How will sovereign debt markets evolve in the twenty-first century? We survey how the literature has responded to the eurozone debt crisis, placing “lessons learned” in historical perspective. The crisis featured: (i) the return of debt problems to advanced economies, (ii) a bank–sovereign “doom loop” and the propagation of sovereign risk to households and firms, (iii) rollover problems and self-fulfilling crisis dynamics, (iv) severe debt distress without outright sovereign defaults, (v) large-scale sovereign bailouts from abroad, and (vi) creditor threats to litigate and hold out in a debt restructuring. Many of these characteristics were already present in historical debt crises and are likely to remain relevant in the future. Looking forward, our survey points to a growing role of sovereign bank linkages, legal risks, domestic debt and default, and of official creditors, due to new lenders such as China as well as the increasing dominance of central banks in global debt markets. Questions of debt sustainability and default will remain acute in both developing and advanced economies.

This essay assesses whether network linkages within the banking system amplified the real effects of bank failures during the Great Contraction. In 1929, nearly all interbank deposits held by Federal Reserve member banks belonged to “shadowy” nonmember banks which were outside the regulatory reach of federal regulators. Regional banking panics in the early 1930s drained these interbank deposits from central reserve city banks. Money-center banks in Chicago and New York responded to volatile and declining interbank deposits by changing their asset composition. They reduced their lending to businesses and individuals, and increased their holdings of cash and government bonds.

Interbank networks amplified the contraction in lending during the Great Depression. Panics induced banks in the hinterland to withdraw interbank deposits from Federal Reserve member banks located in reserve and central reserve cities. These correspondent banks responded by curtailing lending to businesses. Between the peak in the summer of 1929 and the banking holiday in the winter of 1933, interbank amplification reduced aggregate commercial bank lending by an estimated 15 percent.

Because California was a pioneer in the development of large‐scale branching, we use its experience during the 1920s and 1930s to assess the effects of branching on competition and on the stability of banking systems. Using individual bank balance sheets, income statements, and branch establishment data, we show that smaller incumbent banks responded to the entry of a large branch bank by adjusting their operations in a manner consistent with increased efficiency. Competition from branching networks also produced an externality: unit banks exposed to this competition were more likely to survive the Great Depression than banks not exposed to it.

Scholars differ on whether central bank intervention mitigates banking panics. In April 1929, a fruit fly infestation in Florida forced the U.S. government to quarantine fruit shipments from the state and destroy infested groves. In July, depositors panicked in Tampa and surrounding cities. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta rushed currency to member banks beset by runs. We show that this intervention arrested the panic and estimate that bank failures would have been twice as high without the Federal Reserve’s intervention. Our results suggest that similar interventions may have reduced bank failures during the Great Depression.

We develop a method to estimate which side will win a civil war using data from international financial markets. The key insight we deliver is that, for typical sovereign debt contracts, the probability of debt repayment will equal the probability of victory in a civil war. We test our predictor for standard outcomes in civil wars, including when the incumbent government loses (the Chinese Nationalists), when a new government is installed by a foreign power and decides to repudiate debt (the restoration of Ferdinand VII of Spain), and when there is a secession (the U.S. Confederacy). For China, markets were predicting a Communist victory three years before it happened. For the U.S., markets never gave the South much more than a 40 percent chance of maintaining the Confederacy. For Spain, markets considered the restoration of Ferdinand VII as likely (probabilities above 50%) as soon as France declared its intention to send military forces to the area.