The IMF and the Ruble Zone
When the fifteen Soviet successor states joined the IMF in 1992, the most pressing monetary question was whether to retain the ruble or to issue national currencies. IMF officials have argued that the IMF's role was to present the arguments for and against alternative arrangements. This is not how policymakers in the new independent countries and other observers perceived the IMF's position. In 1992, the IMF was seen as advocating retention of the ruble zone, although its position changed and in 1993 it supported introduction of new national currencies. This paper analyses why the IMF adopted a position, and discusses some of the consequences. Comparative Economic Studies (2002) 44, 37–47; doi:10.1057/ces.2002.17
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 44 (2002)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/41294/PS2|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:compes:v:44:y:2002:i:4:p:37-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.