Keynes on Foreign Debt and the External Constraint: Lessons for the Current Debate

Keynes’ views on domestic public debt changed substantially over his lifetime, moving from conventional concerns with sound finance toward a position close to functional finance. His views on foreign debt, however, were remarkably consistent. Drawing on his experience with wartime finance, German reparations, Lend-Lease, and the 1945 Anglo-American loan, Keynes understood external obligations as claims on future real resources whose sustainability depended on access to foreign exchange. The paper uses this distinction to intervene in current debates on public debt and monetary sovereignty. It argues that conventional analyses wrongly treat domestic currency debt as if it were foreign debt, while Modern Money Theory tends to make the opposite mistake by extending monetary sovereignty too far. A state may create its own currency, but it cannot thereby command foreign resources or create the international means of payment required to obtain them.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Review of Political Economy
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2026.2737842
Primary Topic
Economic Theory and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Keynes on Foreign Debt and the External Constraint: Lessons for the Current Debate

Matías Vernengo
1 links
Review of Political Economy
Economic Theory and Policy
article

Keynes on Foreign Debt and the External Constraint: Lessons for the Current Debate

Matías Vernengo
article en

Abstract

Keynes’ views on domestic public debt changed substantially over his lifetime, moving from conventional concerns with sound finance toward a position close to functional finance. His views on foreign debt, however, were remarkably consistent. Drawing on his experience with wartime finance, German reparations, Lend-Lease, and the 1945 Anglo-American loan, Keynes understood external obligations as claims on future real resources whose sustainability depended on access to foreign exchange. The paper uses this distinction to intervene in current debates on public debt and monetary sovereignty. It argues that conventional analyses wrongly treat domestic currency debt as if it were foreign debt, while Modern Money Theory tends to make the opposite mistake by extending monetary sovereignty too far. A state may create its own currency, but it cannot thereby command foreign resources or create the international means of payment required to obtain them.

Review of Political Economy
Bucknell University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Economic Theory and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon