Wednesday, July 30, 2008

You can put my face on the Z$50 if you like

So it looks like Zimbabwe is planning a ten-bagel currency reform (and apparently that they have managed to find an alternative supplier of banknote paper and printing software to do so). Brings me back to something I was planning on writing about very early on in this project - the fact that, whoever ends up being in charge of Zimbabwe, they are going to have to deal with the hyperinflation, and my plan for doing so.

Basically the trouble is that all the recipes for curing a hyperinflation require you to have a strong and functional state. You can do it Israeli-style - with strict and firmly enforced price controls, or you can do it Argentinean style - by introducing a currency board. But in either case, you need to make it stick. And that doesn't look very possible at the moment - although the Zimbabweans[1] certainly need and deserve such a government, it would be nice to get rid of the hyperinflation in the near term, in the hope that this would facilitate a transition to more stable government without an economic collapse or civil war.

The only other way to control a hyperinflation is actual dollarisation a la Ecuador, but this doesn't seem practical to me. Zimbabwe has about a third of the GDP of Ecuador, but it doesn't have any material reserves of dollars at all, or any other hard currency. What it needs is something similar to dollarisation, but on the basis of a locally available fiat money standard.

And thus I suggest that Zimbabwe might as well have a go with free banking. One of the curios of the Zimbabwean economy is that it still has a significant presence from UK commercial banks (Barclays Zimbabwe, a subsidiary of Barclays plc is the largest, with Standard Chartered not far behind). Not very well informed UK journalists often discover this fact and then write ill-informed articles about "propping up Mugabe" (the reality is that neither company has made a cent in profit in Zimbabwe for about five years, but both of them have correctly assessed that they would hardly be doing the Zimbabweans a favour by destroying their domestic banking system. They don't "make loans to the Mugabe regime", they hold excess deposits (which are substantial as there aren't many viable commercial lending propositions in Zimbabwe) in short term government bonds.

Both BBZ and SC have substantially better credit ratings than the Zimbabwean state and justifiably so, and they have more of an interest in maintaining sound money in the long term than the Zimbabwean state too. They certainly don't have any interest in printing a note with twelve zeroes on it. Why not let them print banknotes and treat them as legal tender? There's my plan for monetary reform; doesn't work for most hyperinflationary countries as the local banking system is usually about as weak as the state but Zimbabwe is a special case.

[1]Finally got tired of the "Zimbabwegians" joke!

10 comments:

  1. I'm not sure I buy the idea of Zimbabwe not having a strong and functional state. They seem pretty efficient at enforcing all sorts of things (including the policies that sustain hyperinflation)..

    In fact, the idea that Zimbabwe has some kind of functionnal state is the only way I can explain why there hasn't been an official dollarization yet. In Zaire it happened at much lower levels of inflation.

    That said, no matter how good of an idea free banking is, do you really think that British banks issuing currency in an African country would happen ever ever ever ?

    (and DRC dollarized with a GDP even lower than Zimbabwe's)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi,

    I'm Jules and I work at bestrank.com, a company interested in blog advertizing. I found your blog engaging and I'm contacting you to ask if you are interested in blog post sponsorship.

    If you are interested, kindly mail back for confirmation(jules@bestrank.com).Please include your blog's URL.
    Looking forward to doing business with you.

    Sincerely,

    Jules Viernes
    BestRank.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. "That said, no matter how good of an idea free banking is, do you really think that British banks issuing currency in an African country would happen ever ever ever?"

    To my mild surprise, I've discovered in researching this blog comment that only one English bank has ever issued currency in Scotland (if Dan has the Scot-money-identification skills that I suspect he does, then he'll point out which).

    However, even that one is clearly far more controversial and extreme than the concept of an English bank issuing currency in Africa...

    ReplyDelete
  4. However, even that one is clearly far more controversial and extreme than the concept of an English bank issuing currency in Africa...

    Do you really think so ? Or is it a typo ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. the Bank of England, presumably, unless you're talking about the period in which RBS had its registered office in London.

    ReplyDelete
  6. random African - having had a cup of coffee, I'd respond thus:

    1. Barclays Zimbabwe isn't a British bank - it's a Zimbabwean bank two-thirds owned by Barclays. In general, I'm not so sure it's that politically unpalatable.

    2. Zaire dollarised as part of a total economic collapse - there weren't enough dollars in the economy to support the level of economic activity. Zimbabwe could certainly dollarise on that basis, but I'm trying to think of ways to avoid it.

    3. On the strength of the Zimbabwean political institutions, good point.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another option; use Celtel transferable airtime.

    Anyway, this makes quite a lot of sense, so much so that it worries me that Daviesworld and consensus reality's state vectors are converging.

    Regarding the strength of the Zimbabwean state, it depends what you mean by strong, doesn't it? What seems to have happened is that they chose to repress in classical African civil war fashion - angry mobs with headbands - which is essentially a state-consuming strategy. The aim is to be the last bastard standing on what's left of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What seems to have happened is that they chose to repress in classical African civil war fashion - angry mobs with headbands - which is essentially a state-consuming strategy.

    I think it was on purpose.
    The legal security apparatus is still pretty much in control and was used from time to time.
    At some point, it seemed like the goal was to make MDC react violently which would justify an official and legal repression.

    Or may be it's just deniability (like in Rwanda).

    But the fact that Zimbabwe manages to enforce capital controls and the other regulations is remarkable.

    D-Squared.

    Zaire dollarised as part of a total economic collapse - there weren't enough dollars in the economy to support the level of economic activity.

    I made a typo up there.
    Zaire unofficially dollarized under Mobutu (or rather the economy informally did so). DRC officially dollarized under Kabila. I don't think the second one caused a collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  9. but the smaller your GDP is, the easier it is to dollarise because the ratio of your stock of dollars to the amount of transactions they need to finance is lower - if Zimbabwe were to dollarise today they'd experience it as a horrific shock-treatment monetary contraction, wouldn't they? Liberia was more or less the same thing - first a collapse of the real economy to a level where the stock of dollars was an adequate money supply, then dollarisation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Both BBZ and SC have substantially better credit ratings than the Zimbabwean state

    Just out of curiosity, who does not?

    ReplyDelete