Why has gold persisted as a significant reserve asset despite momentous changes in international monetary relations since the collapse of the classical gold standard? IPE theories have little to say about this question. Conventional accounts of international monetary relations depict a succession of discrete monetary regimes characterized by specific power structures or dominant ideas. To explain the continuous importance of gold, we draw on insights from social psychology and new materialist theories. We argue that international monetary relations should be understood as a complex assemblage of material artifacts, institutions, ideas, and practices. For much of its history, this assemblage revolved around the pivotal practice of referencing money to gold. The centrality of gold as experienced by policymakers had important effects. Using archival and other evidence, we document these effects from the 1944 Bretton Woods conference through the transition to floating exchange rates in the mid-1970s; most IPE scholars underestimate the role of gold during this period. Power relations and economic ideas were obviously important, but they contributed little to a fundamental development: the long process of reluctantly coming to terms with the limitations of specie-backed currency, and the progressive and still ongoing decentering of gold in international monetary relations.

自古典金本位崩溃以来，尽管国际货币关系发生了重大变化，为什么黄金仍作为重要的储备资产持续存在？IPE 理论对这个问题几乎没有什么可说的。对国际货币关系的传统描述描绘了一系列以特定权力结构或主导思想为特征的离散货币制度。为了解释黄金的持续重要性，我们借鉴了社会心理学和新唯物主义理论的见解。我们认为，国际货币关系应该被理解为物质制品、制度、思想和实践的复杂组合。在其历史的大部分时间里，这个组合都围绕着将货币与黄金挂钩的关键实践。政策制定者所经历的黄金的中心地位产生了重要影响。利用档案和其他证据，我们记录了从 1944 年布雷顿森林会议到 1970 年代中期向浮动汇率过渡的这些影响；大多数 IPE 学者都低估了黄金在这一时期的作用。权力关系和经济理念显然很重要，但它们对根本性的发展贡献甚微：不情愿地接受以货币为基础的货币限制的漫长过程，以及黄金在国际货币关系中的渐进且仍在持续的去中心化。