The Economic Trilemma (Impossible Trinity)

The economic trilemma—also called the impossible trinity—describes a fundamental constraint in international macroeconomics: a country cannot simultaneously maintain all three of the following policies. It must choose two and give up the third.

The three policy options

Fixed exchange rate (a stable or pegged currency)
Free cross-border capital flows (open capital account)
Independent monetary policy (control of domestic interest rates and money supply)

Because these three goals are mutually incompatible, policymakers can only achieve two at any given time. Choosing a pair determines which policy is surrendered.

Explore More Resources

How the combinations work

Fixed exchange rate + free capital flows → No independent monetary policy
If capital moves freely, domestic interest-rate changes will spark capital flows that undermine a fixed exchange rate (currency pegs become unsustainable).
Free capital flows + independent monetary policy → Flexible (floating) exchange rate
To use interest-rate policy while allowing capital mobility, exchange rates must adjust to balance flows.
Fixed exchange rate + independent monetary policy → Capital controls required
Maintaining both a peg and domestic policy autonomy requires restricting cross-border capital movements to prevent arbitrage.

Policy choices and trade-offs

Governments decide which two goals best serve their economic priorities:
– Many modern economies prioritize capital mobility and monetary autonomy, accepting floating exchange rates for greater policy flexibility.
– Countries that want exchange-rate stability (especially small, open economies or currency unions) may sacrifice monetary independence or limit capital flows.

Theoretical background and debate

The trilemma is commonly associated with Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming (1960s), formalized in later work by Maurice Obstfeld and colleagues.
Hélène Rey and others have argued that in a highly integrated global financial system, monetary independence may be limited even with flexible exchange rates, turning the “trilemma” effectively into a “dilemma.” Her work highlights the role of the global financial cycle in constraining domestic policy.

Real-world examples

Eurozone: Member countries adopted a single currency, effectively fixing exchange rates among them while allowing free capital flows. National central banks gave up independent monetary policy to the European Central Bank.
Bretton Woods (post‑WWII to early 1970s): Many countries pegged their currencies to the U.S. dollar and retained control over domestic interest rates by imposing capital controls—achieving fixed exchange rates and monetary autonomy at the cost of capital mobility.
Typical modern stance: Most advanced economies allow open capital flows and use independent monetary policy, relying on floating exchange rates to absorb external shocks.

Practical implications

Policy coherence: Choices under the trilemma shape financial stability, inflation control, and the country’s vulnerability to external shocks.
Crisis management: When pressures build (e.g., speculative attacks or sudden capital flight), countries may be forced to change their chosen pair—abandoning pegs, imposing capital controls, or surrendering monetary independence.
Institutional design: Currency unions, capital-account regulations, and central-bank mandates are institutional responses that reflect trilemma trade-offs.

Key takeaways

The trilemma states that a country can only achieve two of: fixed exchange rates, free capital movement, and independent monetary policy.
Each policy pair imposes distinct economic constraints and vulnerabilities.
Historical cases (eurozone, Bretton Woods) illustrate different solutions; modern debates emphasize how global financial integration affects monetary autonomy.