How could the Roosevelt Corollary alter relations between the United States and other foreign countries?

journal article

Empire, Public Goods, and the Roosevelt Corollary

The Journal of Economic History

Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 2005)

, pp. 658-692 (35 pages)

Published By: Cambridge University Press

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3875013

Read and download

Log in through your school or library

Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.

Get Started

Already have an account? Log in

Monthly Plan

  • Access everything in the JPASS collection
  • Read the full-text of every article
  • Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
$19.50/month

Yearly Plan

  • Access everything in the JPASS collection
  • Read the full-text of every article
  • Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
$199/year

Purchase a PDF

Purchase this article for $34.00 USD.

How does it work?

  1. Select the purchase option.
  2. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal.
  3. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.

Abstract

In 1904 the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine proclaimed that the United States would intervene in the affairs of unstable Central American and Caribbean countries that did not pay their debts. We find that the average sovereign debt price for countries under the U.S. "sphere of influence" rose by 74 percent in response to the pronouncement and actions to make it credible. We use this policy change to show that the United States subsequently acted as a regional hegemon and provided the global public goods of increased financial stability and peace. Reduced conflict spurred export growth and better fiscal management, but debt settlements were driven primarily by gunboat diplomacy.

Journal Information

The Journal of Economic History is devoted to the multidisciplinary study of history and economics, and is of interest not only to economic historians but to social and demographic historians, as well as economists in general. The journal has broad coverage, in terms of both methodology and geographic scope. Topics covered include money and banking, trade, manufacturing, technology, transportation, industrial organisation, labour, agriculture, servitude, demography, education, economic growth, and the role of government and regulation. In addition, an extensive book review section keeps readers informed about the latest work in economic history and related fields. Instructions for Contributors at Cambridge Journals Online

Publisher Information

Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Economic History © 2005 Economic History Association
Request Permissions

How could the Roosevelt Corollary alter relations between the United States and other foreign countries?
In 1904 Theodore Roosevelt crafted a substantial amendment to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting the right of the United States to interfere in the economic affairs of small states of Central America and the Caribbean if they were unable to pay their foreign debts. Designed to block European powers’ attempts to collect international debts through direct military intervention, the policy, which became known as “Dollar Diplomacy” under President William Howard Taft, led the U.S. government to intervene in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

From President Theodore Roosevelt’s State of the Union Address to Congress, 1904:

[…]

It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt Amendment Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of interference by this Nation with their affairs would be at an end. Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical. They have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the primary laws of civilized society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere truism to say that every nation, whether in America or anywhere else, which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence can not be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it.

In asserting the Monroe Doctrine, in taking such steps as we have taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela, and Panama, and in endeavoring to circumscribe the theater of war in the Far East, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large. There are, however, cases in which, while our own interests are not greatly involved, strong appeal is made to our sympathies. Ordinarily it is very much wiser and more useful for us to concern ourselves with striving for our own moral and material betterment here at home than to concern ourselves with trying to better the condition of things in other nations. We have plenty of sins of our own to war against, and under ordinary circumstances we can do more for the general uplifting of humanity by striving with heart and soul to put a stop to civic corruption, to brutal lawlessness and violent race prejudices here at home than by passing resolutions and wrongdoing elsewhere. Nevertheless there are occasional crimes committed on so vast a scale and of such peculiar horror as to make us doubt whether it is not our manifest duty to endeavor at least to show our disapproval of the deed and our sympathy with those who have suffered by it. The cases must be extreme in which such a course is justifiable. There must be no effort made to remove the mote from our brother’s eye if we refuse to remove the beam from our own. But in extreme cases action may be justifiable and proper. What form the action shall take must depend upon the circumstances of the case; that is, upon the degree of the atrocity and upon our power to remedy it. The cases in which we could interfere by force of arms as we interfered to put a stop to intolerable conditions in Cuba are necessarily very few. Yet it is not to be expected that a people like ours, which in spite of certain very obvious shortcomings, nevertheless as a whole shows by its consistent practice its belief in the principles of civil and religious liberty and of orderly freedom, a people among whom even the worst crime, like the crime of lynching, is never more than sporadic, so that individuals and not classes are molested in their fundamental rights—it is inevitable that such a nation should desire eagerly to give expression to its horror on an occasion like that of the massacre of the Jews in Kishenef, or when it witnesses such systematic and long-extended cruelty and oppression as the cruelty and oppression of which the Armenians have been the victims, and which have won for them the indignant pity of the civilized world.

[…]

How the Roosevelt Corollary affected the relationship between the United States and Latin America?

While the Monroe Doctrine said European countries should stay out of Latin America, the Roosevelt Corollary took this further to say the United States had the right to exercise military force in Latin American countries to keep European countries out.

How did the Roosevelt Corollary affect the relationship between the United States and Latin American nations quizlet?

The Roosevelt Corollary states that the United States would intervene in Latin American affairs when necessary to maintain economic and political stability in the Western Hemisphere. The goal of it was to prevent European powers from using the debt problems of Latin America to justify messing with them in the region .

How did Theodore Roosevelt's corollary influence US foreign policy quizlet?

How did Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary influence US foreign policy? It displayed how the United States would take a more aggressive role in the world.

How does the Roosevelt Corollary support American imperialism?

Above all, the Roosevelt Corollary legitimized American imperialism by linking the doctrine of foreign intervention with the cornerstone of American foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine, and as such represents an important transition in the development of the American Empire.