[unclesams-uncle]

Central banks in many countries (including all of Europe, US, Canada, Japan, etc) are all effectively in public hands.

The banks' boards and many employees are political appointees nominated by elected officials.

They are accountable to legislatures.

I'm not sure how, other than go for a "Swiss-style" direct election of directors (which, considering the complexities of macroeconomics, would be like shooting ourselves in the foot with a cannon), you could get more public than that.

[yao420]

No, a nomination by the president is not the same as being in the public hands.

Also, 14 year terms makes them pretty unaccountable to anyone even the presidents who nominated them, much less to citizens.

[villasv]

This. Failing to understand public institutions as public hands is one of the reasons people misjudge politics so badly.

[amelius]

"In public hands" can mean a lot of things.

For example, if I run a business which banks do not approve of, then they can block my account or make it impossible to make transfers. What good does it if the bank is "in public hands" in that case?

[I_am_tiberius]

What I understand as "in public hands" in this context is that government cannot control or impact it.