Single Currency Gulf States

We have a few economists among us, lets see what they have to say about this new initiative of the Gulf states.

From BBC: Gulf states push for single currency

Six Arab Gulf states have turned to the eurozone for advice in how to successfully launch a single currency.

At this week’s meeting of Gulf central bankers in Riyadh, the six Arab states vowed to press ahead with plans for monetary union and the launch of a single currency.

And they decided to seek the help of the European Central Bank, which rolled-out euro notes and coins at the start of the year with very few glitches.

Dr Henry Azzam, chief economist at Jordan Investment Trust Group, said that monetary union should be relatively easy to achieve in the Gulf since all six currencies are already at least partially pegged to the dollar.

“It’s a political rather than an economic decision,” Dr Azzam told BBC News Online.

“All it needs is for someone at a very senior level in Saudi Arabia to take the decision to push forward,” he said.

Vulnerable economies

The countries need to create one central bank for the region, decide who has the power to set monetary policy, agree on what to call the new currency and better coordinate fiscal policy, he said.

The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf was created in 1981 in order to boost the economies of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

The Gulf states were concerned about the vulnerability of their economies, due to their heavy dependence on oil wealth.

They decided that cooperation and eventual integration would increase the stability and power of the region.

Just talk?

Steve Barrow, a currency stategist at Bear Stearns in London, said the key advantages of monetary union in the Gulf states were greater price transparency and the elimination of transaction costs, thereby enhancing trade.

But some of the advantages behind the creation of the euro would not apply to the Gulf.

Arab currencies are only very thinly traded and would never rival the supremacy of the dollar, and the dollar peg already protects them against the volatility of minor currencies.

“Monetary union is in vogue at the moment,” Mr Barrow told BBC News Online, referring to similar ideas that have been raised in both Asia and South America.

“But it is likely to take a very long time for the plans to move from the talking phase to reality.”

The states have given the European Central Bank six months to produce a study on the best way for them to proceed.

Global fears

Hamoud al-Zadjali, governor of Oman’s central bank, opened the meeting in Riyadh by urging all the states to exert more effort in ensuring that the timetable is met.

And he warned of the “dangerous political and economic developments” taking place in the rest of the world, and the negative impact on gulf economies.

As an important step towards economic integration, the states have brought forward the launch of a planned customs union to the start of next year.

They aim to achieve monetary union by 2005 and launch a single currency by 2010.

stupid idea. Not possible. I want what they are smoking

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
stupid idea. Not possible. I want what they are smoking
[/QUOTE]

Must be that Afghan stuff, you know the one NA is very good at... :D

In 10 year time, US $ will be the single currency for that region.

The only problem with that kind of union is that FX volatility in one country can have adverse effects on the moetary unit. The other factor re: pricing to consider is the individual inflation rates within each country.

Ahh, at least one serious comment.

Now, CH bhaijaan, can you please explain to me in a little more layman terms. What is FX volatility & what moetary unit?

And how did the Euro dealt with the individual inflation rate of the member countries?

AJ Bhai: FX volatility refers to the fluctuations within individual currencies of these countries as they relate to the currency they are pegged to. i.e. Dollar. Th emonetary unit is a blanket reference to any currency unit jointly developed for the union.

For example, if U.A.E 's trade deficit with the US increases in a particular period, the value of it's currency vis-a-vis the dollar would go down in turn driving the value of the monetary unit agains the dollar as well. And for countires where inflation is a common problem, they have to consistently keep strong monetary controls over their local currency becuase it would cost more of the local currency to buy the collective monetary unit. This is a major problem in Europe. One of the main reason the UK did not adopt the Euro was that inflation rates in the continent were much higher than in the UK and it would make the pound more susceptible to FX volatility.

The Europeans dealt with the infaltion issue by agreeing to put a cap on inflation at the certain % point. Say 2%. It is up the individual reserve banks to monitor this mandate by releasing or contracting currency supply regardless of economic conditions.

I am sure other luminaries like NYA and Khanzada can lend their pov. Not to mention Nobel winners CM and Malik 73:)

Being smaller in number, more closely bound-economy wise (ie: Oil) & having pretty much the same relations to the US & dollar, do you think having one curency be a wise choice for these countries?

Member states

Saudi Arabia
Qatar
Bahrain
Oman
Kuwait
UAE

AJ: I think the impact that they can make ont he global economy by having a common currency will be minute because truthfully they are rather small as consuming and exporting entities. Their GDP's are realtively small. I am not sure of the exact number but their combined GDP might be smaller than Hongkong.

I think a political union combined with a monetary union may make more sense.

The other benefit that I can see is for the locals. Having a comon currency can help reduce and even eliminate tariffs across the said region benefitting consumers tremendiously. Although, I think that is not much of a concern as oil revenues are plenty and most imports duty free.

Good enough! And I believe their main goal is to get local and regional stability.

What about if the South Asian countries do something similar with their currencies?

There has to be some parity in the economies. India is too large and would dominate. I do not think it is a good idea there. I think they should start with free-trade first...baby steps...

I recall reading Mahatir urging the 'Ummah' to revert to a Golden Dinar.. I wonder if the Arab states will give that a thought.

I thin kif the arab states keep provoking Israel, they would all be trading in Schekels pretty soon. (sorry just a joke)

PA: Even though it may sound pretty interesting, from the "little" I know about economic, I think it will cause havoc.

CH: What policies will be acceptable to both for a free trade? Wouldn't India dominate in that as well?

Actually the gold standard idea has some merit, as it is a valuable and scarce resource, that is valued all over the world at one standard. But extremely expensive and inefficient to use today. While the dollar can be sold at various prices, due to official exchange rates etc. You cant do that with gold. Doing so however will be extremely expensive for countries over all. Though something people dont know, is that countries keep a gold reserve for their currency.