STUDY OF MONEY 413 system,in particular,the wealthiest segments of society.Second,there is a crisis of accountability:however much politicians may be objects of scorn,at the very least they could be held accountable for their actions. Market forces,by contrast,"are neither elected nor politically account- able”(p.148). These crucial questions of equity and accountability are not,how- ever,the focus of the final chapter,"Can Public Policy Cope."For this reason,of the three grand chapters that close this book,this one is dis- appointing in that it does not fulfill the agenda raised by what came be- fore it.Cohen asserts,accurately,that there are"no easy solutions."The bottom line ultimately is that "governments must learn how to manage their oligopolistic rivalry,not make futile attempts to evade or suppress it"(p.151).Cohen then shifts gears and provides an overview of the new monetary landscape,emphasizing that neither a reassertion of state power nor a complete denationalization of money is likely to occur.Rather,exploring each level of the currency pyramid,including the euro,the yen,and the bottom dwellers,he concludes that the world is likely to continue to look pretty much the way it does now:with the gentle erosion of the still dominant dollar tempered increasingly not by competition from the euro or the yen but by the power of markets. CAN THE MIDDLE HOLD? Cohen's treatment of money,though politically sensitive and sophisti- cated,nevertheless represents the economistic pillar of the IPE main- stream.For this branch of the subfield,and especially with regard to the study of money,the use of market metaphors and the assumption of market efficiency must be carefully scrutinized. The use of economic metaphor is one of Cohen's key contributions. Between Westphalia and globalization,he argues,there is a middle ground of oligopoly-an attractive and novel conceptualization that would appear to strike a clear middle ground between two opposing schools.Issuers of currency can easily be cast as traditional oligopolists. +Cohen notes,for example,that the extent to which the yen is used as an international currency is essentially a policy choice and that both the Europeans and the Japanese manage their currencies with an eye toward avoiding confrontation with the United States(pp.161,164).He also assesses monetary geography in its most basic form,sustaining monetary alliances,and finds that economic theory,such as the theory of optimal currency areas,has little explanatory power.Rather,political factors such as power and ideology explain which monetary unions succeed and which fail (pp.82,84-85,87,91). See also the cases discussed in Cohen,"Beyond EMU:The Problem of Sustainability,"Economics and Politics 5(July 1993).He also traces the drive for EMU to political motives,but it should be noted that he reviewed the convergence criteria without a discussion of their possible distributional implications (Geograpby of Money,74,77).system, in particular, the wealthiest segments of society. Second, there is a crisis of accountability: however much politicians may be objects of scorn, at the very least they could be held accountable for their actions. Market forces, by contrast, “are neither elected nor politically account￾able” (p. 148). These crucial questions of equity and accountability are not, how￾ever, the focus of the final chapter, “Can Public Policy Cope.” For this reason, of the three grand chapters that close this book, this one is dis￾appointing in that it does not fulfill the agenda raised by what came be￾fore it. Cohen asserts, accurately, that there are “no easy solutions.” The bottom line ultimately is that “governments must learn how to manage their oligopolistic rivalry, not make futile attempts to evade or suppress it” (p. 151). Cohen then shifts gears and provides an overview of the new monetary landscape, emphasizing that neither a reassertion of state power nor a complete denationalization of money is likely to occur. Rather, exploring each level of the currency pyramid, including the euro, the yen, and the bottom dwellers, he concludes that the world is likely to continue to look pretty much the way it does now: with the gentle erosion of the still dominant dollar tempered increasingly not by competition from the euro or the yen but by the power of markets. CAN THE MIDDLE HOLD? Cohen’s treatment of money, though politically sensitive and sophisti￾cated,4 nevertheless represents the economistic pillar of the IPE main￾stream. For this branch of the subfield, and especially with regard to the study of money, the use of market metaphors and the assumption of market efficiency must be carefully scrutinized. The use of economic metaphor is one of Cohen’s key contributions. Between Westphalia and globalization, he argues, there is a middle ground of oligopoly—an attractive and novel conceptualization that would appear to strike a clear middle ground between two opposing schools. Issuers of currency can easily be cast as traditional oligopolists. STUDY OF MONEY 413 4 Cohen notes, for example, that the extent to which the yen is used as an international currency is essentially a policy choice and that both the Europeans and the Japanese manage their currencies with an eye toward avoiding confrontation with the United States (pp. 161, 164). He also assesses monetary geography in its most basic form, sustaining monetary alliances, and finds that economic theory, such as the theory of optimal currency areas, has little explanatory power. Rather, political factors such as power and ideology explain which monetary unions succeed and which fail (pp. 82, 84–85, 87, 91). See also the cases discussed in Cohen, “Beyond EMU: The Problem of Sustainability,” Economics and Politics 5 ( July 1993). He also traces the drive for EMU to political motives, but it should be noted that he reviewed the convergence criteria without a discussion of their possible distributional implications (Geography of Money, 74, 77)