EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
At EKIP, we are honored to publish a fundamental critical analysis by economist Georgi Ganev of the acclaimed " Plan B in the Currency Board Discussion " by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ivan Kostov. In this "plan", Kostov practically proposes that the currency board in Bulgaria be dismantled, even though it was created precisely at the beginning of his own mandate as Prime Minister.
Author of the present critique of "Plan B in the currency board discussion" " is economist Georgi Ganev - program director for economic issues at the Center for Liberal Strategies and assistant professor at the Faculty of Economics of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski". In the framework of his criticism, Ganev dissects Kostov's proposal paragraph by paragraph and exposes the errors in the analysis and argumentation of the former Prime Minister.
The main criticisms presented in this text can be summarized as follows:
Criticism one: Plan B is not presented. It is not clear what changes to which laws and arrangements in the Bulgarian monetary regime it envisages.
Criticism two: the objections to the currency board regime are not theoretically derived.
Criticism three: the empirical data used in the presentation have no connection to the topic of Currency Board vs. Plan B. There is no theoretical justification for why these data were used, and not others, which according to available economic theories have a significantly more important and greater connection to the topic. And after correction of errors and omissions, the data themselves do not provide grounds for concluding that what is happening in Bulgaria is in any visible way worse than what is happening in the other four countries selected for comparison, even within the framework of the completely arbitrarily and without justification chosen period of comparison.
Criticism four: beyond a table of data, which contains errors and omissions, there is actually no comparative analysis between Bulgaria and the four other countries.
Criticism five: many of the conclusions drawn at the end do not follow, either as a theoretical justification or as empirical material presented in the presentation, from what was said before.
Criticism six: the presentation uses terms that are not only theoretically undefined and empirically immeasurable, but are also emotionally charged and can significantly hinder the discussion from remaining within the framework of impartiality, science, and professionalism.
Despite all these criticisms, “Plan B in the Currency Board Discussion” points to a number of interesting questions on the topic of Currency Board vs. Alternative Monetary Regimes in Bulgaria. Many of these questions are worth discussing, both theoretically and in terms of the available empirical evidence and evidence.
