Analyzing International Developmental Loan Markets with Rival Lenders

  • Motoshi SuzukiEmail author
  • Keisuke Iida
  • Shohei Doi
Part of the The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific book series (PEAP)


Despite the deepening of interdependence, international institutions are becoming increasingly fragmentary and unable to coordinate states’ policy choices. Such a coordination failure is serious in the realm of developmental finance, where major states vie against one another in extending loan contracts to developing states through separate institutions. Competitive lending is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it may satisfy strong credit demands for infrastructure improvement in the developing world, while, on the other, it may also generate excessive lending and borrowing, increasing the risks of repayment difficulty and even sovereign debt default. Using a model of common agency, we analyze (1) how two lenders issue loan contracts with a single borrower to induce the foreign policy behaviors they prefer and (2) how the borrower determines its foreign policy to maximize loans. The analysis hypothesizes that, when the borrower assumes foreign policy neutralism, the lenders issue greater loan contracts than what they believe are optimal and that this excess persists as long as the lenders refuse to delegate the lending tasks to a common international financial institution that can sort out their varying preferences and provide common-agency control. We test this hypothesis against quantitative data pertaining to Cold War experiences and provide qualitative evidence on American and Soviet foreign economic policies. Our analytical results have implications for historical and contemporary Asian political economy.


International Finance International development Banking Common agency Asia 


  1. Alesina, A., & Dollar, D. (2000). Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2009, August 31). Infrastructure for a seamless Asia. ADB report.Google Scholar
  3. Bader, J. (2016). How Xi jinping see the world…and why? Asia working group paper (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  4. Bernheim, D., & Whinston, M. (1986). Common agency. Econometrica, 54(4), 923–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bizer, D., & DeMarzo, P. (1992). Sequential banking. Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boden, R. (2008). Cold war economics: Soviet aid to Indonesia. Journal of Cold War Studies, 10(3), 110–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, policies, and growth. American Economic Review, 90(4), 847–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buszynski, L. (1986). Soviet foreign policy and Southeast Asia. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  9. Carbonnier, G., & Voicu, S. (2014). The drivers of foreign aid allocation during the cold war, energy crises and the global war on terror. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Dietrich, S. (2013). Bypass or engage? explaining donor delivery tactics in foreign aid allocation. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 698–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixit, A., Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1997). Common agency and coordination: General theory and application to government policy making. Journal of Political Economy, 105(4), 753–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drezner, D. W. (2007). All politics is global: Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eichenauer, V. Z., & Reinsberg, B. (2016). What determines earmarked funding to international development organizations?: Evidence from the new multi-bi aid data. CIS working paper 88. Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS), University of Zurich.Google Scholar
  14. Finnemore, M. (2003). The purpose of intervention. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Giplin, R. (1983). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grimes, W. (2008). Currency and contest in East Asia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hawkins, D., et al. (2006). Delegation and agency in international organizations. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huber, J., & Shipan, C. (2008). Politics, delegation, and bureaucracy. In B. R. Weingast & D. Wittman (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political economy (pp. 256–272). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Katzenstein, P. (2005). A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kindleberger, C. (1981). Dominance and leadership in the international economy. International Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knack, S. (2014). Building or bypassing recipient country systems: Are donors defying the Paris declaration? Journal of Development Studies, 50(6), 839–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krasner, S. (1976). State power and the structure of international trade. World Politics, 28(3), 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krasner, S. (1991). Global communications and national power: Life on the Pareto frontier. World Politics, 43(3), 336–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laffont, J.-J., & Martimont, D. (2002). The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Milner, H. V., & Mansfield, E. D. (Eds.). (1997). The political economy of regionalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mitchell, T. (2016, April 19). China’s AIIB seeks to pave new silk road with first projects. Financial Times.Google Scholar
  28. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Peselj, B. (1964). Communist economic offensive: Soviet foreign aid—means and effects. Law and Contemporary Problems, 29(1), 983–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinhart, C. M. (2010). This time is different chartbook: Country histories on debt, default, and financial crises. Working paper 15815, National Bureau of Economic Research Last accessed on 1 March 2016.
  32. Reinhart, C., & Rogoff, K. (2009). This time is different: Eight centuries of financial folly. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Singam, A. W., & Hune, S. (1986). Non-alignment in an age of alignments. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  35. Stojanovic, R. (1981). The emergence of the non-aligned movement: A view from Belgrade. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 13(3), 443–450.Google Scholar
  36. Strydom, H. (2008). Non-aligned movement and the reform of international relations. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online, 11, 1–46.Google Scholar
  37. Webster, D. (2009). Regimes in motion: The Kennedy administration and Indonesia’s new frontier, 1960–1962. Diplomatic History, 33(1), 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of LawKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations