This chapter presents a fleeting history of key changes in global trade and finance in the post-war period, organised around the themes of crisis and cooperation. The first section of the chapter discusses the key themes. The second section considers the emergence of the post-World War II Bretton Woods regime. The third section outlines the rise of private capital in the 1970s through to the debt crisis of the 1980s. The fourth section considers discussions of global financial architecture in the 1990s to the 2000s. The fifth section discusses changes in the last fifteen years, focusing on how the trade regime has stalled and the financial regime has been partially rolled back. Finally, the concluding section reflects on the ever-present need to foster cooperation in the global financial and trade architecture.

This chapter argues that it is important to get the numbers right, to know the sources of information on international trade- and financial flows and multinational activity, And to familiarise yourself with the basics of accounting identities as this may lead you to avoid common pitfalls. We discuss the relationships between the current account and the capital and financial account of the balance of payments, as well as the information this provides on multinational activity. We review the funding options for multinational activity and provide information on the developments of the main financial flows in the world. We conclude that there is a pattern in the development of international capital mobility, which was already high at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, then declined substantially in the interbellum to rise again from approximately 1980 onwards.

In the absence of an international framework applicable to cross-border capital flows, there is little doubt that the Fund had to assert its authority over capital movements. Without the Fund, a legal lacuna would exist and financial movements would go largely unregulated. Yet, it is less certain whether the Fund ever had the formal legal authority to empower itself to act as a de facto financial authority. A strict reading of the Articles of Agreement suggests that the Fund historically had no mandate over capital movements. Yet, several decades ago the Fund began slowly but steadily appropriating and assuming authority over capital movements. This chapter explores the legal instruments used by the Fund to organise the shift and expansion of its mandate. The chapter makes two major points. First, while the Fund grounded its mandate expansion on the text and wording of the Articles of Agreement, it relied on an Article IV byroad to interpret its constitutive instrument to escape the historical distinction between capital movements and current international transactions. Second, the Fund’s Institutional View of 2012 was not a radical break from tradition but merely a formalization and crystallisation of the ideas and direction it has pursued since 2008.