This study investigates whether and to what extent political factors drive disagreement within the allegedly consensual monetary committee of the European Central Bank. Absent voting data, the article assesses disagreement based on the semantic distance between the policy positions publicly articulated by the European Central Bank President and the central banks of Eurozone member states. The empirical analysis shows that the disagreement articulated by national central bankers is affected by the ideological inclinations of the governments of the countries they represent. Our findings thus suggest that central bankers’ position-taking is shaped not only by economic conditions but also by domestic political considerations. This result challenges the European Central Bank’s projected image of itself as an institution whose members are impermeable to domestic political pressures as a way to defend the independence of the institution to which they belong.
AspinwallM (2007)
Government preferences on European integration: an empirical test of five theories.British Journal of Political Science37(1): 89–114.
2.
BaergNLoweW (2020) A textual Taylor rule: Estimating Central Bank preferences combining topic and scaling methods. Political Science Research and Methods. 8(1): 106–122.
3.
BaergNRHallerbergM (2016)
Explaining instability in the stability and growth pact: The contribution of member state power and euroskepticism to the Euro Crisis.Comparative Political Studies49(7): 968–1009.
4.
BailerSMattilaMSchneiderG (2015)
Money makes the EU go round: The objective foundations of conflict in the Council of Ministers.Journal of Common Market Studies53(3): 437–456.
5.
BanCPatenaudeB (2019)
The professional politics of the austerity debate: A comparative field analysis of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.Public Administration97(3): 530–545.
6.
BennaniHNeuenkirchM (2017)
The (Home) bias of European Central Bankers: New evidence based on speeches.Applied Economics49(11): 1114–1131.
7.
BleiDMNgAYJordanMI (2003)
Latent Dirichlet allocation.Journal of Machine Learning Research3: 993–1022.
8.
BlinderAS (2007)
Monetary policy by committee: Why and how?European Journal of Political Economy23(1): 106–123.
9.
BlinderAS, et al. (2008)
Central Bank communication and monetary policy: A survey of theory and evidence.Journal of Economic Literature46(4): 910–945.
10.
ChappellHWHavrileskyTMMcGregorRR (1993)
Partisan monetary policies: Presidential influence through the power of appointment.The Quarterly Journal of Economics108(1): 185–218.
11.
ChappellHWMcGregorRRVermilyeaTA (2008)
Regional economic conditions and monetary policy.European Journal of Political Economy24(2): 283–293.
12.
CopelovitchMFriedenJWalterS (2016)
The political economy of the Euro crisis.Comparative Political Studies49(7): 811–840.
13.
DeveaudRSanJuanEBellotR (2014)
Accurate and effective latent concept modeling for ad hoc information retrieval.Document Numérique17(1): 61–84.
14.
DiessnerSLisiG (2019) Masters of the ‘masters of the universe’? Monetary, fiscal and financial dominance in the Eurozone. Socio-Economic Review. Epub ahead of print 19 April 2019. DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwz017.
15.
DiodatiNMMarinoBCarlottiB (2018)
Prime Ministers unchained? Explaining Prime Minister Policy Autonomy in coalition governments.European Political Science Review10(4): 515–536.
16.
DrukkerDM (2003)
Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models.The Stata Journal3(2): 168–177.
17.
DysonKMarcussenM (2009) The age of the Euro: A structural break? Europeanization, convergence and power in Central Banking. In: DysonKMarcussenM (eds) Central Banks in the Age of the Euro.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp.1–50.
18.
EhrmannMFratzscherM (2007)
Communication by Central Bank committee members: Different strategies, same effectiveness?Journal of Money Credit and Banking39(2–3): 509–541.
19.
GarrettKNJansaJM (2015)
Interest group influence in policy diffusion networks.State Politics & Policy Quarterly15(3): 387–417.
20.
Gourinchas PO and Obstfeld M (2012) Stories of the Twentieth Century for the Twenty-First. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 4(1): 226–65.
21.
GrimmerJKingG (2011)
General purpose computer-assisted clustering and conceptualization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108(7): 2643–2650.
22.
GrimmerJStewartBM (2013)
Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts.Political Analysis21(3): 267–297.
23.
HagemannSHoboltSBWratilC (2017)
Government responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence from council voting.Comparative Political Studies50(6): 850–876.
24.
HainmuellerJMummoloJXuY (2019)
How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice.Political Analysis27(2): 163–192.
25.
HayoBMeonPG (2013)
Behind closed doors: Revealing the ECB’s decision rule.Journal of International Money and Finance37: 135–160.
26.
HeinemannFHuefnerFP (2004)
Is the view from the Eurotower Purely European? National divergence and ECB interest rate policy.Scottish Journal of Political Economy51(4): 544–558.
27.
HibbsD (1977)
Political parties and macroeconomic policy.American Political Science Review71(4): 1467–1487.
28.
HixSHoylanBVivyanN (2010)
From doves to hawks: A spatial analysis of voting in the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.European Journal of Political Research49(6): 731–758.
29.
HixSNouryA (2009)
After enlargement: Voting patterns in the Sixth European Parliament.Legislative Studies Quarterly34(2): 159–174.
30.
HixSNouryARolandG (2006)
Dimensions of politics in the European Parliament.American Journal of Political Science50(2): 494–511.
31.
HodsonD (2011) Governing the Euro Area in Good Times and Bad.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
32.
HowarthD (2012) Defending the Euro: Unity and disunity among Europe’s Central Bankers. In: HaywardJWurzelR (eds) European Disunion.
London:
Palgrave MacMillan, pp.131–145.
33.
HowarthDLoedelP (2003) The European Central Bank: The New European Leviathan?
Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
34.
HowarthDQuagliaL (2015)
The political economy of the euro area’s sovereign debt crisis.Review of International Political Economy22(3): 457–484.
IssingO, et al. (2001) Monetary Policy in the Euro Area. Strategy and Decision-Making at the European Central Bank.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
37.
JacobsLKingD (2016) Fed Power. How Finance Wins.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
38.
JohnsonJ (2016). Priests of Prosperity: The Transnational Central Banking Community and Post-Communist Transformation.
Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
39.
JonesE (2009)
Output legitimacy and the global financial crisis: Perceptions matter.Journal of Common Market Studies47(5): 1085–1105.
40.
KreppelATsebelisG (1999)
Coalition formation in the European Parliament.Comparative Political Studies32(8): 933–966.
41.
LaiC, FarrúsMMooreJD (2016) Automatic paragraph segmentation with lexical and prosodic features. In: Interspeech conference, San Francisco, CA, 8–12 September 2016.
42.
McNamaraKR (1998) The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics and the European Union.
Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
43.
McPhilemySMoschellaM. (2019) Central banks under stress reputation, accountability and regulatory coherence. Public Administration. 97(3): 489–498.
44.
MatthijsMBlythM (eds) (2015) The Future of the Euro.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
45.
MattilaM (2004)
Contested decisions: Empirical analysis of voting in the European Union Council of Ministers.European Journal of Political Research43(1): 29–50.
46.
MattilaMLaneJE (2001)
Why unanimity in the council? A roll call analysis of council voting.European Union Politics2(1): 31–52.
47.
MeadeEESheetsDN (2005)
Regional influences on FOMC voting patterns.Journal of Money, Credit and Banking37(4): 661–677.
48.
MeniniS, et al (2017) Topic-based agreement and disagreement in US electoral manifestos. In: Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, (ed M Palmer, R Hwa and S Riedel), Copenhagen, Denmark, September 2017, pp.2938–2944.
49.
MoschellaM (2016)
Negotiating Greece. Layering, insulation, and the design of adjustment programs in the Eurozone.Review of International Political Economy23(5): 799–824.
50.
MoschellaMPintoL (2019) Central banks’ reputation management and communication. Policy reversals and the Federal Reserve talk. Public Administration 97(3): 513–529.
51.
NouryAG (2002)
Ideology, nationality and Euro-Parliamentarians.European Union Politics3(1): 33–58.
52.
OtjesSVeerHVD (2016)
The Eurozone crisis and the European Parliament’s changing lines of conflict.European Union Politics17(2): 242–261.
53.
PagliariSWilfM (2018) How novel are international standards after a crisis? A text-based analysis. In: Paper presented at the international studies association conference, San Francisco, CA, 4–8 April 2018.
54.
Proksch SO and Slapin JB (2012) Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech. American Journal of Political Science 56(3): 520–537.
55.
QuagliaL (2008)
Central Banking Governance in the European Union: A comparative analysis. Journal of Common Market Studies46(6): 908–909.
56.
Schonhardt-BaileyC (2013) Deliberating American Monetary Policy: A Textual Analysis.
Cambridge:
MIT Press.
57.
Schwarz D, Traber D and Benoit K (2017) Estimating intra-party preferences: comparing speeches to votes. Political Science Research and Methods 5(2): 379–396.
58.
Transparency International EU (2017) Two sides of the same coin? Independence and accountability of the ECB, Brussels.
59.
van der VeerReinoutAHaverlandM (2018)
Bread and butter or bread and circuses? Politicisation and the European Commission in the European Semester.European Union Politics19(3): 524–545.
60.
WalterS (2015)
Crisis politics in Europe: Why austerity is easier to implement in some countries than in others.Comparative Political Studies49(7): 841–873.
61.
WilkersonJCasasA (2017)
Large-scale computerized text analysis in political science: Opportunities and challenges.Annual Review of Political Science20: 529–544.
62.
WratilC (2018)
Modes of government responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence from Council negotiation positions.European Union Politics19(1): 52–74.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
