One of the greatest difficulties a political scientist faces in trying to study monetary politics is finding a productive way to analyze the issues that dominate public discussion and debate. For many political scientists, the basic questions motivating their inquiry have to do with the way the clash of interests in political arenas produces allocative consequences. The traditional emphasis on such questions, even in behavioral political science, has been substantial.

In trying to comprehend monetary policy, then, many political scientists would naturally inquire about distributive issues and would examine the process of policy making for signs of conflict related to these issues. The search would be a frustrating one. A great deal of the most visible debate about monetary policy is not explicitly about distributive issues. It is a battle of technicians, and the stakes are not at all obvious to those not among the congnoscenti. As we have seen, there are important distributive consequences associated with different positions in the technical debate. For example, the monetarists argue that distributive considerations must be subordinated to the fight against inflation.

It is true that the distributive implications of different kinds of monetary policy actions are difficult to sort out in this area. It is frequently not clear who benefits or loses – which sectors of business and finance, which income classes, which parts of income classes.