| 摘要: | 本論文透過美國倡議成立國際貨幣基金組織的探討，來了解美國戰後金融外交政策的思維與決策脈絡、探究美國國際金融政策的主導部門如何轉換、分析羅斯福總統的領導與決策風格。本研究以艾里遜(Graham T. Allison)之決策理論，設立模式假設，以美國倡導成立國際貨幣基金的決策過程為案例，來驗證理論假設。同時，本論文亦檢視艾里遜決策理論，在解釋本案例上是否有不足之處，並且輔之以其他決策模式，以求對本案例可以有完整透徹之了解。
本論文依照、補充艾里遜決策理論所提出了四項假設：H1 愈符合國家利益與目標並具可行性的備選方案，愈能夠勝出而成為國家政策。H2當組織目標明確，且具專業之組織文化，及作業程序事權統一時，該組織提出的政策較容易出線，成為國家最後的政策。H3當一位決策參與者愈能掌握議價優勢，並與總統有密切關係時，其政策主張愈能夠獲得青睞而勝出。H4：總統若鼓勵各種不同意見表達，建立多元溝通管道，他自身即成為政策形成的關鍵決策人物。
在理性行為模式方面，本研究發現：一、羅斯福政府的戰後國際金融政策目標為：避免戰後貨幣與債信系統的崩潰，重蹈第一次世界大戰的覆轍，以確保美國在世界的貿易，並恢復美國與世界戰後的信心與經濟發展。二、依據其目標，羅斯福政府有下列備選方案：美國國務院所提出的自由貿易方案、英國凱因斯所提出的國際清算組織計畫、美國財政部所提出的國際貨幣組織計畫。三、美國依據下面幾項理由選擇了國際貨幣組織計畫：美國對自己實力的了解與展現，得以推動對自身有利的計畫；英國方案不符合美國利益，凱因斯主要考量的是英國利益與金融地位；國際貨幣組織計畫多邊組織的實際性，英國可接受，並符合美國利益。
在組織行為模式方面，本研究發現：一、在組織目標上，國務院主張自由開放的政策缺乏國際現實性，財政部的政策目標明確實際，考慮到國際外交現實。二、 在組織文化上，國務院缺乏金融專業，態度保守，而財政部不但具有專業，同時具備積極的新政態度。三、在作業程序上，國務院事權重疊不一、授權不足；財政部內部事權統一，資訊管道暢通、充足。因而，財政部政策最後出線，成為國家最後的政策。
在政府政治模式方面，本研究發現：一、在參與者的立場上，羅斯福總統在戰時採取國際合作，以維持美國國內就業與海外市場；國務卿赫爾維持自由貿易想法，反對任何的貿易限制與管制；財政部長摩根索與其助手懷特，在許多方面都有羅斯福操控的影子，保護美國自1934年就已獲得的大量黃金儲量的價格與力量；外部反對勢力，主要來自部分國會共和黨議員，主張孤立主義，以及部分的銀行團體，主張政府減少介入國際金融市場。二、決定參與者影響政策結果的因素為：羅斯福喜歡競爭的行政模式，將大決定權保留在總統的手上；赫爾徒有理想，卻無法掌握羅斯福領導風格；摩根索掌握行動管道與議價優勢，可以提出實際有效政策；政府大力宣傳政策、說服民眾，使得反對的外部勢力受到壓抑。
由於羅斯福屬於近代最有影響力的總統之一，而艾里遜的政府政治模式過於輕忽總統在外交決策中的關鍵決定地位，因此在本論文中使用總統決策理論，以補艾里遜理論的不足。在總統決策模式方面，本研究發現：一、在人格特質方面，羅斯福總統屬於積極－肯定型總統，具有強烈的政治功效意識，從其想要聽到的方案中做出選擇。二、在國際金融政策觀點上，羅斯福總統以維護美國國內的經濟發展為首要考量－戰前拒絕國際金融合作，希望美元發展不受限制，以有利於美國經濟從大蕭條中復甦；戰時、戰後主張國際合作，以維持美國經濟發展。三、在領導風格方面，羅斯福總統喜歡競爭的行政模式，他讓國務院與財政部、各相關決策官僚相互競爭，而他成為最後的仲裁者，決定最符合其理念與利益的政策。
在理論驗證上，於本案例中後兩項假設（H2、H3）得到了完全的應證，與艾里遜的理論主張相符，確認、加強了理論通則。在第一項假設(H1)上，美國政府選擇國際貨幣組織計畫方案，雖符合美國國家戰後金融政策目標與利益，但因美國仍需考慮英美之間特殊的關係與國際現勢，而未徹底摧毀大英帝國優惠制度，其選擇未盡符合美國最大利益，驗證結果與假設不盡相符。本論文補充艾里遜決策理論，以總統決策理論提出的假設(H4)，在驗證上與本案例雖相符合，但此結果也證明了艾里遜的決策理論在解釋本案例上確有不足之處，需以總統決策模式相輔之，方能完整解釋「美國倡建國際貨幣基金之決策過程」此案例。
綜合上述，本論文的主旨可歸納為：對於戰後國際金融外交政策，羅斯福總統放任政府組織部門與決策官僚相互競合，呈現各項主張與備選方案，並與英國方案競爭，最後做出最符合其理念與美國國內經濟發展利益，同時顧及國際現勢的戰後國際金融外交決策。
The purpose of this dissertation is trying to understand Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) Administration’s postwar international financial policy to initiate International Monetary Fund. This dissertation, with official declassified archives, attempts to give a whole and deep analysis to the case “The U.S.’s Decision-Making Process of Initiating International Monetary Fund” with Graham T. Allison’s Decision-Making Theory and Models. Meanwhile, this dissertation also examined the deficiencies of Allison’s theory on interpreting general cases of the foreign policy decisions, and supplemented it with Presidential Decision-Making Theory to have a complete and thorough understanding of this case.
According to Under Allison’s Decision-Making Theory and Models, this dissertation presented three assumptions: (A) In the Model of Rational Actor, this study set up the hypothesis H1－While the alternative which matches the national interest and objects best and has the feasibility, it will more likely be accepted as the national policy. (B) In the Model of Organizational Behavior, this study set up the hypothesis H2－When an organization with clear and practical stances, with professional and open culture, and with good Stand Operation Processes (SOPs), its policy will more likely be accepted. (C) In the Model of Government Politics, this study sets up the hypothesis H3－While a participant can handle the bargaining advantages best and has close relationship with the President, his policy will more likely be accepted. Moreover, this study adopted the presidential decision-making theory to supplement the insufficiency of Allison’s theory in this case and proposed a fourth hypothesis H4－If the President encourages the open expressions of different views and establishes the diverse communication channels with the President, the President himself will become the key figure in policy formation.
In aspects of rational actor model, the study found that: First, the Roosevelt administration''s postwar international monetary policy objectives are: (1) to avoid the collapse of postwar monetary and credit system repeating the mistakes of World War I; (2) to ensure the U.S. trade amount in the world; (3) to restore the confidence and economic development of the U.S. and the world after the World War II (WWII). Second, in accordance with its objectives, the Roosevelt administration had the following alternatives: (1) the free-trade programs proposed by U.S. State Department, (2) the international clearing organization plan proposed by John Maynard Keynes from United Kingdom, (3) the IMF (International Monetary Fund) plan proposed by U.S. Treasury. Third, the United States chose the IMF plan, according to the following several reasons: (1) United States had understood and showed their national strength to promote their own favorable plan. (2) The UK scheme was not in U.S. interests. The Keynes''s main concerns were the interests and the financial position of United Kingdom. (3) The IMF plan had the practicality of multilateral organizations, which was acceptable for Britain and in line with U.S. interests.
In aspects of organizational behavior model, this study found that: First, in the organizational objectives, the free-trade policies advocated by State Department did not consider the international reality, while Treasury actually had clear policy objectives which took into account the realities of international diplomacy. Second, in the organizational culture, the State Department, with conservative attitude, lacked the financial professionals; the Treasury was not only professional with financial issues, but also had a positive attitude towards the New Deal. Third, in the operating procedures, State Department varied the overlapping responsibilities, and the officials were lack of full authorization; the Treasury organization had a unified authorization, and its information channels were open and sufficient. Thus, the IMF policy of Treasury was finally adopted as a national policy.
In aspects of governmental politics model, this study found: First, in the position of the participants, in the WWII President Roosevelt adopted international cooperation in order to maintain the employment in the United States and the overseas markets; Secretary of State Cordell Hull maintained his idea of free trade and opposed any trade restrictions and controls; Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his assistant Harry Dexter White had Roosevelt''s shadow in many aspects to protect the U.S. dollars and strength which had acquired a lot of gold reserves since 1934. The external opposition forces mainly came from some Republican members of Congress advocating isolationism, as well as part of the bank groups who advocated the reducing of government intervention in international financial markets. Second, the determinants of decision-making outcomes for participants are: (1) Roosevelt liked the competitive administrative style, remaining the final decision in the hands of the president; (2) Hull only had ideas, but could not handle Roosevelt’s leadership style; (3) Morgenthau could master the action channels and the bargaining advantages, and made the practical and effective policies. (3)The Government vigorously promoted its policies to convince people, having the external forces suppressed.
Since Roosevelt was one of the most influential modern presidents and Allison''s bureaucratic politics model overlooked the key status of presidential decisions in foreign policy making, this study adopted presidential decision-making theory to supplement the insufficiency of Allison’s theory. In the presidential decision-making model, this study found that: (1) In terms of personality, President Roosevelt belongs to a positive-active type president, with a strong sense of political efficacy, to make his choice from the programs he wanted. (2) In the perspective of international financial policy, President Roosevelt took the maintaining of U.S. domestic economic development as his primary consideration. Before World War II, he refused the international financial cooperation, and hoped the development of unrestricted dollars to favor the U.S. economic recovery from the Great Depression; however, in wartime and postwar, he advocated the international cooperation to sustain the U.S. economy. (3) In terms of leadership style, President Roosevelt liked the competitive administrative style that allows the competitions among the relevant decision-making bureaucracy, and he became the final arbiter to choose the policy that best met his ideas and interests.
On the theoretical verification of this case, the last two hypotheses on Allison’s models (H2, H3) had got a full verification, confirming and strengthening the Allison’s theory of General. However, on the verification of hypothesis H1, The study found that the U.S. government’s selection of the IMF plan not entirely met the best interests of the United States, even although it was in line with the U.S.’s postwar monetary policy objectives and national interests. U.S. still considered the special relationship between U.S. and Britain, and the world international situations, and not completely destroyed the Britain’s Imperial Preference. This is not totally consistent with the hypothesis H1. Moreover, hypothesis H4 on the presidential decision-making theory had got a full verification. However, this result also proved that Allison’s theory does have the insufficiency in this case, and the need to complement the presidential decision-making model in order to have a complete explanation of this case.
The main theme of this dissertation could be concluded as: FDR encouraged the competitions and the conflicts among the participants and the organizations to provide the alternatives of U.S. postwar international financial policy to compete with the Britain’s proposal, utilized the U.S. national interest, and also gave the consideration to the postwar international situation. |
