Ramaphosa's energy plan Webinar banner

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

What is the real purpose of central bankers in a democr...

Defend Truth


What is the real purpose of central bankers in a democracy?


Born in Cape Town, Natale Labia lives in Milan, Italy, and writes on the economy and finance. Partner of private equity firm Lionhead Capital Partners. MBA from Università Bocconi. Supports Juventus.

What is the role of independent experts, such as central bankers, in a democracy? And what oversight should he or she be subject to?

First published in the Daily Maverick 168 weekly newspaper.

This was the question posed to the then president of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, in a lecture to the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in October 2013. Given the subsequent experiences of the past eight years of monetary experiments, it is a question worth re-asking.

Arch-Brexiteer Michael Gove, now Cabinet Office secretary, perhaps summed up an age of discontent with this self-anointed intellectual elite. His riposte – “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts” – has gone down in Tory infamy.

But the point is well made. After all, central bankers are mere unelected technocrats, albeit powerful ones. In addition, the traditional answer to what they busy their quotidian lives with – managing interest rates and money supply to keep inflation under control – now sounds quaintly old-worldly.

Instead, it seems they have become nothing short of self-appointed saviours of humanity and the planet. Former governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King recently complained about central banks “moving into the political arena”, and with good reason. The Bank for International Settlements shows that references to “inequality” in central bank statements have risen exponentially.

Draghi’s successor at the ECB, Christine Lagarde, has been equally explicit on the role of central banks in saving the planet Her response to whether the ECB dealing with climate change is not mission creep is simply that it is “acknowledging reality”. Indeed, goes the argument, could the end result of climate change not in some way be inflationary?

Perhaps, but then perhaps not – and where does one draw the line? If supply chain bottlenecks are inflationary, then should the ECB not start by leasing container ships and freeing vessels stuck in the Suez Canal?

There are many reasons why this mission creep is a mistake. First, there are other actors who need to address these problems facing humanity, specifically democratically elected ones. It may be that climate change is disastrous, but surely dealing with it is none of a central banker’s business?

Second, such dabbling creates clear conflicts of interest. Take the effects of quantitative easing; while buying green bonds and those of renewable energy companies may help finance a green transition, it also artificially inflates asset values.

Finally, this is quite simply none of their business, and may have dangerous side effects. At Harvard, Draghi answered the question in a typically direct yet wry manner.

“Central banks”, he stated, “are very powerful. An example of this power is when I said in June 2012, somewhat off the cuff, that I would do ‘whatever it takes, within our mandate, to preserve the euro’.”

Pausing, he then stressed the importance of the words “within our mandate”. Central banks should only act within the confines of that very specific, democratically legislated, framework. Further to this, a central bank is only powerful if it continues to act within its mandate, as this is the single way it can remain credible.

In the essentially technocratic world of central banking, democratic legitimacy, institutional credibility and policy effectiveness are all deeply intertwined. The mission creep of experts, particularly those at central banks, therefore risks nothing less than endangering the authority of the entire edifice on which their influence rests.

Maybe, therefore, central banks should surrender their ambitions of saving all humanity and the planet, and focus on the immediate job at hand. While it might make their jobs a little less colourful, it might make it easier for everyone else, all round. DM168

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper which is available for R25 at Pick n Pay, Exclusive Books and airport bookstores. For your nearest stockist, please click here.


Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 5

  • In an ideal world, yes. In today’s world, itself balancing precariously on the edge of a precipe, I would accept help from anywhere, particularly as the elected officials are doing zilch. Whats the point if our world ceases to exist?

  • In actual fact, central bankers are a countervailing force to government. The latter naturally push for stimulus and easy money (low interest rates), which is short-termism aimed at pleasing the electorate, and promotes their chances at the polls. For example the mandate of the US Fed has two parts: price stability and low unemployment. They do not have a carte blanche mandate, but they are financially powerful. Interestingly, they have recently promoted equality by lowering unemployment, that lowers supply of workers and hence raised wages.

  • We had four years of a political “non-expert” in the White House from 2016 to 2020 and the results speak for themselves. Anyone who thinks there are “no experts” and/or “experts are superfluous”, need only spend 5 minutes on “social media” to discover the folly of that idea. There are two very good reasons for having experts. I suppose so long as Mr Gove keeps making stupid amounts of money, he’ll have the mic. I’m assuming then that the whole point of this article is merely to tell us that the monied classes don’t care about our planet – which we already take as a given – even though it is quite possibly the very reason why we live on a Burning Planet in the first place. This means you told us what we already know.

    For what it is worth, our Central Bank hardly stopped money flows to Zupta accounts out of the country, did it? The question is why not? Why didn’t the SARB spot it, and stop it?

    • Hi there, thanks for the comment. Just to clarify, the point I was making is not that there is no role for experts but that if we agree that experts should play a role in democracies, then we need to democratically decide on their mandates and hold them to stick to them. I firmly believe that the economic costs of central banks incorporating ‘green’ agendas outweighs any benefit that they might make on the environment. Saving the planet is a job not left to technocrat monetary experts, but those democratically elected officials responsible. This addresses earlier points raised by Carsten Rausch.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted