of stable prices and maximum sustainable employment. These goals are often complementary<\/a>, and economists have argued that low inflation is a prerequisite for sustainable high levels of employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in times of overlapping high inflation and high unemployment, such as in the late 1970s<\/a> or when the COVID-19 crisis was winding down in 2022<\/a>, the Fed\u2019s dual mandate has become active territory for political wrangling<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 2000<\/a>, at least 23 countries have expanded the focus of their central banks beyond just inflation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Limits on government lending<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The first central banks were created to help secure finance for governments fighting<\/a> wars<\/a>. But today, limiting lending to governments is at the core of protecting price stability from unsustainable fiscal spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

History is dotted with the consequences of not doing so. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, central banks in Latin America printed money to support their governments\u2019 spending goals. But it resulted in massive inflation while not securing growth<\/a> or political stability<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, limits on lending are strongly associated with lower inflation in the developing world<\/a>. And central banks with high levels of independence can reject a government\u2019s financing requests or dictate the terms of loans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet over the past two decades, almost 40 countries have made their central banks less able to limit central government funding<\/a>. In the more extreme examples \u2013 such as in Belarus, Ecuador or even New Zealand \u2013 they have turned the central bank into a potential financier for the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scapegoating central bankers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, governments have tried to influence central banks by pushing<\/a> for lower interest rates<\/a>, making statements criticizing bank policy<\/a> or calling for meetings<\/a> with central bank leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, politicians have blamed the same central bankers for a number of perceived failings: not anticipating economic shocks such as the 2007-09 financial crisis<\/a>; exceeding their authority with quantitative easing<\/a>; or creating massive inequality<\/a> or instability<\/a> while trying to save the financial sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And since mid-2021, major central banks have struggled to keep inflation low, raising questions<\/a> from populist and antidemocratic politicians about the merits of an arm\u2019s-length relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But chipping away at central bank independence, as Trump appears to be doing with his open criticism of the Fed chair and implicit threats of dismissal, is a historically sure way to high inflation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an updated version of an article that was originally published<\/a> by The Conversation on June 14, 2024.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cristina Bodea<\/a>, Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University<\/a><\/em> and Ana Carolina Garriga<\/a>, Professor of Political Science, University of Essex<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cristina Bodea, Michigan State University and Ana Carolina Garriga, University of Essex Nearly every country in the world has a central bank \u2013 a public institution that manages a country\u2019s currency and its monetary policy. And these banks have an extraordinary amount of power. By controlling the flow of money and credit in a country, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":39239,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,115,277,46,295,25,296,4],"tags":[10995,479,172,16259,3371,885,891,886,860,2133],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39238"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39238"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39240,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39238\/revisions\/39240"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39239"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}