would default. The Asian crisis showed that overlending and overborrowing could occur with
private borrowers as well, especially if rising stock and land prices show high returns until the
bubble bursts. The second explanation is exogenous shocks—for instance, a decline in export
prices or a rise in foreign (often U.S.) interest rates—that make it more difficult for the borrower
to service its debt. The third is exchange rate risk. This can be acute if private borrowers use
liabilities denominated in foreign currency to fund assets denominated in local currency, betting
that the exchange rate value of the local currency will not decline (too much). If it does,
borrowers attempt to hedge their risk exposure, putting further downward pressure on the
exchange-rate value of the local currency, and then they may be forced to default if the local
currency is depreciated or devalued more, before they can fully hedge their risk exposures. The
fourth explanation is a large increase in short-term debt to foreigners. The risk is that short-term
debt denominated in foreign currency cannot readily be rolled over or refinanced.
The first four explanations indicate why a financial crisis can hit a country. The fifth explanation
—contagion—indicates why a crisis in one country can spread to others. Contagion can be
herding behavior by investors, perhaps fed partly by incomplete information on other countries
that might have problems similar to those of the crisis country. Contagion can also be based on a
new recognition of real problems in other countries, with the crisis in the first country serving as
a “wake-up call.”
When a financial crisis hits a developing country, two major types of international efforts are
used to help resolve it. First, a rescue package, often led by an IMF lending facility, can be used
to compensate temporarily for the lack of private lending, to try to restore lender confidence, to
try to limit contagion, and to induce the government of the borrowing country to improve its
macroeconomic and other policies. While the Mexican rescue in 1994 was very successful in
helping Mexico weather the crisis, the rescue packages for the Asian crisis countries were only
moderately successful. A key question is whether the rescue packages increase moral hazard, so
that future financial crises become more likely because lenders lend more freely if they expect to
be rescued. The Mexican rescue probably increased moral hazard, with mixed effects from the
Asian rescues. The lack of a rescue for Russia reduced moral hazard as lenders lost substantial
amounts with no rescue package implemented. (The box “Short of Reserves? Call
1-800-IMF-LOAN,” another in the series on Global Governance, describes the IMF’s lending
activities and its use of conditionality.)
Second, debt restructuring (rescheduling and reduction) is used to create a more manageable
stream of payments for debt service. Restructuring can be difficult because an individual lender
has an incentive to free ride, hoping that other creditors will restructure while demanding full
repayment as quickly as possible for its own loans. The Brady Plan overcame the free rider
problems to resolve the debt crisis of the 1980s. During the debt crises of the 1990s, it was
relatively easy to restructure debt owed to foreign banks. A new problem was the great difficulty
of restructuring bonds, because the legal terms of most bonds gave powers to small numbers of
bondholders to resist restructuring. The shift to bonds that include collective action clauses
should reduce this problem.
We now are paying more attention to finding ways to reduce the likelihood or frequency of
financial crises in developing countries. Some proposals for improved practices in borrowing