Project aim
The aim of the project was based on the observation that monetary theory is lacking a solid explanation for the acceptance of Paper Money in an economy. Even though there are fundamentally different monetary theory today, neo-classical as well as post-Keynesian, end up with the conclusion that the given context is essential for Paper Money systems to function (see for example Kiyotaki and Wright (1989), (1992), Kocherlakota (1998), (2005), Bell (2001), Chick (1992)). But in terms of economics this is as far as the research goes, monetary systems thus seem dependent on variables that are impossible to study in a systematic manner, such as "context", "habit", "beliefs", "confidence" and so on. The argument in this project is that by assuming rational agents and use an historical approach we can understand what makes monetary systems change, i.e. what makes monetary systems move beyond money based on intrinsic value to become paper money systems. In extension to understand their origin we also study how they functioned in relation to other kinds of monies used and ideas on money. We thus acknowledged the existence of different roles for different monies, that is the ideas of monetary competition as well as complementarity. But we also acknowledge that ideas on money play a pivotal part for implemented monetary systems and how they were interpreted.
Thus the project is based on the study of a number of cases using a combination of quantitative materials and methods. It also combines the use of empirical material with history of thought – the main argument was that by studying the monetary history of thought we can learn a lot about how monetary and financial systems functioned in practice as well as how ideas and practices interacted.
Four broad cases in Swedish monetary history were chosen: 1) The early formal note issuance conducted by the Stockholm Banco (1656 – 1667) who issued notes from 1661 and whose closing in 1668 led to the establishment of the Bank of Sweden (which at the time of her establishment was banned from issuing notes). 2) The paper standard during the age of liberty (1744 – 1772), 3) The parallel note issuance of the National Debt Office and the Bank of Sweden (1789 – (1803) 1818) and 4) The silver and gold standards in the nineteenth century and the private note issuing so called Enskilda banks (1834 – 1906). These broad cases were set in longer perspectives in order to be able to follow the changes before and after. Also, cases 2) and 3) naturally hook into each other so that it is possible to talk about one case in terms of monetary practice and theory.
As is evident from the project the aim was also to make more generally applicable conclusions regarding monetary systems and their changes – based on these cases. Thus some studies include more or less the whole period from the early eighteenth century until WW1. To make more general theoretical conclusions through the use of comparisons, work has been carried out with international colleagues, involving the organizations of and participations in several international conferences on the theme of the project.

Most important results
To date the research on Stockholm Banco has resulted in one published essay (in Swedish) on Stockholm Banco and its founder and director. This research deserves to be deepened and analyzed further, the material is gathered but a deeper more problematized analysis focusing more on the monetary system and the note issuance per se, stressing the international (European) context and history of ideas at the time is still waiting to be published. There are however some results from this research: 1) the issuance of notes and the idea to do so originated namely from the use of bills of exchange that were the most important part of the money supply (discounting bills of exchange was a main part of the bank's business before and after note issuance began in 1661) and clearly these instruments were pushed further to be directly issued by the bank instead of third party, 2) international ideas and practices were most important, the Bank of Amsterdam becoming the role model and did in fact issue its own currency (even if it is described by many historians as a non-issuing bank), 3) that the issuance of notes by the bank was not unstable in itself, instead it was the monetary and fiscal policy run by the state that destroyed the possibility for the bank to uphold its note issuance in a stable manner (Ögren (2012)).
Both the Age of liberty (1718 – 1772) and the following Gustavianic period (1773 – 1809) were important periods in the development of formal paper money. The Swedish State funded its deficit partly by the printing presses and this escalated from the 1740s with the formal adoption of a paper standard. As in the previous case the introduction of paper money was a continuation of expanding monetary issuance. This episode highlights some important facts on the introduction of paper money as well: 1) the fact that over issuance of paper money and debasement of coins went hand in hand, 2) that, as has been made apparent in the current crisis, the debt structure, monetary issuances and inflation are closely interlinked, 3) the former two observations; the fact that paper money and "proper money" (coins) shared the same features plus the closeness between (state) debt and (paper) money underlines the fact that money is a debt item (Ögren & Oosterlink (2009), Ögren & Wennerlind (2009)). 4) The periods also gave clear evidence of advanced monetary thinking, not least the Gustavianic period, in which theories were developed for the implementation and administration of pure paper money systems - thus clearly falsifying the claim by Sargent & Velde (2002) that ideas and theories on paper money systems emerged in the post WWII context (Ögren (2011, 2012)).
In addition, the novel episode of parallel state issued currencies issued by the Bank of Sweden and the National Debt Office respectively (1789-1818) provided a lot of information on 1) monetary acceptance by the public, 2) the adoption of a new unit of account, 3) the role of different monetary anchors, and 4) Gresham's law for notes (Engdahl & Ögren (2008), Ögren (2012)).
The period 1834 – 1906 combined a more or less stable exchange rate (implemented with the silver standard in 1834 and changed into the gold standard in 1873) with the existence of private note issuing banks. Several insights have been made from the study of this period: 1) Arguably this was the period when Sweden was monetized, undertook the development of the banking system and the issuance of bank money, not least private bank notes, which played a major role in this monetization (Ögren (2008)). 2) Circulating money had different roles in the economy, thus the tendency to view all bank notes (or money in general) as one homogenic entity does not hold (Ögren (2012). 3) Private bank notes were not destabilizing per se. 4) Monetary policy and the way money was perceived at the time was guided by the theoretical view on money rather than the actual way the monetary system worked. This gap between monetary theory and practice at times led to some unsound policies (Ögren (2012)).

New research questions
As often is the case with research the project has generated many intriguing questions for future research. Most important is the fact that much monetary research in economics, not least mainstream monetary theory, is devoted to study only what is considered as formal money, i.e. notes and coins issued by a monetary authority. (see for instance Kocherlakota (2005)). Such money, today as well as in history, has been only a fraction of all the money utilized in the economy. Instead most money has been in the form of so called endogenous money, created in the transaction as credit for instance by a the buyer issuing an IOU, or a bank (bank money) or a merchant (commodity bill, bill of exchange etc.) or by writing in books or, as today, making balance sheet adjustments over the internet. The view that money essentially is credit with notes and coins as the most liquid form of money is supported by many post-Keynesian economists and one of the best theoretical conceptualization of this strand is probably the so-called "New Monetary Theory" (Wray (2010)). However this theoretical school focuses on the role of the state in the monetary system and thus denies the importance of non-governmental (private) money as alternatives to money issued by formal authorities. But as history reveals on numerous occasions, many monetary systems emerge and function outside of the state or in indirect relation to the formal monetary system. The idea thus is to study endogenous money or what can be labeled (for lack of a better word) "alternative currencies" in a similar historical perspective – which is of importance not least if one seeks to understand the modern day phenomena of crypto-currencies.
In addition the idea of studying "endogenous money" should again be complemented with history of economic thought. Ideas on different roles among different kinds of money, implying different velocities of money for different transaction and thus different impacts on prices and thus effects on the economy as a whole is a common theme in classical European economic thought (see for instance Cantillon, Ricardo, Hume, Smith, Franklin etc.) The role of endogenous money was even especially treated in such early works as Pierre de Boisguilbert's La naissance de l'économie politique from the late seventeenth century – showing a) that such endogenous money created in the transaction indeed was important at the time and b) that agents at the time did reflect and analyze the functioning and economical importance of such endogenous money.
At present I am working on the application for funds for such a research project and as part of that I am, together with colleagues in France, Lebanon and the US organizing a conference on the theme of: "From Free Banking to Crypto Currencies" (an off-spring from the recently organized conference on "Free Banking Systems, diversity in financial and economic growth" – see below).

Most important publications
The most important publication, not least because it is published, is the edited book on the Gold Standard in the peripheries (with Lars Fredrik Øksendal). It is a nice document on how the classical gold standard essentially was a period of paper money and how much more flexible monetary policy was during this period than what hitherto has been recognized and what theory admits. Other important publications are the works on the history of economic thought stressing how advanced both monetary and credit systems and economic thought in these domains were in the Seventeenth and eighteenth century. The paper comparing England with Sweden (Ögren & Wennerlind (2009) and the papers on Swedish monetary thought Ögren (2010), (2012) and Ögren & Runefelt (2014). Only the latter of this has been published.

Other diffusions of the project and its results
Results have been diffused through presentations in more than twenty-five international conferences, workshops and seminars. In addition to those I have organized ten international conferences and workshops focusing on different aspects of money from the conference Paper Money in Theory and Practice in History at Barnard College, Columbia University in New York (April 17 – 19, 2009), Paper Money in Theory and History: The Origin of Paper Money at City University in London (April 8 – 9, 2010) to broader focuses as Monetary Policy in the Periphery during the Gold Standard at the World Economic History Congress in Utrecht (August 6, 2009), Financial Crises and Lender of Last Resort – A Comparative Historical Perspective at Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense (September 24, 2009), Financial Regulations in Theory and Practice at the Stockholm School of Economics (May 25, 2010), Sovereign Debt, Financial Systems and Money at UCBH Department of Economic History, Uppsala University (December 12, 2011) and now most recently Free Banking Systems, diversity in financial and economic growth at the Department of Economic History and the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies, Lund University (September 4 – 5, 2014).