In Benjamin Cohen’s article “The Bretton Woods System,”
Cohen defines and explains the principles of the Bretton Wood system.
Consequently, he demonstrates the implicit benefit that the United States
obtains. After reading this article I was intrigued by the information Cohen
provided regarding how the two international organizations, World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (IMF), work in favor of the United States.
The Bretton
Woods system is an international monetary regime that derived from the end of
World War II until 1970’s being defined as “a monetary regime joining an
essentially unchanged gold exchange standard, supplemented only by a
centralized pool of gold and national currencies, with an entirely new exchange
rate system of adjustable pegs” (Cohen 86). From this system two international
monetary organizations were developed, the World Bank and IMF. Although these
organizations were created to benefit all states, in Cohen’s article and in
lecture’s presentation, it becomes apparent that this monetary regime has
higher influence on the United State’s hegemony. For example, the primary
function of the IMF was to “help states maintain peg to U.S. dollar through
loans that would fight inflation or deflation in exchange rates” (Lecture 19).
Noticeably, maintaining the peg to the United States’ dollar only benefits the
United States, because the dollar is one of the most expensive currencies
therefore, other states with lower currency value are subjugated to a higher
exchange rate set at the value of the United States dollar. In essence, the
state with the less valued currency will receive fewer US dollars due to the
high exchange rate. Subsequently, the US dollar can be exchanged for a lot
higher amount in a different state. Cohen notes in his article, “in effect, an
implicit bargain was struck” (87). Nevertheless, the Bretton Wood system was a
primary contribution to the supremacy of the United States.
It
strikes me as rather thought provoking that the purpose of the Bretton Woods
System and organizations like the IMF and World Bank is to aid all states yet
it evidently benefits only one, the United States. Furthermore, the United
States acquired an advantage that allowed them to have the capability to
control the financial speculations of the world. Cohen demonstrates three ways
in which US hegemony was employed. First, a relatively open market was provided
for imports of foreign good. Second, a generous flow of long-term loans and
grants was created, such as the Marshall Plan. Lastly, a liberal lending policy
was established for provision of shorter-term funds in time of crisis (86). These
three principles exemplified the upper hand that the United States had on
foreign states through these world monetary organizations. They were able to
establish long-term loans, which inevitably put other states into debt with the
World Bank, IMF, and ultimately the United States. The open market was also a
benefit solely for the United States as well because since the exchange rate
was more beneficial to the US dollar, more foreign goods could be purchased.
Thus making foreign imports less expensive for US consumers. Finally the
liberal lending policy for shorter-term funds in the times of crisis were
another way for the World Bank, IMF, and the United States to gain profit. As
it states in the article, the revenues from the world monetary organizations
where received from the interest given on loans. Therefore the IMF and World
Bank, under the Bretton Woods System, were reluctant to grant expensive loans
for the sole purpose that the state would owe much more in return. And the
United States benefitted from this principle because the currency value is
higher so they would not owe nearly as much interest with respect to the amount
taken.
There is mixed evidence on the US' role in the creation and destruction of its world monetary system. Are there no benefits to other states? If the US was not in place, would the world system be equally stable, economically? Would other hegemons arise, and if so, wouldn't it just shift to the benefit of the new hegemon?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the Bretton Woods system, even if not purposely set up this way, truly encouraged and led to US hegemony. This is likely why it was disbanded in the early 1970s as other nations took into account this international inequality. It is mostly the reasoning you use in this blog post that leads me to believe it would be impossible for this system to exist in the present day. It is difficult to argue that this system benefitted any states nearly as much as the US.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your position that the Bretton Woods system only benefits the United States. The system was not a result of the United States wanting to be in this monetary position, but rather came as a result of a poor economy in the world. The United States agreed to this not just to emerge as a great world power but also to help countries that were really struggling. For this reason it is not correct to say that the bretton woods system did not benefit the states that relied on us money to base their economy.
ReplyDelete