United Kingdom and the Eurozone

unify res publica and the EurozoneDEFINITION OF CURRENCY UNIONIn the world today, systems in which countries come together in reason of sharing whizz money. The system is called up-to-dateness or financial center, its importance and play of participants is growing. In whitethorn 2005, 52 out of 184 IMF members participated in notes yokes (Rose, 2006).A currency union can be specify as a system where two or more groups usually countries sh ar a third estate or single currency in order to keep the value of their currency at a certain level (Investopedia, 2015). It can as well as be delimit as an agreement among members countries or other jurisdictions to share a common currency, and a single foreign and monetary change over policy (Rosa, 2004). specie unions occur when a poor country unilaterally adopts the money of a bigger anchor country. For Example, a number of countries currently use the American clam such as Panama, Ecuador, and a number of smaller countries an d dependencies in the Caribbean and Pacific (Rose, 2006). In Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho and Namibia all use the South African Rand thereby forming a currency union (Multilateral monetary study). In these cases, the transfigure and interest judge of dependent countries are influenced and determined by the anchor country, generally in the interest of the anchor.There are a number of multilateral currency unions amid countries of similar size and wealth such as the East Caribbean dollar Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Montserrat, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint vincent and the Grenadines and Saint Lucia. The fundamental Bank of the West African of the CFA franc Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo and also the Bank of the Central African States. Other currency unions in the world are the monetary authority Singapore, eastern Caribbean currency union, multilateral monetary area etc.The largest currency union is the Economic and Monetary Union of th e European Union which began on the 1st January 1999, although the euro was only physically introduced three years later. Twelve countries instituted the euro as a legal tender, delegating and determining monetary policy for EMU to through the inter national European primordial bank. One of the reasons of forming a currency union is mainly to synchronize and manage each member countrys monetary policy which could be done through lowering of transaction be of cross-border trade (Silva and Tenreyro, 2010)The union is evaluate to grow more with Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia recently connector the area and other states such as Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City unilaterally adopting the euro as their sole currency however, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and the unify region necessitate rejected membership but kept up(p) debates on the advisability of adopting the euro particularly after the onset of the global financial crisis (Carney, 2014).Currency unions have no delimit s ize therefore there is no appropriate domain for a currency. The use of a single or common currency is advantageous to regions as well as can also excite problems in the dual presence of asymmetric shocks and nominal rigidities (in impairments and wages) (Mundell, 1961).The effect of the size on currency union tend to create more centripetal and fewer nominal rigidities for smaller countries making them better candidates for currency unions (Mckinnon, 1963). The effects of the economys degree of diversification could result in fewer asymmetric shocks and accordingly fewer benefits from national monetary policy.The insights of the theory of optimum currency areas provided by Mundell (1961) concluded that common currency areas are defined by internal mobility and external immobility of factors of production. According to this theory, the optimum size of currency area depends on the tradeoff between the mackroeconomic efficiency gains and micro-economic costs. The forming currency unions have its costs as well as benefits.THE COSTSGenerally, the main cost of joining a currency union is the loss of an independent monetary policy with the inability to react to shocks through exchange rate adjustments. Monetary independence can be beneficial when shocks are regionally specific, alternative mechanisms are weak and when exchange rate changes function as means of lightening idiosyncratic shocksCountries that could potentially let their exchange grade adjust to justify the contact of shocks often display fear of floating and thus do not exploit the automatic stabilisation properties of exchange rates (Calvo and Reinhart, 2002). Countries reluctance to implement monetary policy to tackle shocks could be linked to its existing effectiveness less(prenominal) effectiveness of monetary policies to facilitate the adjustment or possibly wider consideration such as fear that it may trigger beggar thy-neighbor responses by trading partners inducing geomorphological irri tability in the financial markets.Besides the absence of price adjustment mechanisms, output stabilization and currency followup in the currency union faces another challenge. A system of income transfers is necessary for softening negative asymmetric shocks in countries that have joined a currency union however the prospect of income transfers between countries generates the shell of moral hazard commonly seen in insurance models (Grabner, 2003).Another cost of currency unions relate to overcoming structural differences among the countries. The transition towards a monetary union is likely to expose structural weaknesses (Jacquet 1998 and Grabner 2003). By entering a monetary union, countries lose the ability to correct their monetary troubles in short term. The necessary structural refine preceding the acceptances of a single currency focus on issues like taxation, supervision of capital markets and also mutual recognition and harmonization of labor markets (Jacquet 1998).Ther e is also an issue of fiscal financing. Public budget can be financed from government bonds and tax revenues. A country in a currency union is likely to face constraints on financing options resulting in a suboptimal situation. At the same time, government bonds are linked to inflation and a currency union implicitly assumes convergent optimal inflation rates (Grabner 2003). In reality the optimal levels of inflation may differ among the countries in the currency union.Furthermore, the cost or problem of currency union inability of participant countries to independently choose an inflation rate. It seems relatively less important now than in the past as improvements in available technology to central banks modify sustainable inflation that result in low actual inflation rates in about countries however if a country plagued by low productivity enters a currency union of high productive countries, it could experience higher inflationary rates (Coleman 1999).THE BENEFITSOne of the m ain benefits of currency unions envisaged by Mundell (1961) is the liquidation of currency conversion costs and greater predictability of prices which would increase trade. The savings are more significant for small, open and less developed countries whose currencies are not apply for international payments (Grabner 2003). Coleman (1999) mentions the savings from the diminution of transaction costs and reduction of price uncertainty together account for 0.4 percent of GDP in the Eurozone.Increased price transparency and reduced price uncertainty are often quoted as interrelated benefits of currency unions. The reduction of price uncertainty is linked to the use of unit of account which is simultaneouslu used by broader economic area (Zika, 2006). The even disappearance of exchange rates removes a vital barrier to trade integration this moreover leads to better information, increased competition and price transparency (Jacquet 1998 and Grabner, 2003).Further benefit of monetary un ion is the remotion of competitive devaluations by member countries which also known as beggar-thy-neighbor policy (Kronberger, 2004). Within currency unions, some(prenominal) importers and exporters have a strong interest in avoiding disproportionate swings in exchange rates. The transfer of resources between regions by the centralized monetary authority through its money issuing function. These transfers can be used to diversify the encounter of expected economic shocks however public finance plays a significant use (Voss, 1998).Currency union has the potential to reduce the number of investment failures. Price uncertainty negatively impacts the eudaimonia or risk adverse individuals in standard economic theory. The greater exchange rate excitability tends to impair the quality of decisions about investment projects abroad therefore greater exchange rate capriciousness implies more frequent investment failures and larger costs (Grabner, 2003). Higher risk caused by the increa se in price and exchange rate uncertainty increases the real interest rate. Higher real interest rates then highlight the problems of moral hazard and adverse selection. This therefore helps lower systematic risk (Grabner, 2003).Finally, the Brobdingnagian economic area of currency unions increases the effect of networking. The adoption of a single currency in a bigger economic area creates greater benefits for all users.Looking at the economic structure of the linked Kingdom and Eurozone, both have projects which are suitable to the individual development and growth of both economies. The coupled Kingdom becoming a member of the eurozone will be more of disadvantage than benefit to the United Kingdom due to several reasons.The core argument for entering the EMU is the elimination of exchange risk against the euro which would promote much more trade with and within Europe by merging the rather violent and limited sterling capital market into a bigger and less risky euro capital market. The joining of the Eurozone is not to world currency but a regional one. Outside of Europe, most of the world any uses the dollar or is tied to it in some way therefore trade and investment would be half with the euro area and half with the dollar area. But over the years, euro/dollar exchange rate has been super variable which when compared to British sequester/dollar exchange rate it doesnt seem convincing. If the UK remains outside, the pound can go between the two currencies as the euro swings occur against dollar thereby sitting on the middle of a seesaw. Looking at this, there is no necessary gain in the exchange risk reduction in UK joining the Eurozone and that it is even possible that the overall risk would rise. The benefit of price transparency and comparison between UK and Eurozone is also of little importance in the sense that United Kingdom has no land borders with the Eurozone unlike Belgium and Netherlands. Given this fact, the comparing of prices between both zones is irrelevant.In harm of bailout and the emergent state pension crisis, growth and development is slower than expected while unemployment is turning out to be higher. The politics of pension cut benefits is speculative given that the aging population will increasingly be dominated by older voters. The effect of raising taxes further would lower growth and increase unemployment. It is a matter of concern to the UK that cost of meeting explosive financial liabilities might somehow impact British taxpayers.In conclusion, the reduction of transactions cost of currency exchange would be roughly offset by the one-off cost of currency conversion. There would be some gain from eliminating exchange risk against euro but this would be offset largely by the volatility against the dollar with around half our trade broadly defined with countries either on or closely linked to the dollar. Generally, the exchange risk does not appear to have an important effect on trade or foreign inv estment, and in the UK case, on the cos of capital.Honestly, I would like to advice that the UK waits and properly assess and plan out different projects. Due to the structure of the Eurozone, I am strongly against the UK joining the Eurozone which is the best interest of British citizensREFERENCESA Coleman. (1999).Economic integration and monetary union.Available http//www.treasury.govt.nz/workingpapers/1999/twp99-6.pdf . hold water accessed 04-01-2015.Andrew K. Rose. (2006).Currency Unions.Available http//faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/arose/Palgrave.pdf. digest accessed 05-01-2015.Available http//object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2004/5/cj24n1-2-10.pdf. Last accessed 04-01-2015.G.M.Voss. (1998). Monetary integration, uncertainty and the role of money finance.Oxford Blackwell Publishing. 65 (2), 231-245.G stool pigeon And D Salvatore. (1999).Benefits and Costs of European Economic and Monetary Union.Available file///C/Users/G1308037/Downloads/6.2_Fink.p df. Last accessed 05-01-2015.G Thompson and D Harari. (2013).The economic impact of EU membership on the UK.Available https//www.google.co.uk/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=10cad=rjauact=8ved=0CGEQFjAJurl=http//www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06730.pdfei=iBCsVJ_QAefe7AbMvYDgDgusg=AFQjCNG. Last accessed 05-01-2015.Guillermo A. Calvo And Carmen M. Reinhart. (2002).Fear Of Floating.Available http//web.cenet.org.cn/upfile/87741.pdf. Last accessed 02-01-2015.Investopedia. (2015).Currency Union.Available http//www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-union.asp. Last accessed 05-01-2015.Jan Zika. (2006).Cost and Benefits Of A Monetary Union.Available http//janzika.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Monetary_union.pdf. Last accessed 02-01-2015.Jacquet P. (1998).A worthwhile gamble. International Affairs.Available No. 1, January, Vol. 74, pp.5571.. Last accessed 04-01-2015.Mark Carney. (2014).The Economics Of Currency Unions.Available http//www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/s peeches/2014/speech706.pdf. Last accessed 06-01-2015.Patrick Minford. (2002).Should Britain Join The Euro?.Available http//www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook147pdf.pdf. Last accessed 07-01-2015.Patrick Minford. (2004).Britain, The Euro, And The Five Tests.R. Kronberger. (2004).A cost-benefit analysis of a monetary union for MERCOSUR with particular emphasis on the optimum currency area theory.Available http//econwpa.wustl.edu80/eps/mac/papers/0407/0407010.pdf . Last accessed 04-01-2015.R Layard, W Buiter, C Huhne, W Hutton, P Kenen and ATurner. (2002).Why Britain Should Join The Euro.Available http//willembuiter.com/RL334D.pdf. Last accessed 05-01-2015.Robert A Mundell. (1961).A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas. Available http//digamo.free.fr/mundell61.pdf. Last accessed 05-01-2015.Ronald I. Mckinnon. (1963).Optimum Currency Areas.Available http//www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1811021?sid=21105014573601uid=4uid=3738032uid=2. Last accessed 02-01-2015.S Ros a. (2004).Definition Of Currency Union.Available https//www.imf.org/external/np/sta/bop/pdf/cuteg1.pdf. Last accessed 04-01-2015.S.Silva and S. Tenreyro. (2010).Currency Unions in Prospect and Retrospect.Available http//personal.lse.ac.uk/tenreyro/cupaper.pdf. Last accessed 01-01-2015.S.Tenreyro. (2001).On The Causes and Consequences of Currency Un.Available http//faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/arose/tenreyro.pdf. Last accessed 05-01-2015.Willem H. Buiter. (2008).Why the United Kingdom Should Join the Eurozone.Available http//willembuiter.com/ifeuro.pdf. Last accessed 05-01-2015.