Reforming the International Financial Architecture, 2011 Edition 1

If U.S. President Clinton’s treasury secretary Robert Rubin is responsible for coining the phrase “international financial architecture” in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 1998, I deserve some of the blame for popularizing it. 2 I used it in the title of my 1999 book, Toward a New International Financial Architecture, published by the Peterson Institute. 3 I say blame because the term architecture conveys a rather misleading sense of the nature of the process. Mirriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary defines architecture as “a unifying or coherent form or structure” (as in “this novel displays an admirable architecture”). 4 In other words, the term implies a unity and coherence that financial markets, institutions and policies do not possess. Alternatively, Mirriam-Webster defines “architecture” as “a formation or construction resulting from or as if from a conscious act.” But many of our international arrangements have, in fact, evolved as unintended consequences of past actions rather than as the result of anyone’s conscious act, “as if” or otherwise. The post-Bretton Woods exchange rate system, starting in the 1970s and extending through the present day, was more the product of the inability of policy makers to agree on the form that the exchange rate system should take than the result of any conscious decision.