Abstract
In this paper, a survey was conducted in five countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Hong Kong, whose monetary systems apply the currency board as a monetary policy regime. The research was conducted in the period from 1995 to 2018. The research is based on the use and analysis of Central Bank laws for each of these countries. The key points analyzed in each law are the legal basis and monetary operations. On the basis of exploratory research and comparative analysis of key points, it was found that significant differences appear in the mentioned monetary systems, which function in the currency board. The differences arise from the legal bases in the operational aspects of the application of monetary operations. Precisely on the basis of these differences, which are the facts defined in certain laws, the conclusion is that today we can rightfully talk about two types of currency boards, ie orthodox currency boards and second generation currency boards.
Publisher
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
Reference10 articles.
1. 1993: Adam G.G. Bennett. The Operation of the Estonian Currency Board. IMF Staff Papers, Vol 40. No. 2 (June 1993), URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3867322?seq=1 [10.03.2016];
2. 2002: Kathrin Berensmann. Currency Boards: A Monetary and Exchange Rate Solution for Transition Countries? The Cases of Estonia and Lithuania. Baden Baden;
3. 2009: Ganev Georgy. Costs and Benefits of Euro Adoption in Bulgaria. FINESS Working Paper No. D.5.3, URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/119502 [14.04.2015];
4. 2005: Stefan Gerlach. Monetary Operations by Hong Kong's Currency Board. Journal of Asian Economics 15, pp. 1119-1135. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1049007804001460 [11.05.2013];
5. 1999: Atish R. Ghosh-Anne-Marie Gulde-Holger C.Wolf. Currency Boards: The Ultimate Fix? Working Paper of the International Monetary Fond No. 2. URL: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/wp9808.pdf [07.02.2013];