Comparing the Latin American and European Debt Crises

Thursday, February 26, 2015

The European debt crisis may conjure up memories of the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s. A recent article in The Regional Economist explored the similarities and differences between the two events.

Similarities

Economist Paulina Restrepo-Echavarria and Research Analyst Maria A. Arias, both with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, explained that both cases involved the respective regions experiencing rapidly growing output and saw capital inflows meant to finance investment instead finance consumption booms. And both cases also saw such growth come to an end due to external shocks.

In Latin America’s case, a hike in U.S. interest rates caused by an increase in oil prices triggered two issues that negatively impacted the region:

  • Most Latin American countries were oil importers, so rising oil prices had a direct negative impact.
  • This increase ushered in what is known as the Volcker era, in which then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker raised interest rates sharply to control U.S. inflation. Latin American countries borrowed heavily from the U.S., so the interest rate increases made borrowing much more expensive.

Restrepo-Echavarria and Arias noted that these countries, rather than adjusting their borrowing and spending, saw debt increase from 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on average in 1979 to nearly 50 percent for larger countries in 1982. The authors wrote, “This situation became unsustainable and ended up with Mexico’s default in 1982, followed soon by the default of other countries in the region.”

In peripheral Europe (meaning Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland in this case), the external shock was the Great Recession. Debt had risen from 90 percent of GDP on average in 2000 to around 200 percent in 2009. When the Great Recession occurred, capital flows reversed, and many of these countries defaulted.

Differences

The type of external shock wasn’t the only difference between the two situations. Restrepo-Echavarria and Arias noted that the composition of the debt, the interest rates the regions were facing and the relationships among the countries were also different.

Regarding debt, the types of debt were different for the two regions. Public debt drove the increase in total debt in Latin America, while private debt drove the increase in Europe.

The areas also had very different experiences with interest rates. During Latin America’s expansion, the area enjoyed low real interest rates, then experienced a sharp rise. In contrast, real interest rates in Europe were around 6 percent in 1998 and rose over the next few years before trending down throughout the 2000s and falling sharply during and after the Great Recession.

Results

In Latin America, the debt crisis resulted in a lost decade of anemic growth. Restrepo-Echavarria and Arias noted, “Currency devaluation, an emphasis on trade expansion and eventually debt restructuring through what was known as the Brady Plan helped the countries in the region regain strength and return to economic growth.”

Regarding the European countries, austerity measures and debt restructuring have been part of the response. Restrepo-Echavarria and Arias wrote that deeper integration by the European Union has moved to integrate even further by creating joint supervisory authorities and a closer fiscal union: “Ultimately, more unified coordination and governance could strengthen the fiscal union and lead to greater economic stability.”

Additional Resources

Posted In OutputTrade  |  Tagged paulina restrepo-echavarriamaria ariaseuropeeuropean debt crisislatin america
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.


Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email mediainquiries@stls.frb.org. For all other blog-related questions or comments, email on-the-economy@stls.frb.org.

Categories