The Latin American debt crisis and United States hegemony

This dissertation examines the United States' attempts to manage the international debt crisis in Latin America during the 1980s. As Miles Kahler (1985) suggests, the theory of hegemonic stability cannot readily explain U.S. state activism in establishing a new debt regime with the onset of crisis in 1982, "after hegemony." Nor would it predict the successful U.S. response to Brazil's 1987 payments moratorium, or even the modest success of Secretary Brady's initiative. Several realists now question whether the United States has lost hegemony. Gramscian Marxists also dispute the loss of what they define as a hegemonic global order created by the United States and supported by the ideological dominance of an increasingly transnational capitalism. But neither Marxists nor realists specify the dynamics of U.S. hegemonic power adequately to explain policy success and failure in the international debt crisis in terms of the United States government's exercise of hegemonic power.; In addition to its relative predominance among states, United States hegemony entails structural advantages, such as power within key international institutions like the IMF, and influence over large U.S.-regulated transnational commercial banks. But the exercise of U.S. hegemonic power is made complex by the distinct interests and power of these transnational actors. I explore the dynamics of U.S. hegemonic power, the interaction of state, capital, and international institutions, in case studies of United States policy regarding the 1982 Mexican crisis, the 1985 Baker plan, the 1987 Brazilian payments moratorium and the 1989 Brady initiative.; I found United States policy succeeded when it coincided with the interests of transnational banks or utilized international institutions. Although the United States has largely determined international debt strategies, dominance of the executive branch, which advocated voluntary approaches over more comprehensive solutions favored by the Congress, limited the scope of policy initiatives. The U.S. state remains relatively powerful. It also retains tremendous influence within the IMF, World Bank and Inter- American Development Bank. But state structure and the independence of transnational capital have limited the exercise of United States hegemonic power.