## THE WEB

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [THE WEB](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2018/march/debroeck.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2018/march/debroeck.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2018/march/debroeck.pdf.json)

---

### Overview and main findings
- In the early 1930s, international capital flows dried up as the Great Depression took hold; sovereign debt concerns aggravated the severity and persistence of financial disruptions even if they were not the trigger.
- Using an IMF data set that records sovereign debt at the instrument level, the authors find that the web of debt—much incurred because of World War I—linked the world’s major economies and heightened vulnerability to sovereign stress.
- Parallels with recent crises: loss of investor confidence, sovereign debt market disruptions led by liquidity drought, and government intervention in the financial sector amplified external debt burdens (noted similarities with the 2008 global crisis and the euro area crisis of 2010).

### Complicated networks of sovereign debt
- Forms of interconnectedness identified:
  - Lending among allied governments and central banks during and after the war, including reparations imposed on Germany and attempts to make interallied debt service contingent on German reparation payments.
  - Sales of sovereign debt to private investors in foreign markets, which "rose considerably in the 1920s"; underwriters and banks played an important marketing and risk-taking role (example: JP Morgan & Co. in the US market).
  - Sales of debt abroad by borrowers other than the sovereign, especially to US investors; Germany encouraged external borrowing by the private sector and state and local governments to generate foreign exchange for reparations.
- Successive rounds of multilateral and bilateral renegotiation:
  - Each agreement often included forgiveness of a sizable portion of the debt and provided refinancing for the bulk of obligations, intensifying network complexity and creating fiscal leverage via servicing debt through more debt.
- Foreign-currency debt exposure:
  - Many countries issued foreign-currency debt abroad because of underdeveloped domestic financial markets, increasing vulnerability to currency weakening and higher real debt burdens.
- Empirical data points preserved in source figures:
  - Debt inflows over 1919–32 are presented in Chart 1 (by sector: central government and provinces; municipals; corporations).
  - The external debt network in 1931 was dominated by a handful of large countries, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Chart 2).

### Systemic risks and contagion channels
- Common exposure and single-node dependence:
  - Germany accounted for the bulk of net exposure in the interwar network; "Germany was too big to fail."
  - Common exposure to a single large debtor spilled over to the private sector via:
    - New loans in bilateral and multilateral negotiations taken up by private investors, creating incentives to protect those investors from sovereign default.
    - The central role of underwriters (public and private) who marketed, placed, and in some cases guaranteed sovereign issues, thereby assuming financial risk; governments and money-issuing authorities in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom influenced bond prices and acted as underwriters.
    - Contingent liabilities arising from sovereign encouragement of local/state borrowing abroad and sovereign takeovers of private liabilities (example: Austria taking over a portion of Creditanstalt’s foreign liabilities in 1931).
- Crisis dynamics:
  - The sudden stop in international capital flows in 1931 cut off access to new funding; some sovereigns ceased payments and by 1933 had written off a large part of their external obligations and relied on selling internal debt to domestic banks.
  - These dynamics amplified fiscal-financial linkages and raised questions about debt reduction and debt relief options.

### Institutional weaknesses and global coordination failures
- Lack of an effective multilateral platform:
  - The League of Nations could not act as a truly global institution in part because the United States did not ratify the 1919 Versailles Treaty and did not participate.
  - Absence of a global lender of last resort: the Bank for International Settlements, set up in 1930, provided emergency loans in mid-1931 but could not make long-term loans or prevent the slide into protectionism, uncoordinated devaluations, and trade wars.
- Private actors and informal arrangements filled gaps:
  - Prominent bankers and "money doctors" (international bankers and financial advisers) informally represented interests and attempted to manage distressed cases, illustrating the benefits—and limits—of international cooperation.
- Postwar institutional response:
  - Immediately after World War II, new institutions and support arrangements (including the IMF and the Marshall Plan) were established to address shortcomings revealed during the interwar period.

### Policy implications and lessons
- Complex debt networks with large common exposures can heighten risks to the global financial system in the absence of effective international institutions.
- Strengthening international financial architecture remains important to reduce the likelihood that interwar-style sovereign-debt networks and contagion are repeated.
- Key risk-reduction priorities suggested by the historical analysis:
  - Improve multilateral coordination and crisis-management platforms to address sovereign stress and sudden stops.
  - Ensure credible mechanisms to limit contingent liabilities and moral hazard arising from sovereign guarantees of subnational and private external borrowing.
  - Enhance transparency and market discipline to reduce the obscuring effects of home bias and sovereign-domestic banking linkages.

*Article authors: Mark De Broeck, Era Dabla-Norris, Nicolas End, and Marina Marinkov; relies on an IMF data set covering sovereign debt instruments during 1913–45 and uses debt inflow data over 1919–32 and network visualizations for 1931.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2018/march/debroeck.pdf_