U.S. International Monetary Policy for the IMF

Part of the Studies in Economic History book series (SEH)


“Everywhere else in the world, though, politicians and businessmen insist that one of the biggest problems with the I.M.F. is that, contrary to the view of Congress, it acts as the United States Treasury’s lap dog. Ask in Jakarta or Moscow, and the response is the same: The fund never ventures far without looking back for the approving nod of its master” (Sanger 1998). These joint efforts by the U.S. government and the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter Fund or IMF) are predicated on the idea of Neoliberalism or the Washington Consensus that supports a free and open global market economy. On the other hand, international financial institutions such as the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) are considered to have taken a position between the market and nation states, and they have comprehensive visions for the world economy. Thus the U.S. could not completely control the Bretton Woods institutions, and the IMF retained considerable autonomy as an international institution.


Executive Director Fund Director Fund Resource Treasury Department Mutual Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bordo, Michael D., and Barry Eichengreen (eds.). 1993. A retrospective on the Bretton Woods system: Lessons for international monetary reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Casey, Kevin M. 2001. Saving international capitalism during the early Truman presidency: The National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. De Vries, Margaret, and J. Keith Horsefield. 1969. The International Monetary Fund, 1945–1965, vol. II. Washington: IMF.Google Scholar
  4. Eccles, Marriner S. Document Collection. Various years. University of Utah, J. Willard Marriott Library, Special Collections Department, Available from FRASER Website: http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/eccles/.
  5. Gardner, Richard N. 1969. Sterling-dollar diplomacy: The origins and the prospects of our international economic order. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Gorski, R.S. 1945. Summary report on Bretton Woods monetary conference. William McChesney Martin Jr. Collection, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRASER Website.Google Scholar
  7. Horie, Shigeo. 1964. The International Monetary Fund: Retrospect and prospect. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Horsefield, J. Keith. 1969. The International Monetary Fund, 1945–1965, vol. I. Washington: IMF.Google Scholar
  9. International Monetary Fund. 1946. Selected documents – Board of governors inaugural meeting, Savannah, Ga., March 8 to 18, 1946. Washington: IMF.Google Scholar
  10. International Monetary Fund. 1947–1952. Annual report of the executive directors for 1947–1952. Washington: IMF.Google Scholar
  11. International Monetary Fund (IMF). Various years. Central files, Washington, DC. Available from http://www.imf.org/external/np/arc/eng/archive.htm.
  12. Kamikawa, Takao. 2009. Sterling balance problem in war and postwar period. Economia 60(1) (in Japanese). Yokohama National UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Knai, Yuichi. 2010. The Anglo-American financial agreement and the crisis of sterling convertibility in 1947. Economic Science 57(4) (in Japanese). Nagoya UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Sanger, David E. 1998. A fund of trouble: A special report. New York Times, October.Google Scholar
  15. Southard Jr., Frank A. 1979. The evolution of the International Monetary Fund, Essays in international finance, vol. 135. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  16. Suto, Isao. 2008. Shaping of the post-war federal reserve policy: From the new deal to the accord. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  17. Triffin, Robert. 1966. The world money maze: National currencies in international payments. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. U. S. State Department. 1949. Foreign relations of the United States (FRUS), vol. IV. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
  19. U. S. NAC. 1948a, 1950a, 1952a. Special report of the National Advisory Council. In Federal Reserve Bulletin, July 1948, June 1950; In U.S. Treasury Department, Annual Report for 1952. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
  20. U. S. NAC. 1951b, 1952b. Report of activities, in: U.S. Treasury Department, Annual Report for 1951, 1952, Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
  21. U. S. NAC. Various years. National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), College Park, Maryland, RG56.Google Scholar
  22. Weiss, Martin A. 2013. International Monetary Fund: Background and issues for congress. U.S CRS Report, R42019.Google Scholar
  23. Williamson, John. 1990. What Washington means by policy reform. In Latin American adjustment: How much has happened? ed. J. Williamson. Washington, D.C: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Political Science and EconomicsMeiji UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations