IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2609.10544.html

Revisiting the Rules-versus-Discretion Debate: Forecasting Evidence from the Bank of England, 1870-1913

Author

Listed:
  • Xi Chen

Abstract

Under the classical gold standard, historians have long debated what guided the Bank of England's adjustments to Bank Rate: whether policy followed a mechanical gold-standard rule or discretion when City or exchange conditions required it, and whether domestic money-market stability or external convertibility carried greater weight. This paper revisits those questions with a London-specific monthly panel, 1870-1913, jointly testing ten domestic and external indicators the Court watched when setting the published minimum rate. The findings fit neither a single frozen channel nor unstructured ad hoc policy. Instead, the Bank appears to have drawn repeatedly on a multivariate information set-trade settlement, gold movements, City asset prices, bill-market conditions, and episodic convertibility pressure-with state-dependent weights across subperiods. In the confirmatory specification, exports, gold flow, and industrial share prices carry the clearest joint forecasting content for changes in Bank Rate. Gold flow forecasts rate changes even when reserve stock does not, separating bullion settlement from balance-sheet position. Bill-market and convertibility pressures also carry incremental forecasting content in the multivariate specification, though their prominence depends on how domestic and external indicators are modeled together. The overall pattern is most consistent with systematic discretion under the classical gold standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Xi Chen, 2026. "Revisiting the Rules-versus-Discretion Debate: Forecasting Evidence from the Bank of England, 1870-1913," Papers 2609.10544, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2609.10544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10544
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2609.10544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.