In a book review for Civitas Outlook, a new publication of the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, I write about two different arguments for central bank independence that sometimes get conflated:

Argument 1: Monetary policy independent central banks make is better than monetary policy elected politicians make.

Argument 2: Monetary policy predefined rules make is better than monetary policy discretionary policy choices make.

It is the interaction of those two arguments with each other and with real-world political constraints that leads most economists to conclude independent central banks are the preferred way to make monetary policy.

You can read the whole review, where I explain in depth those interactions based on relevant economic literature, here.