Currency Wars and the Myth of Competitive Devaluation

RESEARCH NOTES · SERIES I · GLOBAL MACRO

April 2026 · Original Thesis

Every time an economy slows down, the same idea resurfaces: weaken the currency, make exports cheap, and watch growth return. Governments love this play. It requires no hard structural reform, no politically painful cuts, and no real accountability. You just let the currency slide — or push it — and declare that you are fighting for your exporters. The problem is that the historical record does not support this logic. It supports almost the exact opposite.

This note is not arguing that exchange rates do not matter. They clearly do. The argument here is more specific: deliberate competitive devaluation, used as an active policy tool to gain sustained trade advantage, consistently fails to deliver what politicians promise — and the damage it does to the broader economy is almost always larger than the short-term gains it creates for exporters.

I. The 1930s Were Misread — And We Have Been Paying For It Ever Since

The standard version of currency war history starts with the Great Depression. Countries abandoned the gold standard one by one, their currencies fell, and trade collapsed. The conventional lesson drawn from this was that competitive devaluation is inherently destructive. However, this reading misses something critical: most of those devaluations were not competitive at all.

When the Bank of England abandoned the gold standard in September 1931, it was not a strategic decision to undercut German or American exporters. It was a forced capitulation. The Bank had spent weeks defending the pound against selling pressure, depleting reserves, before finally letting go. The same pattern repeated across Europe. Countries were not racing to weaken their currencies — they were being dragged off gold by market forces they could no longer control.

A 2011 IMF analysis makes this point directly: framing these events as deliberate competitive devaluations misrepresents the historical experience. Britain, France, and the US were not executing exchange rate strategies. They were managing crises.

Now, why does this matter? Because the post-WWII international monetary order was built on the assumption that the 1930s were caused by currency chaos. Bretton Woods created a system of fixed exchange rates specifically to prevent a repeat. The entire intellectual architecture — and a lot of modern trade policy thinking — flows from a misread of what actually happened. The lesson was wrong. And wrong lessons produce bad frameworks.

II. Why the Simple Mechanism Breaks Down in Practice

The basic argument for competitive devaluation is seductive in its simplicity. If your currency falls 20%, your exports become 20% cheaper to foreign buyers, demand rises, output grows, jobs return. The textbook version works. The real-world version runs into three problems that the textbook ignores.

First: exporters are also importers. In modern global value chains, a country's exporters rely heavily on imported components and raw materials. When the currency falls, import costs rise immediately and mechanically. For complex manufacturing economies, this effect can offset the export price advantage almost entirely. Japan discovered this repeatedly. When the yen depreciated sharply under Abenomics from late 2012, Japan's trade balance did not improve — it deteriorated. Firms had offshored so much production that the J-curve effect, which predicts a short-term deficit followed by an improvement, simply did not materialise in the way expected.

Second: firms pocket the margin, not the price cut. Academic research on Japanese exporters during Abenomics found that companies largely did not pass the yen depreciation through to their foreign-currency export prices. Instead, they maintained stable prices in the buyer's currency and collected the exchange rate gain as margin improvement. This is rational corporate behaviour — it protects relationships and avoids damaging price competition. But it means the core mechanism of competitive devaluation — cheaper prices winning market share — does not actually operate the way the policy assumes.

Third: retaliation is fast and the gains evaporate. The theoretical benefit of devaluation depends on your trading partners not responding. In practice, when one major economy weakens its currency, others follow. NBER research on the Great Depression currency war found that devaluing countries saw their trade fall by over 21% — not rise — because the unravelling of the global monetary standard destroyed trade-facilitating coordination and drove up trade costs across the board. Everyone devalued. No one won.

"Currency wars are not economic policy. They are the policy of governments that have run out of real answers — and are hoping the exchange rate buys them enough time before anyone notices."

III. The Japan Case Study — A Clean, Damning Test

If you want a near-perfect empirical test of competitive devaluation as policy, Abenomics is it. In December 2012, Prime Minister Abe took office and launched an aggressive monetary easing programme. Within six months, the yen had depreciated roughly 22% against the dollar — moving from about ¥82 to over ¥100. This was not a quiet market drift. It was a sharp, deliberate policy-induced move, exactly the kind of controlled experiment economists rarely get.

What happened next was instructive. Export volumes responded far less than models predicted. The ScienceDirect study on exchange rate impacts found that exports improved much less than expected, specifically in transportation equipment — one of Japan's core export sectors. The trade deficit actually continued to grow for two years despite the massive depreciation. Inflation picked up, but most of it was imported inflation, driven by more expensive energy and raw materials, not a genuine demand recovery.

Stock markets rose significantly — particularly automobile stocks, which are the main beneficiary of a cheaper yen since their production is still substantially domestic. But this is a windfall for corporate shareholders, not a structural improvement in the economy's competitive position. The conclusion from Nippon.com's post-mortem of Abenomics is blunt: export growth merely reflected yen depreciation in nominal terms, not a real improvement in competitiveness. When measured by volume, the gains were almost negligible.

Abenomics is particularly telling because Abe himself acknowledged that the second and third arrows — fiscal policy and structural reform — were ultimately more important. The exchange rate was only the first arrow. However, structural reform was politically costly and was progressively abandoned. What remained was a monetary policy that kept the yen weak, which masked the absence of deeper reform and created the appearance of progress while the underlying problems persisted.

IV. The Real Purpose of Currency Wars Is Political, Not Economic

This is the part that most mainstream analysis avoids, but it is the most important part. Governments do not pursue competitive devaluation because economists tell them it works. They pursue it because it is immediate, visible, and deniable.

It is immediate — a central bank decision can move an exchange rate within days. Structural reform takes years to show results, and the political costs are front-loaded. It is visible — a weaker currency is something governments can point to and say "we acted." The subsequent inflation, the rising import costs, the suppressed purchasing power of households — these are diffuse, slow-moving, and harder to attribute. And it is deniable — most central banks claim they are targeting domestic inflation or growth, not the exchange rate. Japan said this throughout Abenomics. The Federal Reserve said it during quantitative easing. China has said it for decades.

If the primary driver of competitive devaluation is political convenience rather than economic effectiveness, then the debate about whether it "works" is somewhat beside the point. The real question is: what structural problems is the currency war concealing? In Japan's case, it was demographic decline, a rigid labour market, and corporate balance sheet conservatism. In China's case, it has been an investment-heavy growth model dependent on export demand. In the US's current framing, it is declining manufacturing competitiveness in sectors that have been hollowed out by decades of offshoring.

A weak currency delays the reckoning. It does not resolve it.

V. What the Evidence Actually Supports

To be precise about the thesis here: the claim is not that exchange rates are irrelevant or that devaluation never helps anyone. The claim is that deliberate competitive devaluation as a sustained policy tool does not produce the broad-based economic gains that justify its costs.

There are contexts where depreciation genuinely helps. Countries emerging from a severely overvalued fixed exchange rate — Argentina in 2001, Southeast Asian economies post-1997 — often needed significant currency adjustment to restore competitiveness. The difference is that these adjustments corrected a genuine misalignment. They were not a strategy; they were a correction.

The evidence also suggests that the countries that performed best over multi-decade horizons — Germany, South Korea, Taiwan — did not do so by keeping their currencies weak. They built genuine industrial and technological advantages. Between 1961 and 1995, Japan saw a 300% appreciation in its real effective exchange rate while growing rapidly, because productivity growth outpaced currency appreciation. That is the actual lesson. Real competitiveness wins. Nominal exchange rate manipulation does not.

Conclusion: The Myth Persists Because It Is Useful

Currency wars will continue. The political incentives are too powerful, and the lag between policy and consequence is long enough that accountability rarely arrives cleanly. Every few years, a government with slow growth and no appetite for reform will discover that a weaker currency is easier to achieve than a more competitive economy.

The intellectual task for analysts — and ultimately for investors — is to see through the policy framing. When a country announces it is pursuing growth through a weaker currency, the real signal is not that exports will boom. The real signal is that structural reform has been postponed. The question to ask is not "how much will the currency fall?" but "what problem is this government unwilling to solve?"

That is the lens that produces useful analysis. Not the exchange rate itself, but what the exchange rate policy is a symptom of.

---

This research note is part of an ongoing series of original theses on global macro, equity markets, and institutional finance. Research draws on IMF working papers, NBER empirical studies, RIETI analysis, and academic literature on exchange rate pass-through and competitive devaluation. Views expressed are the author's own.