IMF - an instrument of dollar hegemony

.

---

The writer is a retired professional based in Karachi

---

The financial architecture of the modern world was not built upon any inevitable economic truth, but upon an astute geopolitical calculation. As the world struggled to emerge from the twin devastations of the Great Depression and the Second World War, delegates from forty-four nations gathered at Bretton Woods in 1944 to devise a framework that would prevent the recurrence of global financial disorder. What emerged, however, was not an impartial system of economic cooperation, but a settlement shaped decisively by American power and designed to institutionalise the economic predominance of the United States. Yet the path not taken - the International Clearing Union proposed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes - remains perhaps the greatest "what if" in the history of modern macroeconomics.

Keynes arrived at Bretton Woods with a proposal of remarkable foresight and uncommon fairness: the creation of a genuinely neutral international currency called the Bancor. Unlike national currencies, the Bancor would have existed solely as an international unit of account, detached from the political compulsions of any one state. More importantly, Keynes's model sought to address the fundamental flaw of international trade - the chronic imbalance between surplus and deficit nations.

At the heart of Keynes's proposal lay the principle of symmetry. He recognised that countries running persistent trade surpluses could be as destabilising to the global economy as countries trapped in perpetual deficits. Under his proposed International Clearing Union, surplus nations accumulating excessive Bancor credits would face penalties on hoarded reserves, thereby compelling them either to increase imports from struggling economies or to revalue their currencies. Such a mechanism would have ensured that liquidity circulated continuously through the international system rather than remaining concentrated in a handful of wealthy states.

For the developing world, this would have been transformative. Instead of perpetually scrambling for scarce foreign exchange, poorer economies would have enjoyed an automatic mechanism of rebalancing that prevented prolonged external strangulation. The burden of adjustment would not have fallen exclusively upon weak economies; affluent surplus nations, too, would have been obliged to shoulder responsibility for restoring equilibrium. In effect, Keynes's model would have protected developing countries from the recurring cycles of indebtedness, austerity and external vulnerability that have since become an enduring feature of the global economic order.

In sharp contrast stood the American representative, Harry Dexter White, who spoke for a nation possessing the bulk of the world's gold reserves and emerging from war as the unrivalled economic power. Unsurprisingly, the United States had little interest in any arrangement that penalised surplus accumulation. White's objective was clear: to place the US dollar at the centre of the international monetary order. Under the Bretton Woods settlement, the dollar was pegged to gold, while other currencies were anchored to the dollar, thereby establishing an architecture in which global reserves became increasingly dependent upon an American national currency rather than a neutral international mechanism.

The consequences of that choice have echoed across decades. Under the dollar-centred order, global liquidity depends disproportionately upon American deficits and the monetary decisions of the US Federal Reserve. For much of the developing world, especially South Asia, this arrangement has fostered a debilitating dependency. The contemporary economic travails of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka owe much to this structural flaw of 1944. These nations repeatedly confront balance of payments crises not merely because of domestic inefficiencies or weak productivity, but because of a chronic shortage of dollars. When external accounts falter, governments are compelled to approach the IMF, which frequently prescribes dollar-denominated adjustments through austerity, devaluation and fiscal compression - the very forms of distress Keynes sought to avert.

History has largely vindicated Keynes. The present order remains, in many respects, a creditor's paradise and a debtor's purgatory. Under the prevailing framework, the burden of adjustment falls overwhelmingly upon deficit countries, while surplus nations accumulate reserves with comparatively little obligation to correct imbalances. Keynes's Bancor, by contrast, sought to preserve international trade as a genuinely reciprocal enterprise in which both creditors and debtors shared responsibility for stability.

Whether Keynes's ambitious vision would have survived the geopolitical realities of the post-war world may remain open to debate. Yet one conclusion appears difficult to escape: had the Bancor prevailed, the developing world might well have been spared decades of economic throttling and perpetual dependence upon a currency it neither controls nor issues. Instead, much of the Global South continues to pursue dollars with exhausting persistence, sacrificing domestic stability at the altar of an eighty-year-old geopolitical settlement.