Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The limits of delegation : veto players, central bank independence, and the credibility of monetary policy

By David Stasavage and Philip Keefer


Governments unable to make credible promises hinder economic development and effective policy making. Scholars have focused considerable attention on checks and balances and the delegation of authority to independent agencies as institutional solutions to this problem. The political conditions under which these institutions enhance credibility, rather than policy stability, are still unclear, however. We show that checks – multiple veto players – enhance credibility, depending on the extent of uncertainty about the location of the status quo, on how agenda control is allocated among the veto players, and on whether veto players have delegated policy making authority to independent agencies. In the context of monetary policy and independent central banks, we find evidence supporting the following predictions: delegation is more likely to enhance credibility and political replacements of central bank governors are less likely in the presence of multiple political veto players; this effect increases with the polarization of veto players

Topics: JZ International relations
Year: 2003
DOI identifier: 10.1017/S0003055403000777
OAI identifier:
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    1. 1983a. "A Positive Theory of Monetary Policy in A Natural Rate Model." doi
    2. (1999). A State within the State? An Event doi
    3. (1987). Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” doi
    4. (1983). Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission." doi
    5. (1979). Bureaucrats Versus Voters: On the Political Economy of Resource Allocation by Direct Democracy.” doi
    6. (1993). Central bank independence and macroeconomic performance: some comparative evidence.” doi
    7. (1999). Checks and Balances, and the Supply of Central Bank Independence." doi
    8. (1997). Choosing strategies to control the bureaucracy: statutory constraints, oversight and the committee system.” doi
    9. (1989). Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England.” doi
    10. (1995). Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, doi
    11. (1998). Federalism and Central Bank Independence: the Politics of German Monetary Policy, 1957-1992." doi
    12. (1992). Measuring the Independence of Central Banks and its doi
    13. (1984). Monetary Politics: The Federal Reserve and the Politics of Monetary Policy. New York: doi
    14. (1991). Monetary Sovereignty. doi
    15. (1998). Monetary Theory and Policy. doi
    16. (2001). New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions." doi
    17. (1993). Openness and Inflation: Theory and Evidence." doi
    18. (1992). Optimal commitment in monetary policy: credibility versus flexibility.” doi
    19. (1999). Partially Independent Central Banks, Politically Responsive Governments, and Inflation." doi
    20. (1995). Political Influence on the Central Bank: doi
    21. (2002). Politics and the Determinants of Banking Crises: The Effects of Political Checks and Balances.” doi
    22. (1998). Preemptive Strike: Central Bank Reform in Chile's Transition from doi
    23. (2003). Public Debt and the Birth of the Democratic State: France and Great Britain 1688-1789. New York: doi
    24. (2000). Representation or Abdication? How Citizens Use Institutions to Help Delegation Succeed.” doi
    25. (1977). Rules Rather than Discretion: the Inconsistency of Optimal Plans." doi
    26. Rules, Discretion and Reputation in a Model of Monetary Policy." doi
    27. Sharyn O'Halloran 1999. Delegating powers : a transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. New York : doi
    28. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice.” doi
    29. (1914). The Banking and Currency Act of 1913: I.” doi
    30. (1997). The Credibility of Optimal Monetary Delegation."
    31. (1985). The Optimal Degree of Commitment to an Intermediate Monetary Target." doi
    32. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.