The political lessons of depression-era banking reform

33Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The banking legislation of the 1930s took very little time to pass, was unusually comprehensive, and unusually responsive to public opinion. Ironically, the primary motivations for the main bank regulatory reforms in the 1930s (Regulation Q, the separation of investment banking from commercial banking, and the creation of federal deposit insurance) were to preserve and enhance two of the most disastrous policies that contributed to the severity and depth of the Great Depression-unit banking and the real bills doctrine. Other regulatory changes, affecting the allocation of power between the Federal Reserve System (Fed) and the Treasury, were intended to reduce the independence of the Fed, while giving the opposite impression. Banking reforms in the 1930s had significant negative consequences for the future of US banking, and took a long time to disappear. The overarching lesson is that the aftermath of crises are moments of high risk in public policy. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Calomiris, C. W. (2010). The political lessons of depression-era banking reform. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 26(3), 540–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grq020

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free