Est-ce que les sanctions économiques fonctionnent ?

Jan 2, 2015 Kenneth Rogoff

CAMBRIDGE – A l'heure où les sanctions économiques occidentales contre la Russie, l'Iran et Cuba font les gros titres, c'est apparemment le bon moment pour faire le point sur la question de savoir à quel point ces mesures fonctionnent. La réponse courte est que les sanctions économiques n'ont en général que des effets modestes, même si elles peuvent être un moyen essentiel de faire preuve de détermination morale. Si les sanctions économiques doivent jouer un rôle de plus en plus important dans le leadership politique du XXIème siècle, il pourrait être utile de réfléchir sur leur fonctionnement passé.

Comme le font remarquer Gary Hufbauer et Jeffrey Schott dans leur ouvrage de référence sur le sujet, l'histoire des sanctions économiques remonte au moins à 432 av. J.-C., quand l'homme d'État et général grec Périclès a promulgué le « décret de Mégare » en réponse à l'enlèvement de trois femmes d'Aspasie. Dans les temps modernes, les États-Unis ont employé des sanctions économiques dans la poursuite d'objectifs divers, allant des efforts de l'administration Carter dans les années 1970 pour promouvoir les droits de l'homme, jusqu'aux tentatives pour empêcher la prolifération nucléaire dans les années 1980.

Pendant la Guerre froide, les États-Unis ont également employé des sanctions économiques pour déstabiliser des gouvernements hostiles en particulier en Amérique latine, bien qu'ils ne semblent pas avoir joué plus qu'un rôle mineur, même quand le changement de régime a finalement eu lieu. Les sanctions économiques contre la Serbie dans les années 1990 n'ont pas dissuadé l'invasion de la Bosnie. Certes le châtiment symbolique du gouvernement américain contre la légende du jeu d'échecs Bobby Fischer (pour avoir disputé une partie à Belgrade en dépit des sanctions) n'a fourni aucune trêve à la ville assiégée de Sarajevo.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one to read two commentaries for free? Log in

Kenneth Rogoff

Writing for PS since 2002
187 Commentaries

Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, was the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003. He is co-author of This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly and author of The Curse of Cash.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 18 in all 18 Comments on this article

Gerald Yu Jan 15, 2015

I am opposed to sanctions, especially when it is imposed by the economically most advanced nations on poor nations, especially when they know the result will be economic hardship on the general population, and even more so when they know that the horrific hyperinflation is likely to be triggered. Hyperinflations are inhumane and had in the past triggered wars. Those who inflict hyperinflation on others are cruel and merciless.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kandaswami SUBRAMANIAN Jan 12, 2015

Prof. Rogoff has done well to explain the futility of economic sanctions. But, US Senators will not be amused. For years, the US authorities have engaged in sanctions against smaller and weaker governments who, in their view, do not comply with set standards of human rights, engage in terrorism and the whole lot. The sanctions against Libya destroyed that country even as the US made sure that oil flows were not interrupted. The Iranian sanctions have divided the whole world, especially with the adoption of later day weapon of unilaterally banning bank transactions using the hegemonic position of U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. These had created rifts within the US-EU relations. The sanctions seemed to work in the short run, especially with small economies who have negligible role in the global economy. When attempted against Russia, economic sanctions boomerang against the US itself. Europe's energy supplies are in threat and some countries, .e.g. Germany, are no whollyt on board. Worse still, it has driven Russia closer to China and a new Eastern alliance is looming in the horizon. It took years for Nixon and Kissinger to take China from the Russian bear's grip. The recent strategy of economic sanctions has undone it in a short time. Sadly, the longer term price (for the US) is going to be incalculable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nick Anguelov Jan 7, 2015

Indeed much is said about sanctions these days. Whang (2010) examines data on sanctions, mostly championed by the United States, imposed between 1903 and 2002 in a multitude of nations, and finds that the overall success rate has been very low. The main reason is, as de Jonge Oudraat (2010) succinctly puts it, sanctions do not cause change in the political behavior of the governments in target nations. For such a change in political behavior to occur, the ruling regimes must feel challenged by local political decent against the policies that have resulted in the sanctions. A clear opposition must develop and that opposition must gain critical mass in popularity. However, because sanctions disproportionately mobilize the political power of the ruling regime, that scenario almost always fails to come to fruition. Furthermore, because of geopolitical dynamics today where Western sanctions provide rent extracting platforms for Eastern economic and political rivals, sanctions can create incentives for repressive governments to remain repressive, if "black knight" nations (countries willing to evade sanctions) offer significant economic alternatives. Because in repressive nations economic and political elites are comprised of the same individuals, when significant black knight support is present, the economic power of the political elites grows, and with it the incentives to remain repressive. Economic sanctions in Cuba (until two weeks ago), Myanmar (still to some extend), North Korea, Syria, and even Russia are skillfully evaded by the helpful (mostly) Chinese economic support for local business and trade. In a world where the historic Western economic dominance is challenged, Western sanction effect can be lowered.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Lam Jan 6, 2015

Gamesmith94134: Do economic sanctions Work?
“The short answer is that economic sanctions usually have only modest effects, even if they can be an essential means of demonstrating moral resolve.”

I must agree with hari naidu’s comment in a self-fulfilling dichotomy and his concept on missing international law under UNSC; and the questionable survival of Russia after the rubles fell 42% and Russia will face recession in 2015. Mr. Kenneth Rogoff gave the historical example that is not relevant to the present mercantile in territorial setting even for Bosnia; because many did not serve a legitimate purpose in the outcome like Apartheid in South Africa in administration of the UNSC sanction. Perhaps, many may cheer on the its relief that rubles downed to 80 and up to 52 to a dollar; it is bad for Russia and assumes its projector in the falling of the evil empire; on the other hand, the price falling on oil glut also cause slump in the South American Nations. However, I am not pleasing with the exposure of the sovereignty reserves dollar that was under the construction of QE and the amount believed to be about 200 trillion in circulation for its capital equity; and rubles bounced back with no dollar. It really gives a fresh sense of “beggar thy neighbor” and the current throw weight status of dollar in 60% depreciate all currencies and PMI in China is not at the bar, so is US industries and real estate equity accounts. It is getting more complicated with oil glut in balance with the demonstrating moral resolves and it is also unprecedented.

However, it opened the doors to the have and have not dollars in the international reserve that the displacement of Russia in the G8 would certainly defied the monopoly of nominated currency that dollar rise and other did not. It also means the self fulfilling dichotomy exists as the lesser dollar value to balance the equity of dollar in term of the international currency reserve; since rubles could have been exited the arena or reinstated unity of the Eastern Block, or even to the opening of the Renminbi of China in its exchange. It certainly gives a bad omen in other sovereignty currencies; that “beggar thy neighbor” is not just a threat. It is an imminent danger if there is no alternative; even though if IMF would reluctant to restructure its current exchange system after China would have surpassed US in capacity through its economical growth. I could sense the coming year on the BRICS would put its best foot forward in pushing on its substitute for dollar like renminbi; that globalization of trade may shift on its dichotomy and institutionalized dollar reserves may have to compete on its fiduciary duty on values of other currencies.

Inasmuch of US’s unilateral sanction with “do something” may entertaining its audience; for which I bet many can’t even find Crimea or Ukraine in the map; and it is a bad propaganda for American politics. It is because it destroyed the credulity of US dollar as well that its investments in Russia and elsewhere. It is not polemic for which Mr. Putin would seal of trades in dealing with the Eastern Block restructuring; it also raised the legitimate question on the dominated currency reserve status in dollar.

I personally opposed the sanction. It is just not trade; but it is liquidity entrapment that hurts both sides. At last, I am greatly irritated on the exposure of the $200 trillion that may not find its home; and DJ was off 335, 1.8% yesterday, at its worst, The FED may hold its interest rate indefinitely till after all equities depreciated. Run….Run….Run dollar, the strongest of all.

May the Buddha bless you?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george sos Jan 5, 2015

And the last paragraph is exactly the essence.
USA wants war.Wants to create employment,wants the big vultures of the weapons industry to gain more profits and wants these profits to come out of the pockets of everyone else except america.
The rich poor divide again.
Only hope,that the poor will wake up ,and stop helping the few controling our world.let us hope the poor will rise up and redistibute wealth all over the world equally so that e can put an end to wats and religions all in one stroke!
because who prays if they have food to eat and they feel safe?
Religions are like the banks.They are exploiting your weaknesses.
and not for your own benefit of course.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george sos Jan 5, 2015

most of these russian hackers are now working for US corporations!:)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Maxim Bouev Jan 5, 2015

Dear Professor Rogoff, I bet you would not find any information/data that gives any substance to your claim that much of the top IT talent in Russia "currently is employed in mafia rings". This is because that claim is utter nonsense and based on unverified rumors not facts. I would rather say that much of the top talent has emigrated out of the country, but that opinion might also be questionable. Being an IT professional/coder by first education myself I would also highly doubt the existence of any "mafia rings" interested in hiring top IT talent. All in all, to me your statement sounds as weak and largely based on gossip.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jan 5, 2015

It would be helpful to have a definition of what "work" means here.

I have no idea if economic sanctions produce a given set of desired outcomes in a given situation. I suspect that it depends quite a lot on that set of outcomes For all of that though, I'm pretty certain that the way to train your dog is with timely treats and rewards for good behavior, rather than regular beatings and long-term starvation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Roger Houghton Jan 4, 2015

The difficulty with sanctions is the simple commercial one – if a sanctioned country is willing to pay more for essential imports, trade will always find a way of supply.
America declares sanctions because she has a huge navy she can place off the commercial ports of the sanctioned country and stop and search all shipping. It does not require UN or any other party's approval. Trade by land or air is more uncertain and becomes the preferred route of the smugglers although its more expensive.
As a general rule I believe sanctions always fail although I acknowledge a previous post above asserting they were effective against the Nationalist Party government of South Africa in 1980s but that was a special case imo – RSA had immense mineral wealth we imperatively needed and they had developed nuclear capability we insisted on controlling.
Preventing trade tends to all sorts of dirty business. Is the Napoleonic War too old for economic consideration? The peculiar trading events in the West Indies and Caribbean (The Rule of 1756) have still not been published by historians but made huge fortunes for British admirals and American traders. In the European theatre trade collapsed entirely into smuggling with the British government closing the coast of Europe by Orders-in-Council and the Royal Navy standing-off every port arresting and making prize of the ships and cargoes of American, Danish and Swedish ships whilst allowing British merchants through with British cargo under fake Customs documentation with counterfeit signatures. That's the risk when sanctions come into play.
I think sanctions will unlikely have any effective role to play in the world. If we decide we don't like another country, we can cease trading with it. Its an individual decision for each country to make until the cause of dispute is ended.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anonymous Jim Jan 4, 2015

Great article. Is there a difference in unilateral versus multilateral sanctions? Under what conditions can economic sanctions be effectively administered?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Json Gnu Jan 4, 2015

Great article. Are multi lateral sanctions better than unilateral? And are there any conditions in which sanctions can be effectively administered?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack Nespor Jan 4, 2015

Great article. Is there any difference between unilateral versus multilateral economic sanctions? Are there any conditions in which economic are administered properly.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jaime Manzano Jan 4, 2015

J' accuse! Rogoff is delighting in cherry picking. Well, somewhat. Sometimes sanctions work too well. Cutting off Japan from oil and scrap iron grabbed that nation's attention. The mistake was it triggered the national hubris of Japan's leadership. What I suspect is needed is better enforcement of sanctions. I mean, Cuban cigars, nickel, and tourism go on largely uninterrupted. Just U.S. citizens are prohibited, somewhat, from partaking, except indirectly.

I suggest that better enforcement of sanctions are necessary if they are to be an effective tool in international relations. If, say the U.S. had policy tools to titter sanctions, increasing them, or considering the extension of them to nations disregarding the bans, the intended economic pressure could work, and even increase, rather than be an economic opportunity for economic bootleggers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Burns Jan 4, 2015

As far as I know, every war ever fought has been brought about by Economics and I don't see that changing at all. Economic sanctions put in place, by the short sighted, like the United States has against Russia; will lead to no good whatsoever.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu Jan 4, 2015

When the rich kid is not getting his way, he takes the ball home so no one can play. Will he ever grow up?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vanishing Leprechaun Jan 3, 2015

"But sometimes sanctions do work. The strong international consensus to impose sanctions on South Africa in the 1980s eventually helped bring an end to apartheid."
Sanctions pushed South Africa to establish (by means of its money) the Angola civil War, as a retaliation to the sanctions. Have a glance to the costs in human terms of this war.
Civil war which suddenly ended when the South Africa Regime was overthrow.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ellie Kesselman Jan 3, 2015

Economists never like sanctions. As for international trade, there is an odd blind spot regarding mutuality. We don't seem to require our trading partners to welcome US goods with the same warmth that I would expect from reciprocity.

What does the US gain by dropping trade sanctions on Cuba? I don't see anything in it for us, nor do I understand what our role should even be regarding the Castro regime, now that the Monroe Doctrine is no more (or so I've heard). Maybe the end of trade sanctions on Cuba were a bargaining chip, in order to keep Guantanamo Bay?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Jan 2, 2015

Your concluding para is a contradiction in terms. Under international law, US sanctions, for example, against Iran are not recognized by EU Courts. Principally because they are not sanctioned by UNSC.

Similarly to confuse UNSC sanctions against South African apartheid policy with US unilateral sanctions against Cuba (Castro regime) is intellectually foolhardy; because sanctions have seldom, if ever, worked as declared without the force of international law under UNSC.

Trade economists will tell you that (unilateral) sanctions are not only trade distorting but ultimately, as Obama as now recognized re-Cuba - after more than five decades - a self-fulfilling dichotomy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/bsOOQYXfr;

Cookies and Privacy

Est-ce que les sanctions économiques fonctionnent ?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Arab World Needs a Brexit Debate

Presidents versus the Press

Restoring Central Banks’ Credibility

Don’t Let Tariffs Break the Internet

Why Countries Should Tax Global Income

The Day After NATO

What’s Behind the Crisis of Democracy?

Macron’s NATO Mistake

Log in/Register