Hard Heads, Soft Money? West German Ambivalence about Currency Reform, 1944-1948

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Soft Money ◽  
Currency Reform

The Rise and Fall of the Fengtien Dollar, 1917—1928: Currency Reform in Warlord China

1979 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Suleski
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Currency ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Chambers Of Commerce ◽  
Currency Reform ◽  
Market Towns

Financial chaos was the rule during China's warlord period from 1916 to 1928. The Central Government in Peking was often short of funds because the warlords who controlled the provinces refused to forward tax receipts to the capital. The effectiveness of the financial administrative machinery in each province varied greatly, and if careful accounts were kept by the provincial governments, they have not been made public. Most confusing of all was the assortment of currencies circulating in the provinces. A bewildering variety of coins and paper notes, generally issued by local banks and money-changing shops, were used in each province, though they would probably not be accepted at face value in the neighbouring province. In some areas foreign currency, such as Mexican silver dollars or Japanese gold yen notes, could also be found in the key market towns. So many currencies were in use that local chambers of commerce met daily to calculate the relative values of the currencies traded in their immediate area.

scholarly journals Did Firms Profit from Soft Money?

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Ansolabehere ◽  
James M. Snyder ◽  
Michiko Ueda
Keyword(s):  
Soft Money

Two-Stage Currency Reform for China

2017 ◽  
pp. 663-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Goldstein ◽  
Nicholas Lardy
Keyword(s):  
Two Stage ◽  
Currency Reform

Faculty and Directors’ Views of Outreach

1980 ◽  
Vol 10 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 45-48
Author(s):  
F. A. Leary
Keyword(s):  
Outreach Program ◽  
Area Studies ◽  
Title Vi ◽  
Soft Money ◽  
The One ◽  
The U.S

Outreach. The term was first made known to many Africanists by the U.S. Office of Education (USOE) as a mandated responsibility of Title VI Language and Area Studies Centers and seemed to represent something Africanists at many institutions had probably been doing all along anyway without any specific person or any additional funds. Outreach in the mid-1970s seemed so appealing and harmless enough to the directors who submitted applications for their programs to be named Title VI centers that they deemed to insert the required 15 percent minimum budget for outreach activities and usually a request for the hiring of an outreach coordinator as a line item supported through soft money. By 1979 outreach had become so integral a part of center activities and outreach coordinators that the one African program not re-funded as a center was nevertheless able to continue its outreach program through university funds. By late 1979, however, some center directors were also expressing the view that outreach risked becoming the tail that wagged the dog, while others were beginning to realize that they might have lost control of these coordinators who were calling themselves directors! By late 1979, too, both the personae in USOE committed to outreach and the evaluation review sheets used by the expert panels for center and fellowship funding had been dramatically reduced, indicating a decline in O.E. emphasis on outreach but, in the African field, probably also an implicit recognition of the substantial commitment and achievements of the Africanist group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document