To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter explores the first fifteen months under the Tripartite Agreement, from September 1936 to the end of 1937. It focuses on two events that consumed the attention of authorities: the Gold Scare in the spring and the Dollar Scare that autumn. Both events involved questions about the price of gold and wreaked havoc on markets. But the club members--foremost Britain and America---worked together to calm markets and to reaffirm gold's centrality as the international reserve asset par excellence around which the system revolved. In so doing, they demonstrated the Tripartite Agreement's role as the cornerstone of their international monetary policies.
This chapter focuses on the reciprocal gold facilities created in the weeks after the Tripartite Agreement to enable exchange intervention, viewed as essential for the Agreement to have any chance of success. Each country agreed to convert its currency into gold for other members at a price set each day. The system squared the circle of how to enable countries to intervene in currencies that were not universally convertible into gold and played a crucial role in keeping members on the same page during a time of immense political and economic strain. It established a technical foundation for broader collaboration and was integral to the Tripartite Agreement's success in preventing policymakers from relapsing into the antagonisms of earlier years.
In February 1939, Chancellor of the Exchequer John Simon praised the Exchange Equalisation Account (EEA), telling the House of Commons that “the reputation” of the account “is one of our great sources of strength. We were the first country to show the world how to do it. It is being done with great skill, and we owe a great deal to the devoted men, whose work is never published, who watch this matter and serve the country so well in trying to maintain our currency value.” While the EEA’s reputation had not always been so high – foreign observers likened the account to a weapon of war in its early days – by the time of Simon’s address it was admired at home and abroad as a protector of monetary peace and the nation’s prestige. As for the men who managed it and indeed all those involved in sterling policy, they witnessed and contributed to immense changes in the monetary system, the consequences of which reverberate to this day. They were born under the gold standard, worked to reconstruct it after the First World War, started to dismantle it in 1931, and then created a new method of management that sought to balance exchange stability with internal prosperity.
This chapter draws out connections between the Tripartite Agreement and the Bretton Woods system, showing that the latter in many ways built on the former. Indeed, the principles articulated in the Agreement continue to motivate many of the goals for the international monetary system today. It concludes with lessons for improving international monetary cooperation based on the experience of the Tripartite years.
This chapter studies developments in Britain’s monetary system and relations during the harrowing run-up to war. The pound depreciated substantially beginning in the summer of 1938 as war scares caused capital to flee. While the depreciation could have led to the reemergence of a crippling animus among club members, a middle ground developed whereby Britain made good faith efforts to support the pound and other members acquiesced to its decline. The Tripartite Agreement continued to embody democratic solidarity and survived all the way up to the eruption of hostilities in fact and for some time thereafter in name, falling into abeyance due to the necessities of war finance rather than any disagreement between the parties. To defend the pound, Britain transferred the gold in the Bank of England to the Exchange Equalisation Account, thereby severing the remaining threads that had tied sterling to the metal and readying monetary policy for battle in what would become a total war.
This chapter examines the problems of the franc during the Tripartite years. The Big Three generally shared the following hierarchy of priorities (in decreasing order of importance): maintain solidarity, uphold the Tripartite Agreement, forestall exchange control, and prevent excessive depreciation. They succeeded in achieving their top three priorities, a signal accomplishment. Yet confidence in the franc plummeted at times, and with French requests for financial support refused and capital fleeing at an unsustainable rate, depreciation seemed the only way out. The ensuing falls in the franc were larger than Britain or America wished, but both agreed that it was much better to manage them within the club than to eject France. It was far more important for the general framework of the Agreement to survive than to risk all that had been gained over too strict an interpretation of its guidelines.
This chapter describes the monetary antagonism that pervaded the world from Roosevelt's inauguration in 1933 to the development of an uneasy ceasefire by the middle of 1935. Roosevelt's departure from the gold standard fundamentally changed the monetary system, and his chaotic method of doing so exacerbated the mutual suspicion already rife in the great capitals of the world. Once Roosevelt officially devalued the dollar in January 1934, Britain and France were clueless as to what, if anything America would do next; America and France were furious as Britain refused to stabilize the pound; and the world watched France flounder as its currency increasingly came under pressure. While Britain and America reached an uneasy suspension of monetary hostilities in 1935, the precariousness of the franc meant that this superficial stability was liable to crumble at any moment.
In the last few years Keynes's investment activity, both as an individual trader and as a manager of institutions’ portfolios, has attracted attention in the specialised literature. Recently his investments on Wall Street, in particular – both on his own account (Cristiano, Marcuzzo and Sanfilippo 2018) and on behalf of King's College, Cambridge (Chambers and Kabiri 2016) – have been analysed, and the evident connection with his theoretical analysis of the functioning of the financial markets contained in chapter 12 of The General Theory has been duly stressed. This article aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Keynes's trading behaviour on Wall Street by providing a detailed comparison of his investment choices when he traded for himself and for King's. There are similarities, as might be expected, but also significant differences, well worth investigating. As far as the differences are concerned, one of the most striking is to be seen, for instance, in his attitude when, after a period of bull market in 1936, he had to face the spring 1937 burst of the speculative bubble and subsequent recession. Analysis of his behaviour in this specific case reveals that the event took him by surprise but his reaction differed with regard to his personal investments and the King's investments. The prevalence of a ‘buy and hold’ strategy, which, according to Chambers and Kabiri's reconstruction (2016), marked Keynes's behaviour in general (and also in this particular case) when he invested on behalf of King's, was not always his typical choice when the investments were undertaken on his own account. A tentative explanation of this result, which is also grounded on some different features characterising the two portfolios and not sufficiently investigated in previous studies, is at last provided in the article.
El artículo se enmarca en las líneas de investigación actual sobre la mujer en la economía marítima preindustrial. Se trata de un estudio de caso centrado en las capitanas y las patronas durante el auge del corso en Mallorca entre 1635–80. En él se destaca la labor de las mujeres de mar como procuradoras de sus maridos mientras permanecían ausentes, especialmente cuando la situación les exigió demostrar iniciativa e ir más allá de lo estipulado en la procura. Asimismo, se constata un mayor protagonismo en cuatro áreas de la empresa corsaria, mientras ésta se rigió por un modelo de corte familiar.
This book is a worthy successor to those commissioned by the Bank of England that cover its history from its foundation in 1694. It is written by an expert, is thoroughly researched, and provides a wealth of evidence to support the judicious conclusions that are drawn. The discussion ranges from the highly technical to the narrative, indicating the command that Harold James has over his subject. For the period it covers it will become the authorized version of what the Bank of England did and why, covering the details of how it operated as a complex organization and the decisions it made that affected both the domestic and international financial systems. What emerges is how difficult decision making was after the 1970s, following the breakdown of the postwar certainties of the 1950s and 1960s. Though the title suggests that the coverage of the book extends to 2003, it largely ends in 1997. The years that followed are treated with much less depth. That is understandable, as the elephant in the room for any recent history of the Bank of England is the banking crisis of 2007–2008. As it is, the dates chosen are those between which Eddie George, governor of the Bank of England between 1993 and 2003, exerted his greatest influence, having joined in 1962. Increasingly after 1997 Mervyn King took a leading role, becoming deputy governor in 1998 and then governor in 2003. We will have to wait for another commissioned history to discover what part the Bank of England played in the first major banking crisis to hit Britain since that of Overend and Gurney in 1866. Judging from a comment made in this book (p. 432) it is possible that a full understanding of those years will never emerge. When the Monetary Policy Committee, located in the Bank of England, was set up in 1997 it was agreed that the meetings would be recorded and a full transcript of the discussion made. Subsequently, it was decided to delete the recording and destroy the transcript, leaving only the published official record of what took place. This mirrors the Bank of England's destruction of the papers relating to its role in the secondary banking crisis of 1974.
This article examines how the film industry influenced prevailing gender and skin color stereotypes in India during the first four decades after Independence in 1947. It shows that Bollywood, the mainstream cinema in India, shared Hollywood's privileging of paler skin over darker skin, and its preference for presenting women in stereotypical ways lacking agency. The influence of film content was especially significant in India as audiences often lacked alternative sources of entertainment and information. It was left to parallel, and often regional, cinemas in India to contest skin color and gender stereotypes entrenched in mainstream media. As conventional archival sources for this history are lacking, the article employs new evidence from oral histories of producers and actors.