The Nixon Shock and the Transformation of the Global Monetary Order: From Gold-Linked Stability to Flexible Financial Governance

The Nixon Shock of 1971 is one of the most important turning points in modern economic history. It marked the end of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar into gold and opened the way for a more flexible global financial system. Before this event, the international monetary order was shaped by the Bretton Woods system, in which currencies were linked to the U.S. dollar, and the dollar was linked to gold. This arrangement created a framework of stability after the Second World War, but it also depended heavily on confidence in the American economy and in the ability of the United States to maintain the value of the dollar. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, inflation, balance-of-payments pressures, military spending, trade imbalances, and growing international doubts placed serious pressure on this system. President Richard Nixon’s decision to suspend dollar convertibility into gold was therefore not only a technical monetary decision. It was also a political, institutional, and symbolic moment that changed the meaning of money in global affairs.

This article studies the Nixon Shock as a major shift from a gold-linked monetary order toward a more flexible and policy-driven financial system. It explains how inflation, currency pressure, trade balances, and international confidence can influence monetary policy. It also shows that money is not only a medium of exchange, but also a system built on trust, institutions, power, and global coordination. The article uses simple academic language and draws on theoretical ideas from Pierre Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. Bourdieu helps explain money as a form of symbolic power and trust. World-systems theory helps place the United States and the dollar at the center of the postwar global economy. Institutional isomorphism helps explain how states and financial institutions adapted to a new international monetary environment after the collapse of Bretton Woods. The article finds that the Nixon Shock transformed global finance by weakening the old gold anchor, strengthening the role of central banks, increasing currency flexibility, and making confidence a central element of monetary governance.

Keywords: Nixon Shock, Bretton Woods, gold standard, monetary policy, international finance, global economy, currency confidence, financial governance

Introduction

The Nixon Shock refers mainly to the decision announced by United States President Richard Nixon on 15 August 1971 to suspend the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold. This decision ended one of the main pillars of the Bretton Woods monetary system. Under Bretton Woods, the U.S. dollar was convertible into gold at a fixed rate, while other major currencies were linked to the dollar. This system had helped organize international finance after the Second World War. It gave countries a stable framework for trade, investment, and exchange-rate management.

For many years, the system seemed to work well. The United States was the leading economic power. It held large gold reserves. The dollar was trusted around the world. Many countries accepted the dollar as the main international reserve currency. The system supported the growth of global trade and helped rebuild Europe and Japan after the war. However, the system also had weaknesses. It depended on a difficult balance. The United States had to provide enough dollars to the world economy, but it also had to maintain enough gold to support confidence in the dollar. As global trade expanded, the demand for dollars increased. At the same time, U.S. gold reserves came under pressure.

By the late 1960s, the United States faced rising inflation, high government spending, the cost of the Vietnam War, and domestic social programs. Other countries began to question whether the United States could continue to exchange dollars for gold at the official rate. Some governments started converting their dollar holdings into gold. This created a serious problem. If too many countries demanded gold, the United States could lose much of its gold reserve. The Bretton Woods system was built on confidence, and that confidence was weakening.

The Nixon Shock was therefore a response to both economic and political pressure. It was not simply an isolated decision. It was part of a wider transformation in the global economy. The decision showed that monetary systems depend not only on rules, but also on trust, power, and institutional cooperation. Once the United States suspended gold convertibility, the world moved gradually toward a system of floating exchange rates. In this system, currency values are shaped more by markets, central-bank policy, inflation expectations, capital flows, and international confidence than by a fixed link to gold.

Academically, the Nixon Shock is important because it helps students understand the deeper nature of money. Money is often described as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. These functions are important. However, the Nixon Shock shows that money is also a political and social institution. It works because people, markets, governments, and international organizations believe in it. When confidence changes, the value and stability of money can change as well.

The Nixon Shock also helps explain many features of the modern global financial system. Today, most major currencies are not directly linked to gold. Central banks manage money through interest rates, reserves, inflation targets, and financial-market operations. Exchange rates can move in response to economic news, policy decisions, political risks, and investor expectations. The global monetary order is therefore more flexible than it was under Bretton Woods, but it is also more complex.

This article studies the Nixon Shock as a key moment in the movement from a gold-linked monetary order to a flexible global financial system. It uses historical analysis and theoretical interpretation. The main argument is that the Nixon Shock changed the global meaning of money by replacing a metal-based symbol of value with a policy-based and confidence-based system of value. This change did not remove the need for trust. Instead, it moved trust from gold toward central banks, states, international institutions, and financial markets.

Background and Theoretical Framework

The Bretton Woods System

The Bretton Woods system was created in 1944, near the end of the Second World War. Representatives from many countries met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to design a new international monetary order. The goal was to avoid the economic instability that had affected the world during the interwar period. The Great Depression, competitive devaluations, trade restrictions, and financial disorder had shown the dangers of weak international coordination. The new system aimed to create stability while allowing countries to rebuild their economies.

Under Bretton Woods, currencies were fixed but adjustable. This meant that countries kept their exchange rates within agreed limits, but they could adjust them under special conditions. The U.S. dollar became the central currency of the system. The dollar was linked to gold, and other currencies were linked to the dollar. The official gold price was fixed at 35 dollars per ounce. In practice, this made the dollar the main bridge between national currencies and gold.

The system worked because the United States had strong economic power and large gold reserves after the war. Many countries trusted the dollar. The dollar became widely used in trade, reserves, and international payments. This gave the United States a special position in the world economy. It could issue the currency that other countries needed for international transactions.

However, this special position also created a structural problem. The world economy needed dollars for trade and reserves. To supply these dollars, the United States often had to run balance-of-payments deficits. But if too many dollars were held abroad, foreign governments could begin to doubt whether all those dollars could be converted into gold. This problem is often connected to the Triffin dilemma. It shows the tension between national monetary policy and the needs of the international system.

Pressures Before the Nixon Shock

By the 1960s, the Bretton Woods system was under growing pressure. The United States was spending heavily on domestic programs and the Vietnam War. Inflation began to rise. At the same time, other economies, especially in Western Europe and Japan, became more competitive. The United States no longer dominated global production in the same way it had immediately after the war.

Trade balances and capital flows also became more difficult to manage. Some countries accumulated large dollar reserves. They became concerned about the value of those reserves. If the United States continued to issue dollars while its gold stock declined, confidence in the dollar could weaken. This created a risk of a run on U.S. gold reserves.

The problem was not only economic. It was also political and symbolic. Gold had long been seen as a symbol of monetary discipline and value. The dollar’s link to gold helped support international confidence. When this link became uncertain, the credibility of the whole system was affected. The Nixon administration faced a difficult choice. It could defend the gold link through painful domestic economic policies, or it could protect domestic policy freedom by ending convertibility. In August 1971, Nixon chose the second option.

Bourdieu: Money, Trust, and Symbolic Power

Pierre Bourdieu’s ideas are useful for understanding the Nixon Shock because they show that economic systems are also social systems. Bourdieu argued that power does not exist only in money or military force. It also exists in symbols, recognition, legitimacy, and accepted social rules. He used the concept of symbolic capital to describe the value that comes from recognition and trust.

Money can be understood through this idea. A currency has value not only because it is printed by a state, but because people believe that others will accept it. The value of money depends on social recognition. A banknote is not valuable because of the paper itself. It is valuable because institutions, markets, and citizens treat it as valuable. In international finance, this recognition is even more important. A reserve currency must be trusted not only by domestic users, but also by foreign governments, central banks, businesses, and investors.

The Bretton Woods system gave the U.S. dollar symbolic capital. The dollar was treated as good as gold because the United States promised convertibility. The gold link gave the dollar a strong symbol of credibility. However, when foreign governments began to doubt whether the United States could maintain this promise, the symbolic capital of the dollar came under pressure.

The Nixon Shock can therefore be seen as a moment when the symbolic foundation of the dollar changed. The dollar was no longer directly supported by gold convertibility. Instead, its value depended more openly on the credibility of the U.S. state, the strength of the American economy, the depth of American financial markets, and the willingness of the world to continue using dollars. In Bourdieu’s terms, the dollar did not lose all symbolic capital. Rather, its symbolic capital was reorganized.

World-Systems Theory: Core, Periphery, and Monetary Power

World-systems theory, associated especially with Immanuel Wallerstein, helps explain the Nixon Shock in relation to global power. This theory views the world economy as a structured system with core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral regions. Core countries usually have strong industries, financial institutions, technological capacity, and political influence. Peripheral countries are often more dependent on exporting raw materials or lower-value goods. Semi-peripheral countries stand between these positions.

After the Second World War, the United States occupied a core position in the world-system. It had economic strength, industrial capacity, military power, and financial influence. The Bretton Woods system reflected this position. The dollar became the central currency because the United States was the leading power. This gave the United States important advantages. It could borrow internationally in its own currency. It could influence global liquidity. It could shape international monetary rules.

The Nixon Shock can be understood as a core-country response to pressure within the world-system. As Europe and Japan recovered, the relative dominance of the United States declined. Other core economies became stronger. The balance of trade and production changed. The dollar-centered system faced stress because the economic structure of the world had changed. The United States used its central position to change the rules when the old rules became costly.

From this perspective, the Nixon Shock was not only a financial event. It was also a moment of power adjustment in the world economy. The United States protected its domestic policy space and preserved the dollar’s central role, even after ending gold convertibility. The result was not the end of dollar power. In many ways, the dollar remained central. But the basis of that power changed from gold-backed convertibility to financial-market depth, military-political influence, institutional trust, and global dependence on dollar liquidity.

Institutional Isomorphism and Adaptation

Institutional isomorphism is a concept often associated with Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell. It describes how organizations and institutions become more similar over time because they face similar pressures. These pressures can be coercive, mimetic, or normative. Coercive pressure comes from laws, powerful actors, or formal requirements. Mimetic pressure appears when organizations copy others during uncertainty. Normative pressure comes from professional standards and expert communities.

After the Nixon Shock, states, central banks, and financial institutions had to adapt to a new monetary environment. The old fixed-rate system became less stable, and floating exchange rates became more common. Countries had to develop new tools for managing inflation, exchange rates, capital flows, and financial expectations. Over time, central banks around the world began to adopt similar practices, such as focusing on inflation control, using interest rates as policy tools, improving communication, and building credibility.

Institutional isomorphism helps explain why many monetary institutions became more similar after the collapse of Bretton Woods. In a flexible financial system, credibility became extremely important. Central banks needed to show that they could control inflation and maintain confidence. As a result, many adopted similar language, policy frameworks, and professional norms. This did not mean all countries became the same, but it did mean that monetary governance became shaped by shared institutional models.

Method

This article uses a qualitative historical and theoretical method. It does not rely on statistical testing or mathematical modelling. Instead, it studies the Nixon Shock as a historical event and interprets its meaning through selected academic theories. The method is suitable because the Nixon Shock was not only an economic decision, but also a political and institutional transformation.

The article follows three main steps.

First, it reviews the historical background of the Bretton Woods system and the pressures that developed before 1971. This includes attention to inflation, currency pressure, balance-of-payments problems, trade balances, gold reserves, and international confidence.

Second, it analyzes the Nixon Shock as a turning point in global monetary governance. The focus is not only on the decision to suspend gold convertibility, but also on what this decision meant for the structure of the international financial system.

Third, it applies three theoretical perspectives. Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power is used to explain the role of trust and recognition in money. World-systems theory is used to place the dollar and the United States within the hierarchy of the global economy. Institutional isomorphism is used to explain how states and central banks adapted to the new flexible monetary order.

The article uses books and academic articles as its main reference base. It avoids external links and does not depend on newspaper-style reporting. The aim is to present a clear, student-friendly academic article that remains suitable for an educational platform.

Analysis

The Nixon Shock as a Break in Monetary History

The Nixon Shock was a break between two monetary worlds. The first world was the postwar gold-linked order. It was based on fixed exchange rates, dollar-gold convertibility, and international monetary rules. The second world was a more flexible order. It was based on floating exchange rates, central-bank policy, market expectations, and international financial flows.

This change was not immediate in every detail. The world did not move overnight into the exact system that exists today. There were negotiations, temporary arrangements, and later reforms. However, the August 1971 decision was the key moment when the old foundation was broken. Once the United States suspended gold convertibility, the promise at the heart of Bretton Woods was no longer reliable.

The importance of the event can be understood by asking a simple question: What supported the value of international money after gold convertibility ended? Before the Nixon Shock, the answer seemed clear. The dollar was linked to gold. After the Nixon Shock, the answer became more complex. The dollar was supported by the U.S. economy, state authority, financial markets, military and political influence, and the continued willingness of other countries to use it. This was a major change in the social meaning of money.

Inflation and Domestic Policy Pressure

Inflation was one of the main pressures behind the Nixon Shock. During the 1960s, the United States faced rising prices. Government spending increased because of the Vietnam War and domestic programs. When inflation rises, a currency can lose purchasing power. If a country promises to convert its currency into gold at a fixed price, inflation creates a problem. The fixed gold price may become less believable if the currency is losing value.

To defend the gold link, the United States would have needed stricter economic policies. It could have reduced spending, raised interest rates, or accepted slower growth. These measures may have protected the dollar, but they could also have caused domestic political difficulties. Nixon faced an election cycle and strong pressure to support employment and growth. The gold link limited domestic policy freedom.

The Nixon Shock therefore showed a central conflict in monetary policy: the conflict between external credibility and internal economic management. A country may want to maintain international confidence, but it may also want to protect domestic employment, growth, and political stability. Under Bretton Woods, the United States carried a special burden because its national currency was also the world’s main reserve currency.

By suspending gold convertibility, Nixon chose domestic policy flexibility over the old international commitment. This does not mean that international confidence no longer mattered. It still mattered greatly. But the United States no longer accepted gold convertibility as the main instrument for maintaining that confidence.

Currency Pressure and the Problem of Convertibility

Currency pressure occurs when markets or governments doubt the value of a currency and act in ways that place stress on it. Under Bretton Woods, pressure on the dollar took a specific form. Foreign governments could ask to convert dollars into gold. If they believed that the dollar was overvalued or that the United States had issued too many dollars, they had an incentive to exchange dollars for gold before others did.

This created a dangerous situation. Confidence could weaken quickly. If one government demanded gold, others might follow. The system depended on the belief that dollars were as good as gold. But if too many holders tested that belief at the same time, the system could collapse.

The Nixon administration’s decision can be seen as an attempt to stop this pressure. By closing the gold window, the United States removed the immediate risk of losing more gold. However, it also admitted that the old promise could no longer be maintained. This was why the decision was so powerful. It protected U.S. gold reserves, but it changed the global rules.

The event shows that convertibility is not only a technical rule. It is a confidence mechanism. When confidence is strong, convertibility may not be tested often. When confidence weakens, convertibility can become a source of crisis. In this way, the Nixon Shock teaches that monetary promises must be credible. A promise that cannot be defended under pressure may become dangerous.

Trade Balances and Global Economic Change

Trade balances also played an important role in the decline of Bretton Woods. After the Second World War, the United States had a very strong trade position. It exported goods, capital, and technology. Over time, Western Europe and Japan rebuilt and became more competitive. Their exports increased. The structure of the global economy changed.

As other countries became stronger, the United States faced more competition. The dollar’s fixed value became harder to maintain. Some countries believed the dollar was overvalued. An overvalued currency can make exports more expensive and imports cheaper. This can affect trade balances and domestic industries.

The Nixon Shock was partly an attempt to improve the American economic position. Along with suspending gold convertibility, Nixon also introduced temporary wage and price controls and an import surcharge. These measures aimed to address inflation and trade pressure. The import surcharge was especially important because it signaled that monetary policy and trade policy were connected.

The event therefore shows that currency systems cannot be separated from trade. Exchange rates affect exports, imports, competitiveness, and employment. When a monetary system no longer reflects the real balance of economic power, pressure builds. Bretton Woods was created when the United States was dominant. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the global economy had become more multipolar. The monetary system had to adjust to that reality.

International Confidence and the Social Nature of Money

Perhaps the most important lesson of the Nixon Shock is the role of confidence. Money works because people trust it. International money works because states, firms, banks, and investors trust it across borders. The Bretton Woods system depended on confidence in the U.S. dollar. When that confidence weakened, the system became unstable.

Gold was important not only because it had material value, but because it symbolized discipline and reliability. The dollar’s gold link gave foreign governments a reason to trust it. When the United States ended convertibility, it removed that symbol. However, the dollar did not disappear as the central international currency. This is very important. It shows that gold was not the only possible foundation of monetary trust.

After the Nixon Shock, trust shifted toward institutions and policy. Central banks, financial markets, international organizations, and state credibility became more important. The value of money became more openly connected to expectations about inflation, interest rates, debt, growth, and political stability. This is still true today. A currency can strengthen or weaken because investors believe a central bank will raise interest rates, because inflation is expected to fall, or because political risk has changed.

Bourdieu’s idea of symbolic power helps explain this. The dollar continued to have symbolic capital after 1971 because it remained widely recognized and accepted. Its value was no longer guaranteed by gold convertibility, but it was supported by the social and institutional position of the United States in the global economy. The dollar remained central because enough actors continued to treat it as central.

The Flexible Financial System

The post-Nixon monetary order became more flexible. Exchange rates among major currencies were allowed to move more freely. This gave countries more room to pursue national monetary policies. If a country faced inflation, recession, or external pressure, it could adjust interest rates or allow its currency to move. This flexibility was different from the stricter fixed-rate rules of Bretton Woods.

However, flexibility also brought new risks. Floating exchange rates can move sharply. Markets can react quickly to news and expectations. Countries can face currency crises if investors lose confidence. Flexible systems require strong institutions, credible policy, and effective communication. They also require cooperation because financial instability can spread across borders.

The Nixon Shock therefore did not create a simple system. It created a more open and complex system. Monetary policy became more important, but also more difficult. Central banks had to manage inflation and expectations. Governments had to consider how fiscal policy affected currency confidence. International institutions had to respond to a world where capital flows and exchange rates were more dynamic.

This flexible system also changed the role of financial markets. Under fixed exchange rates, governments played a stronger role in maintaining currency values. Under floating rates, markets became more influential in setting exchange values. This increased the importance of investor expectations, financial speculation, and global capital flows. Money became more flexible, but also more exposed to market psychology.

The Dollar After Gold

One of the most interesting results of the Nixon Shock is that the dollar remained powerful. Some might expect that ending gold convertibility would destroy the dollar’s international role. This did not happen. The dollar continued to be widely used in reserves, trade, finance, and international debt. This shows that the dollar’s power was based on more than gold.

World-systems theory helps explain this. The United States remained a core power in the world economy. It had deep financial markets, strong institutions, military reach, technological capacity, and political influence. Many commodities and international contracts continued to be priced in dollars. Many countries continued to hold dollars because the dollar market was large and liquid. There were few realistic alternatives with the same global reach.

This does not mean that the Nixon Shock had no cost. It changed relationships between the United States and its allies. It also introduced more uncertainty into exchange-rate management. But it did not end dollar centrality. Instead, it transformed dollar centrality. The dollar moved from being gold-backed at the international level to being institutionally and market-backed.

This transformation is important for students of international finance. It shows that a reserve currency depends on networks. The more people use a currency, the more useful it becomes. This creates a self-reinforcing effect. The dollar remained central partly because it was already central. This is a form of institutional and symbolic power.

Central Banks and the New Importance of Credibility

After the collapse of Bretton Woods, central banks became even more important. In a flexible monetary system, the credibility of central banks affects inflation expectations, exchange rates, and financial stability. If people believe a central bank will protect price stability, inflation expectations may remain controlled. If they doubt the central bank, inflation and currency pressure can increase.

This explains why many central banks later placed strong emphasis on credibility, independence, transparency, and inflation control. Institutional isomorphism is useful here. As countries faced similar monetary challenges, many adopted similar central-bank practices. They used interest rates as key policy tools. They communicated more with markets. They developed inflation targets or inflation-focused frameworks. They learned from each other and from international policy communities.

The Nixon Shock was not the only reason for these developments, but it was part of the wider movement toward modern monetary governance. Once gold was no longer the main anchor, credibility had to come from policy. Central banks became managers of trust. Their words, decisions, and reputations became part of the monetary system itself.

Global Coordination After Bretton Woods

The Nixon Shock also changed the meaning of global coordination. Bretton Woods had been a rules-based system with fixed exchange-rate commitments. After its collapse, coordination became more flexible and often more informal. Countries still needed to cooperate, but cooperation took different forms.

International monetary cooperation continued through institutions, agreements, meetings, and crisis responses. However, the system no longer had the same simple gold-dollar anchor. This made coordination more challenging. Countries had different inflation rates, growth models, trade interests, and political priorities. Exchange-rate flexibility allowed adjustment, but it also created tensions.

The Nixon Shock therefore teaches that international monetary order is always a balance between national sovereignty and global interdependence. Countries want freedom to manage their domestic economies. At the same time, they depend on stable international trade and finance. No country is fully isolated. A major currency decision by one powerful state can affect the whole world.

This is one reason why the Nixon Shock remains academically important. It shows that monetary policy is not only domestic policy. For a major reserve-currency country, domestic decisions can become global decisions. The U.S. decision in 1971 affected allies, trading partners, developing countries, financial markets, and future monetary arrangements.

Findings

This article identifies several main findings.

First, the Nixon Shock marked the end of the gold-linked foundation of the Bretton Woods system. The suspension of dollar convertibility into gold changed the basic structure of international money. It weakened the old fixed-rate order and opened the way for floating exchange rates.

Second, the event showed that monetary systems depend on confidence. The Bretton Woods system worked as long as countries believed the United States could maintain the dollar-gold link. When this belief weakened, the system became unstable. This confirms that money is not only an economic tool, but also a social and institutional relationship.

Third, inflation and domestic policy pressure played a central role. The United States faced rising inflation and major spending commitments. Defending the gold link would have required difficult domestic choices. The Nixon Shock showed the tension between internal economic goals and external monetary commitments.

Fourth, trade balances and global economic change contributed to the crisis. The postwar dominance of the United States declined as Europe and Japan recovered. The fixed monetary system no longer fully matched the changing structure of global production and trade.

Fifth, the Nixon Shock did not end the international role of the dollar. Instead, it changed the basis of dollar power. The dollar remained central because of the institutional, financial, political, and symbolic strength of the United States. This supports a world-systems interpretation of the event.

Sixth, the flexible financial system increased the importance of central banks and monetary credibility. Without gold convertibility, policy credibility became a key anchor of value. Central banks became central institutions in managing inflation, expectations, and confidence.

Seventh, institutional adaptation followed the collapse of Bretton Woods. Many countries and central banks developed similar tools and practices in response to the new monetary environment. Institutional isomorphism helps explain this movement toward shared models of monetary governance.

Eighth, the Nixon Shock remains important for students because it connects economic theory with real historical change. It shows how inflation, currency pressure, trade balances, and confidence can affect policy decisions. It also shows that global finance is shaped by power, institutions, and trust.

Conclusion

The Nixon Shock was more than a monetary policy announcement. It was a major turning point in the history of global finance. By suspending the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold, the United States ended a central part of the Bretton Woods system and pushed the world toward a more flexible monetary order. This change altered the way currencies were valued, the way central banks managed policy, and the way international confidence was maintained.

The event shows that money is not simply a neutral object used for exchange. Money is a system of trust. It is supported by institutions, political authority, economic strength, and shared belief. Under Bretton Woods, gold helped symbolize this trust. After the Nixon Shock, trust became more directly linked to state credibility, central-bank policy, financial markets, and international cooperation.

Using Bourdieu, the Nixon Shock can be understood as a transformation in the symbolic capital of the dollar. The dollar lost its formal gold convertibility, but it retained global recognition and authority through other forms of power. Using world-systems theory, the event can be seen as a response by a core power to pressure within a changing global economy. The United States adjusted the rules when the old system became difficult to maintain. Using institutional isomorphism, the post-1971 period can be understood as a time when states and central banks adapted to uncertainty by developing similar policy tools and credibility-based practices.

The Nixon Shock also remains relevant today. Modern monetary systems are still shaped by inflation, exchange-rate pressure, trade balances, capital flows, and confidence. Central banks still work to manage expectations. Governments still face tensions between domestic priorities and international responsibilities. The value of money still depends on trust.

For students, the Nixon Shock is a powerful case study because it connects history, economics, politics, and sociology. It explains why monetary systems change and why no financial order is permanent. It also teaches that global money is not only about coins, notes, or digital balances. It is about rules, belief, power, and coordination. The move from a gold-linked order to a flexible financial system was not the end of monetary discipline. It was the beginning of a new form of discipline, one based less on metal and more on policy credibility, institutional strength, and international confidence.

Hashtags

#NixonShock #BrettonWoods #GlobalFinance #MonetaryPolicy #EconomicHistory #InternationalEconomy #FinancialSystem #CurrencyTrust #StudentResearch #STULIB

References

• Bordo, M. D. (1993). The Bretton Woods International Monetary System: A Historical Overview. In M. D. Bordo and B. Eichengreen (Eds.), A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System. University of Chicago Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press.

• Cohen, B. J. (1977). Organizing the World’s Money: The Political Economy of International Monetary Relations. Basic Books.

• DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

• Eichengreen, B. (1996). Globalizing Capital: A History of the International Monetary System. Princeton University Press.

• Eichengreen, B. (2011). Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System. Oxford University Press.

• Frieden, J. A. (2006). Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. W. W. Norton.

• Gilpin, R. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press.

• Helleiner, E. (1994). States and the Reemergence of Global Finance: From Bretton Woods to the 1990s. Cornell University Press.

• Kindleberger, C. P. (1986). The World in Depression, 1929–1939. University of California Press.

• Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., and Melitz, M. J. (2018). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Pearson.

• Mundell, R. A. (1963). Capital Mobility and Stabilization Policy under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 29(4), 475–485.

• Odell, J. S. (1982). U.S. International Monetary Policy: Markets, Power, and Ideas as Sources of Change. Princeton University Press.

• Triffin, R. (1960). Gold and the Dollar Crisis: The Future of Convertibility. Yale University Press.

• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.

• Williamson, J. (1977). The Failure of World Monetary Reform, 1971–74. New York University Press.