Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:39:26.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International debt and linkage strategies: some foreign-policy implications for the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Benjamin J. Cohen
Benjamin J. Cohen
Affiliation:
William L. Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.
Get access

Abstract

The global debt problem influences the foreign-policy capabilities of the United States through its impact on the government's “linkage strategies” in foreign affairs. In some circumstances policy makers are forced to make connections between different policy instruments or issues that might not otherwise have been felt necessary; in others, opportunities for connections are created that might not otherwise have been felt possible. The Polish debt crisis of 1981–82, the Latin American debt crisis of 1982–83, and the IMF quota increase in 1983 are suggestive in this regard. Linkage strategies bred by the debt issue are more apt to be successful when the interest shared by the United States with other countries in avoiding default is reinforced by other shared economic or political interests. They will also be more successful to the extent that the government can supplement its own power resources by relating bank decisions to foreign-policy considerations. Power in such situations, however, is a wasting asset, even when employed indirectly through the intermediation of the IMF.

Type
Global Debt and National Policy
Information
International Organization , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1985 , pp. 699 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lissakers, Karin, “Money and Manipulation,” Foreign Policy no. 44 (Autumn 1981), p. 123Google Scholar.

2. Rashish, Meyer, “Bank Lending Overseas Has Become Intertwined with Politics,” A merican Banker, 15 01 1982, pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

3. Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), p. 26Google Scholar.

4. Ibid., pp. 30–32.

5. Surprisingly, there have been few formal attempts by scholars to explore systematically, in a foreign-policy context, the question of reciprocal influences between governments and banks. But see Aronson, Jonathan David, Money and Power: Banks and the World Monetary System (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977)Google Scholar; Kelly, Janet, “International Capital Markets: Power and Security in the International System,” Orbis 21 (Winter 1978), pp. 843–74Google Scholar; and Spindler, J. Andrew, The Politics of International Credit (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1984)Google Scholar.

6. As quoted in New York Times, 11 November 1982, p. D3.

7. “The Politics of Banking,” Banker, September 1977, p. 21.

8. Zwick, Jack and Goeltz, Richard K., “U.S. Banks Are Making Foreign Policy,” New York Times, 18 03 1979Google Scholar.

9. U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, International Debt, the Banks, and U.S. Foreign Policy, A Staff Report (Washington, D.C., 1977), p. 7Google Scholar.

10. IMF Survey, 18 May 1981, p. 162.

11. Rashish, , “Bank Lending Overseas,” p. 6Google Scholar.

12. Committee on Foreign Relations, International Debt, p. 7.

13. “State Department Calls in U.S. Bankers to Warn against Cutting off Yugoslavia,” Wall Street Journal, 22 04 1982, p. 33Google Scholar.

14. Zwick and Goeltz, “U.S. Banks Are Making.”

15. Russell, Robert W., “Three Windows on LDC Debt: LDCs, the Banks, and the United States National Interest,” in Franko, Lawrence G. and Seiber, Marilyn G., eds., Developing Country Debt (Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon, 1979), pp. 263–264Google Scholar.

16. Feis, Herbert, Europe, the World's Banker, 1870–1914 (1930) p. 468Google Scholar.

17. U.S. Treasury and State Department Fact Sheet on Polish Debt, in U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on European Affairs, The Polish Economy, Hearings, 17 01 1982 (hereafter Polish Economy Hearings), p. 12Google Scholar.

18. New York Times, 5 December 1981.

19. Interview, U.S. State Department, August 1984.

20. Hormats, Robert, “Statement,” Polish Economy Hearings, p. 4Google Scholar.

21. Treasury and State Department Fact Sheet, Polish Economy Hearings, p. 12Google Scholar.

22. Ibid., pp. 11–12. Bank capital is defined to include shareholders’ equity, undistributed profits, and reserves for contingencies and other capital reserves- in essence, what a bank would have after paying off depositors and creditors.

23. See, for example, New York Times, 26 May 1982, p. Dl.

24. Interview, U.S. State Department, August 1984.

25. New York Times, 1 February 1982, p. 1.

26. “Polish Default: Bankers' Perspectives on the Issues,” 22 March 1982, p. 4.

27. As quoted in New York Times, 1 February 1982, p. 1.

28. Leland, Marc, “Statement,” Polish Economy Hearings, p. 7Google Scholar.

29. See, for example, New York Times, 8 June 1982, p. Dl.

30. Safire, William, “Payoff for Repression,” New York Times, 1 02 1982Google Scholar.

31. Interview, U.S. State Department, August 1984.

32. See, for example, New York Times, 30 July 1983, p. 34.

33. Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Schott, Jeffrey J., Economic Sanctions in Support of Foreign Policy Goals (Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1983), pp. 73–75Google Scholar.

34. Meer, John Van, “Banks, Tanks and Freedom,” Commentary, 12 1982, p. 17Google Scholar.

35. Frieden, Jeff, “Third World Indebted Industrialization: International Finance and State Capitalism in Mexico, Brazil, Algeria, and South Korea,” International Organization 35 (Summer 1981), pp. 407–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Kuczynski, Pedro-Pablo, “Latin American Debt,” Foreign Affairs 61 (Winter 1982–1983), p. 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, World Financial Markets, 10 1982, p. 5Google Scholar.

38. For detail, see Volcker, Paul A., “Statement,” in U.S. House, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, International Financial Markets and Related Problems, Hearings, , 2 02 1983, Appendix I, pp. 80–81Google Scholar.

39. Ibid., pp. 81–83.

40. Volcker, Paul A., “Sustainable Recovery: Setting the Stage,” Remarks before the New England Council, Boston, 16 11 1982 (processed), p. 17Google Scholar.

41. New York Times, 14 January 1983, p. Dl.

42. Bank for International Settlements, International Banking Developments, Fourth Quarter 1983 (Basle, 04 1984)Google Scholar.

43. Kuczynski, Pedro-Pablo, “Latin American Debt: Act Two,” Foreign Affairs 62 (Autumn 1983), p. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. New York Times, 5 November 1983, p. 46.

45. As quoted in ibid., 13 May 1984, p. 1.

46. Ibid., 11 May 1984, p. D2.

47. As quoted in ibid., 18 August 1983, p. 1.

48. Economist, 21 August 1982, p. 11.

49. Cline, William R., International Debt and the Stability of the World Economy, Policy Analyses in International Economics no. 4 (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 09 1983), p. 34Google Scholar.

50. New York Times, 6 December 1982, p. D9.

51. As quoted in ibid., 4 June 1983, p. 29.

52. Interviews, U.S. Treasury, November 1983 and January 1984.

53. New York Times, 15 November 1982, p. Dl.

54. Miami Herald, 30 August 1982.

55. New York Times, 21 May 1984, p. Dl.

56. Western Hemisphere Commission on Public Policy Implications of Foreign Debt, Report (New York: Americas Society, 02 1984), pp. 19–20Google Scholar.

57. IMF Survey, 6 February 1984, p. 40.

58. See, for example, ibid., 18 May 1981, p. 152.

59. Ibid., 19 March 1979, pp. 82–83.

60. Ibid., 23 November 1981, p. 365, for the India loan.

61. As quoted in ibid., 4 October 1982, p. 327.

62. As quoted in New York Times, 12 December 1982, sec. 3, p. 1.

63. The United States for a time held out for a slightly smaller quota increase, to only SDR 85 billion, but was unsuccessful. It was successful in preventing expansion of the General Arrangements to Borrow to the figure of SDR 20 billion favored by European governments. See Economist, 22 January 1983, pp. 62–63.

64. Interview, U.S. Treasury, January 1984.

65. Recent Multilateral Debt Restructurings with Official and Bank Creditors, IMF Occasional Paper no. 25 (Washington, D.C., 12 1983), pp. 10, 26Google Scholar.

66. Economist, 19 February 1983, p. 89.

67. New York Times, 1 March 1983, p. Dl.

68. Ibid., 22 January 1983.

69. As quoted in New York Times, 9 January 1983, sec. 3, p. 10.

70. Ibid.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid.

73. Cohen, Benjamin J., “Balance-of-Payments Financing: Evolution of a Regime,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 315–36Google Scholar.