Volume 27, Issue 3 p. 337-361
Original Article

Political Regimes and Currency Crises

David A. Steinberg

Corresponding Author

David A. Steinberg

Johns Hopkins University

Corresponding author: David A. Steinberg, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, 1740 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Karrie J. Koesel

Karrie J. Koesel

University of Notre Dame

Search for more papers by this author
Nicolas W. Thompson

Nicolas W. Thompson

University of South Florida

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 03 July 2015
Citations: 20
An online appendix with supplementary tables and replication data will be made available on the author's website upon publication. For helpful suggestions on earlier drafts, we thank Bill Bernhard, Jeff Colgan, Alison Gash, Andrew Kerner, Stormy-Annika Mildner, Maggie Peters, Molly Roberts, Will Terry, Dennis Quinn, Robert Walker, Rachel Wellhausen, and participants at the 2013 APSA, IPES, and ISA conferences. Josh Baker, Yongwoo Jeung, and Kevin O'Hare provided excellent research assistance on this project.

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between political regime type and currency crises. Some theories suggest that democratic regimes, owing to their greater political transparency and larger number of veto players, should have a lower risk of currency crisis than dictatorships. Alternative arguments emphasize the advantages of political insulation and rulers with long time horizons, and imply that crises should be most likely in democracies and least common in monarchic dictatorships. We evaluate these competing arguments across four types of political regimes using a time-series cross-sectional dataset that covers 178 countries between 1973 and 2009. Our findings suggest that the risk of currency crisis is substantially lower in monarchies than in democracies and other types of dictatorship. Further analyses indicate that the adoption of prudent financial policies largely account for this robust negative association between monarchies and the probability of currency crises. This suggests that political regimes strongly influence financial stability, and perverse political incentives help explain why currency crises are so common.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.