| dc.description.abstract | Unlike the train of events in previous crises, when the negotiations
between the parties -creditors and debtors, investors and host countries-
were played out within some kind of institutional framework, the crisis of
2001 portrayed Argentina as a country abandoned to its fate, not just
once, but twice. But although investors had initially been able to alter the
rules in their favour to secure better protection and enhanced legal
certainty, ultimately they came out of the situation worse off. The Argentine
experience suggests that, as the influence of the international financial
institutions declines, asymmetric solutions cannot last and, at the end of
the day, democratic governments will put their electorate before their
investors. But is the Argentine case an exception to the rule or does it
reflect a more general weakening of foreign investment protection? | |
