The Reserve Bank constantly tries to convince us of how transparent it is. As Deputy Governor, Geoff Bascand, put it in his first on-the-record speech
The Reserve Bank is deeply committed to transparency – of policy objectives, policy proposals, economic reasoning, and of our understanding of the economy, and of course of our policy actions and intent. Clear communication and strong public understanding make our policy actions more effective.
We are working to enhance the openness and effectiveness of our communications
Just recently, the Bank even had the gall to argue that its new charging regime for official information requests would support this; it “helps the bank fulfil the OIA in making valuable information publically available”.
I’ve illustrated on numerous occasions just how relatively un-transparent the Bank now is, whether in respect of monetary policy, financial regulation, or indeed its own corporate and governance activities. In some ways and some areas the Bank has got worse, while in others it has just not kept up with best practice – whether in other government agencies (especially those exercising regulatory functions), or in international central banking.
This won’t be a lengthy post. It was prompted by reading a recent blog post by Dan Thornton, a former senior researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (and a very stimulating visitor to the Reserve Bank). One of the features of the Federal Reserve system is that minutes of the FOMC meetings are released, and in addition full transcripts of those meetings (whether in person, or by conference call) are released five years after end of the relevant year. You can see all the 2010 material the Federal Reserve has released here, all readily accessible and nicely laid out.
Researchers and commentators use this stuff. Here is the link to the post I was reading. Thornton looks at one aspect of March 2009 FOMC meeting, a discussion around the wording of the statement that would be released. For anyone interested, here is the heart of his discussion.
My point is not to take one side or other of the debate at the FOMC, but simply to illustrate the sort of openness that exists in the US, even with a lag, and contrast it with the situation in New Zealand. It took me months last year to get the Reserve Bank to release the background papers to a ten year old Monetary Policy Statement – and I didn’t even bother asking for the minutes of the meetings, or the written advice to the Governor on the OCR, or any records of debate over the press release (all of which is official information, with a statutory presumption in favour of release). Even that didn’t prompt a change in regular practice – and if someone asked again now, for 10 year old papers, they would no doubt face a substantial charge. Citizens and researchers, and even MPs, have no insights into the Reserve Bank’s processes or internal debates, beyond what (very little) the Governor chooses to publish in the MPS. And the level of transparency around other Bank activities is even worse.
The Federal Reserve isn’t perfect by any means – and has fought transparency around, eg, its lending activities during the crisis – but the contrast with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is striking.
One thought on “One difference between a transparent central bank and the Reserve Bank”
I think our RBA is pretty transparent these days.