Technocratic Pragmatism, Bureaucratic Expertise, and the Federal Reserve

Peter Conti-Brown, David A. Wishnick
{"title":"Technocratic Pragmatism, Bureaucratic Expertise, and the Federal Reserve","authors":"Peter Conti-Brown, David A. Wishnick","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3754523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Federal Reserve (Fed) regularly faces novel challenges to its broad statutory mandates Often, these challenges—from financial crises to pandemics to climate change—raise a critical question When should the Fed act beyond the boundaries of its core institutional identity and expertise? On the one hand, some voices demand the Fed “stay in its own lane,” avoiding experimentation so that it may preserve its perceived legitimacy to carry out core historical func-tions On the other, hewing too closely to precedent and existing expertise risks institutional fail-ure of a different sort To navigate that tension, this Feature sketches an ethos of technocratic pragmatism—one that permits the Fed to develop the expertise necessary to address emergent problems as long as it remains constrained by norms designed to preserve its long-run legitimacy We illustrate the ethos by examining three cases where the Fed has confronted, or is confronting, challenges that test the boundaries of its expertise: engagement with cyber risk, emergency lending before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and nascent efforts to understand the intersection of central banking and global climate change We also engage with cases where the Fed has transgressed legitimacy-pre-serving limits by intervening in policy disputes beyond the range of its statutory concerns Taken together, these cases illustrate how the Fed must walk a fine line between valuable experimentation and the usurpation of politics © 2020, Yale Journal on Regulation All rights reserved","PeriodicalId":231496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3754523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Federal Reserve (Fed) regularly faces novel challenges to its broad statutory mandates Often, these challenges—from financial crises to pandemics to climate change—raise a critical question When should the Fed act beyond the boundaries of its core institutional identity and expertise? On the one hand, some voices demand the Fed “stay in its own lane,” avoiding experimentation so that it may preserve its perceived legitimacy to carry out core historical func-tions On the other, hewing too closely to precedent and existing expertise risks institutional fail-ure of a different sort To navigate that tension, this Feature sketches an ethos of technocratic pragmatism—one that permits the Fed to develop the expertise necessary to address emergent problems as long as it remains constrained by norms designed to preserve its long-run legitimacy We illustrate the ethos by examining three cases where the Fed has confronted, or is confronting, challenges that test the boundaries of its expertise: engagement with cyber risk, emergency lending before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and nascent efforts to understand the intersection of central banking and global climate change We also engage with cases where the Fed has transgressed legitimacy-pre-serving limits by intervening in policy disputes beyond the range of its statutory concerns Taken together, these cases illustrate how the Fed must walk a fine line between valuable experimentation and the usurpation of politics © 2020, Yale Journal on Regulation All rights reserved
技术官僚实用主义、官僚专业知识和美联储
从金融危机到流行病再到气候变化,这些挑战经常引发一个关键问题:美联储何时应该超越其核心机构身份和专业知识的界限采取行动?一方面,一些声音要求美联储“自行其是”,另一方面,过于严格地遵循先例和现有的专业知识,可能会导致另一种类型的制度失败。本专题概述了一种技术官僚实用主义的精神,这种精神允许美联储发展必要的专业知识来解决紧急问题,只要它仍然受到旨在保持其长期合法性的规范的约束。我们通过研究美联储面临或正在面临挑战的三个案例来说明这种精神,这些挑战考验了美联储的专业知识边界:参与网络风险、在2019冠状病毒病大流行之前和期间的紧急贷款,以及为理解中央银行与全球气候变化的交叉点所做的初步努力。我们还研究了美联储通过干预其法定关注范围之外的政策争端而超越合法性保护限制的案例。这些案例加在一起,说明了美联储必须如何在有价值的实验和政治篡夺之间走好一条线©2020,耶鲁大学监管期刊版权所有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信