Debt and the Banks: East Europe's Debt to the West: Interdependence is a Two-Way Street
We have come a long way from the excesses of "Western economic warfare" against Eastern Europe. The past five years have seen an explosion of East-West trade and Western lending to Eastern Europe, including the U.S.S.R., with Western governments, banks, and exporters competing strenuously for East European business. In the atmosphere of détente, a wide range of political and economic forces generated opportunities for profits, which competitive capitalism exploited with characteristic alacrity and flexibility. The sum total of these diverse initiatives has been large-scale Western export of capital, both financial and real, to Eastern Europe. This new East-West economic interdependence now clearly demands the policy analysis which ideally should have preceded it.
Richard Portes is Professor of Economics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and will be a Visiting Professor at Harvard in 1977-78, on a Guggenheim Fellowship.
We have come a long way from the excesses of "Western economic warfare" against Eastern Europe. The past five years have seen an explosion of East-West trade and Western lending to Eastern Europe, including the U.S.S.R., with Western governments, banks, and exporters competing strenuously for East European business. In the atmosphere of détente, a wide range of political and economic forces generated opportunities for profits, which competitive capitalism exploited with characteristic alacrity and flexibility. The sum total of these diverse initiatives has been large-scale Western export of capital, both financial and real, to Eastern Europe. This new East-West economic interdependence now clearly demands the policy analysis which ideally should have preceded it.
The implications of the current situation are obscure even to many of the participants. Central planners are in principle able to use their "foreign trade monopoly" and centralized banking systems to coordinate their international trade and payments, in the light of their political and economic objectives. Even they, however, can be carried along by forces they do not fully understand. For mixed economies and their governments, the problems of international economic policy are that much greater. Neither technocrats nor politicians have yet appreciated the extent and implications of Western capital flows to Eastern Europe, and current attitudes and policies toward East-West economic interdependence could lead to consequences not desired by either side. The debtor-creditor relation can be a difficult one even with the best will in the world, and it is all too easy for miscalculations and misapprehensions to generate tensions which economic interdependence might otherwise alleviate. Whatever the ultimate form of the "new international economic order," the centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe will have an important role in it, and we should seek to ensure that the resulting East-West economic and political relations will be harmonious and mutually beneficial.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Gorbachev's political liberalization has not produced economic revitalization, but rather economic crisis which threatens his political survival.
During the past year a great deal of attention has been devoted to the accumulation of debt by the less-developed countries (LDCs). One recent publication estimated that the long-term public debt of 86 LDCs (including undisbursed amounts) exceeded $200 billion at the end of 1976; and that short-term and private debt amounted to another $50 billion for a total of $250 billion.1 Another publication estimated that the combined long-term, short-term, public and private debt of the non-OPEC LDCs (not including amounts undisbursed) would total $180 billion at the end of 1976, of which $75 billion was owed to commercial banks.2 About $45 billion of this is said to be held by the U.S. banks. These figures are generally 20 to 25 percent higher than comparable figures for 1975; indeed, they have been growing at such rates or higher ones since 1973.
Since 1974 - when the oil crisis hit and the world recession began - a number of developing countries that do not export oil (non-oil LDCs) have been borrowing heavily in the international credit markets. Surprisingly, private banks, not international agencies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, have underwritten most of this massive debt buildup, as the table on page 734 shows. And this shift from traditional to non-traditional sources of financing, along with the sheer magnitude of the borrowing, has led to criticism of private banks for their handling of the situation.
