{"title":"拉丁美洲持续违约的解释:1822-1914年伦敦债务人与债权人关系分析","authors":"Juan Huitzilihuitl Flores Zendejas","doi":"10.1017/S0968565020000190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the reasons why most Latin American governments frequently defaulted on their debts during the nineteenth century. Contrary to previous works, which focused on domestic factors, I argue that supply-side factors were equally important. The regulatory framework at the London Stock Exchange prevented defaulting governments from having access to the capital market. Therefore, the implicit incentive for underwriting banks and governments was to accelerate negotiations with bondholders, particularly during periods of high liquidity. Frequently, however, settlements were short-lived. In contrast, certain merchant banks opted to delay or refuse a settlement if they judged that the risk of a renewed default was too high. In such cases, even if negotiations were extended, the final agreements were more often respected, allowing governments to improve their repayment record.","PeriodicalId":44063,"journal":{"name":"Financial History Review","volume":"27 1","pages":"319 - 339"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0968565020000190","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining Latin America's persistent defaults: an analysis of the debtor–creditor relations in London, 1822–1914\",\"authors\":\"Juan Huitzilihuitl Flores Zendejas\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0968565020000190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyses the reasons why most Latin American governments frequently defaulted on their debts during the nineteenth century. Contrary to previous works, which focused on domestic factors, I argue that supply-side factors were equally important. The regulatory framework at the London Stock Exchange prevented defaulting governments from having access to the capital market. Therefore, the implicit incentive for underwriting banks and governments was to accelerate negotiations with bondholders, particularly during periods of high liquidity. Frequently, however, settlements were short-lived. In contrast, certain merchant banks opted to delay or refuse a settlement if they judged that the risk of a renewed default was too high. In such cases, even if negotiations were extended, the final agreements were more often respected, allowing governments to improve their repayment record.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial History Review\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"319 - 339\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0968565020000190\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0968565020000190\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0968565020000190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Explaining Latin America's persistent defaults: an analysis of the debtor–creditor relations in London, 1822–1914
This article analyses the reasons why most Latin American governments frequently defaulted on their debts during the nineteenth century. Contrary to previous works, which focused on domestic factors, I argue that supply-side factors were equally important. The regulatory framework at the London Stock Exchange prevented defaulting governments from having access to the capital market. Therefore, the implicit incentive for underwriting banks and governments was to accelerate negotiations with bondholders, particularly during periods of high liquidity. Frequently, however, settlements were short-lived. In contrast, certain merchant banks opted to delay or refuse a settlement if they judged that the risk of a renewed default was too high. In such cases, even if negotiations were extended, the final agreements were more often respected, allowing governments to improve their repayment record.
期刊介绍:
Financial History Review is the international forum for all scholars with interests in the development of banking, finance, and monetary matters. Its editors deliberately seek to embrace the broadest approach to publishing research findings within this growing historical specialism. Articles address all aspects of financial and monetary history, including technical and theoretical approaches, those derived from cultural and social perspectives and the interrelations between politics and finance. These presentations of current research are complemented by somewhat shorter pieces, specifically conceived as aids to research. Each issue contains a substantial review section, and every complete volume contains an annual bibliography.