Economy 101: Understanding Global External Debt Management13 min read

Global external debt refers to the total amount of money that countries owe to foreign creditors. This financial liability can encompass debts to foreign governments, international organizations, or private foreign entities. It is a critical component of a country’s national account, reflecting its borrowing from external sources to fund various activities and developments. Image source: YouTube

Read these first:

• Economy 101: Seriously, Is Malaysia’s External Debt As Bad As Sri Lanka?
• Economy 101: Seriously, What Drives The Big Economy?
• Budget 2023: Why We Are Not Addressing Financial Leakages & Wastages?
• Economy 101: Pakistan & Sri Lanka Economy Screwed By Dumb Policies & Mismanagement
• Economy 101: Venezuela – Lessons Learned, Spoon Feeding Failure

Introduction to External Debt

Countries incur external debt for various reasons, with one of the primary motives being the financing of development projects. Investment in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other vital sectors often requires significant capital, which may not be available domestically. By engaging in external borrowing, nations can mobilize the necessary funds to sustain their development agendas and stimulate economic growth. External debt can also play a crucial role in balancing trade deficits. When a country imports more than it exports, it may rely on foreign loans to cover the deficit, thereby maintaining its economic stability.

Another notable reason for incurring external debt is to address economic crises. During times of recession or financial turmoil, access to external financing can provide the necessary liquidity for a country to navigate challenging economic conditions. By utilizing external debt as a tool, governments can stabilize their economies, support expenditure, and ensure the provision of essential services to their citizens.

In summary, global external debt is an integral aspect of international finance that affects a wide array of economic factors. It enables countries to fuel their development, manage trade balances, and respond effectively to financial challenges. A thorough understanding of how external debt functions and its implications is vital for comprehending the dynamics of modern economies, particularly in the context of ASEAN nations and Malaysia.

The Importance of Debt Management

Effective debt management plays a crucial role in the economic stability of nations, particularly within the context of ASEAN countries, including Malaysia. A well-structured debt management strategy ensures that a government can meet its financial obligations without compromising its economic integrity. Conversely, poorly managed debt levels can lead to a myriad of negative consequences, such as heightened economic instability, increased interest rates, and, ultimately, the risk of default. When debt levels escalate without proper oversight and strategic planning, countries may find themselves caught in a cycle of borrowing that only exacerbates their financial woes.

High levels of external debt can create vulnerabilities within national economies, making them prone to external shocks. These shocks could originate from global economic downturns, fluctuations in commodity prices, or shifts in investor sentiment. Such volatility can further elevate interest rates as lenders perceive increased risks associated with lending to a country unable to maintain sustainable debt levels. Moreover, excessive borrowing can inhibit a nation’s ability to invest in critical sectors such as education, infrastructure, and healthcare, ultimately diminishing long-term economic growth.

Strategic planning in debt management is essential for addressing these challenges. To mitigate the risks associated with high debt burdens, a framework that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and prudent fiscal practices is necessary. This involves the collaboration of various institutions dedicated to fiscal oversight and management, ensuring that debt levels remain sustainable. Institutions must analyze borrowing needs carefully and consider the long-term economic returns of such investments. The importance of maintaining a balanced approach to debt management cannot be understated, as it serves as a bedrock for sustainable economic development in the region.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Accept YouTube Content

ASEAN Countries’ External Debt

The ASEAN region, encompassing ten dynamic economies, showcases a robust economic landscape with a collective GDP of approximately $3.8 trillion in 2023, projected to reach $3.9 trillion in 2024, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. However, the region’s total external debt stands at around $3.1 trillion in 2023, with Singapore’s financial hub status contributing over half of this figure. 

1. Brunei

• External Debt: Negligible, estimated at under $1 billion (2022). Limited reporting due to Brunei’s small, oil-dependent economy and substantial foreign reserves.
• GDP: $14.09 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$14.5 billion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: <7% (estimated).
• Notes: Brunei’s high per capita income ($39,410 in 2023) and sovereign wealth fund minimize borrowing needs. Oil and gas exports ensure fiscal stability.

2. Cambodia

• External Debt: $21.08 billion (2022, World Bank). Public and publicly guaranteed (PPG) debt: $9.8 billion, primarily from Chinese and multilateral creditors.
• GDP: $31.77 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$33.2 billion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 66.3% (2022).
• Notes: High debt levels, driven by infrastructure projects, pose repayment risks due to reliance on external financing. Tourism and garment exports support growth.

3. Indonesia

• External Debt: $408.62 billion (2023, Trading Economics). Public debt: $196.2 billion; private debt: $212.4 billion.
• GDP: $1.37 trillion (2023, World Bank); ~$1.42 trillion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 29.8% (2023).
• Notes: Moderate debt levels are manageable due to robust commodity exports (e.g., palm oil, coal) and a growing domestic market. Fiscal discipline strengthens resilience.

4. Laos

• External Debt: $17.94 billion (2022, World Bank). PPG debt: $8.6 billion, largely owed to China for infrastructure.
• GDP: $14.24 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$14.8 billion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 126% (2022).
• Notes: The highest debt-to-GDP ratio in ASEAN signals severe repayment risks, exacerbated by weak foreign exchange reserves and reliance on hydropower exports.

5. Myanmar

• External Debt: $12.54 billion (2022, World Bank). PPG debt: ~$10.2 billion.
• GDP: $64.82 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$66.1 billion (2024 IMF estimate, unreliable).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: ~19.3% (2022, World Bank); 65.53% reported in 2021 (Statista).
• Notes: Political instability since the 2021 coup renders data unreliable. Debt servicing is strained by sanctions and reduced economic activity.

6. Philippines

• External Debt: $125.39 billion (2023, Trading Economics).
• GDP: $437.15 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$457.6 billion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 28.7% (2023).
• Notes: Low debt-to-GDP ratio is supported by strong remittances ($38 billion in 2023) and growth in services, particularly the BPO and IT sectors.

7. Singapore

• External Debt: $1.76 trillion (2023, Trading Economics), driven by private-sector and intercompany loans in its financial hub.
• GDP: $501.43 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$515.4 billion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 350.9% (2023).
• Notes: The high ratio is not a fiscal concern, as Singapore is a net creditor with reserves exceeding $400 billion. Its financial sector fuels debt accumulation.

8. Thailand

• External Debt: $199.53 billion (2023, Trading Economics).
• GDP: $512.19 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$524.8 billion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 38.9% (2023).
• Notes: Tourism recovery (28 million visitors in 2023) and manufacturing exports (e.g., electronics) support debt sustainability. Public debt remains moderate.

9. Vietnam

• External Debt: $162.26 billion (2022, World Bank); ~$170 billion (2023 estimate).
• GDP: $429.72 billion (2023, World Bank); ~$448.2 billion (2024 IMF estimate).
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 37.8% (2022).
• Notes: Export-led growth (electronics, textiles) and FDI inflows ($36 billion in 2023) maintain a manageable debt profile. Infrastructure investment drives borrowing.

Data Sources

• World Bank International Debt Statistics (2022–2023)
• IMF World Economic Outlook (2024 estimates)
• Trading Economics (2023 external debt)
• Statista (debt-to-GDP ratios, 2021)

Despite ASEAN’s economic resilience, challenges remain in managing external debt and ensuring data reliability. Laos and Cambodia face significant risks with debt-to-GDP ratios of 126% and 66%, respectively, while Singapore’s 350.9% ratio is mitigated by its net creditor status and substantial reserves. As ASEAN continues to leverage its $3.67 trillion GDP in 2022 and strategic trade agreements, addressing these vulnerabilities will be critical to sustaining its growth trajectory.

Malaysia’s Global External Debt

Malaysia’s external debt has grown steadily, reflecting global economic challenges, pandemic-related borrowing, and investments in infrastructure and technology.

Historical Records

Below is a year-by-year breakdown based on available data:

• 2020: External debt stood at approximately $227.7 billion (World Bank), or 67.4% of GDP. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted increased borrowing to fund stimulus packages, including wage subsidies and healthcare spending. Despite global disruptions, Malaysia’s debt remained manageable due to strong electronics exports and a current account surplus of $14.9 billion.
• 2021: Debt rose to $254.7 billion (World Bank), with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 68.5%. Government expenditure on pandemic recovery, coupled with reduced tax revenues, drove borrowing. The services sector, particularly tourism, faced setbacks, but manufacturing (40% of GDP) and foreign direct investment (FDI) in tech sectors provided stability.
• 2022: External debt reached $258.36 billion (World Bank), or 68.2% of GDP. Offshore borrowing amounted to MYR 625.71 billion, with 67% denominated in foreign currencies, primarily USD. The economy rebounded with 8.9% GDP growth in Q2 2022, fueled by private consumption (18.3% growth) and export recovery.
• 2023: Debt increased to $270.1 billion (Trading Economics), with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 64.6%. Strong growth (5.2% in the first three quarters) was driven by private consumption, investment, and tourism recovery (28 million visitors). The ringgit appreciated by 2.6% against the USD, easing debt servicing costs.
• 2024: External debt peaked at $301.0 billion in Q4 (CEIC Data), or 69.7% of GDP, up from $258.36 billion in Q3. In MYR terms, it rose to MYR 1,345.4 billion from MYR 1,262.3 billion. Growth slowed to 4.7% (IMF projection), but FDI inflows ($2–2.2 billion each from Google, Microsoft, and ByteDance) in AI and data centers bolstered the tech sector.
• 2025 (Projected): External debt is forecast to stabilize around $305–310 billion, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 65.5% (Q1 estimate). Fiscal consolidation under the Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) aims to reduce the ratio below 60% by 2028, supported by GDP growth of 4.5% and targeted subsidy reforms (e.g., gasoline).

Key Observations

• Debt Composition: In 2023, 67% of external debt was foreign currency-denominated, exposing Malaysia to exchange rate risks. Only 2.6% of government debt was foreign-denominated, minimizing direct fiscal exposure. Non-residents held 24.6% of government debt, down from 32.2% in 2016, reducing capital flight risks.
• Debt Maturity: Short-term debt (maturities under three years) rose to 18.9% of borrowings (2020–2023) due to pandemic spending, but the average debt maturity extended to 9.5 years in 2023, reflecting prudent management. Two-thirds of debt matures within 10 years, with opportunities to issue longer-term bonds.
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: The ratio peaked at 73.2% in 2016 but stabilized at 69.7% in 2024. Malaysia’s ratio compares favorably to peers like Thailand (38.9%) but remains higher than Indonesia (29.8%) or the Philippines (28.7%).

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Accept YouTube Content

The Role of International Institutions

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are twin pillars of global economic governance, established in 1944 to foster stability and development in the post-World War II era. Despite their shared origins and complementary roles, they serve distinct purposes, face unique criticisms, and have evolved differently over the decades.

History of the IMF

• Founding (1944): The IMF was created at the Bretton Woods Conference in New Hampshire, USA, alongside the World Bank, to ensure global monetary stability. Proposed by John Maynard Keynes (UK) and Harry Dexter White (US), its primary goal was to prevent the competitive currency devaluations and trade wars that exacerbated the Great Depression. The IMF began operations in 1945 with 29 member countries, headquartered in Washington, D.C.
• 21st Century: The IMF played a central role in the 2008 global financial crisis, providing $250 billion in loans to countries like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal. It has since tackled issues like climate finance and digital currencies, growing to 190 member countries by 2025. Its Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), a reserve asset, reached $943 billion in allocations by 2021, with a historic $650 billion issuance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

History of the World Bank

• Founding (1944): Officially the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the World Bank was established at Bretton Woods to finance post-war reconstruction in Europe. Its broader mission was to promote long-term economic development in poorer nations. It began operations in 1946, also headquartered in Washington, D.C.
• 21st Century: The World Bank has prioritized climate change, gender equality, and digital infrastructure, with $115 billion in commitments in 2023. It responded to COVID-19 with $157 billion in aid (2020–2022) and supports 100+ countries, focusing on the IDA’s 75 poorest nations. Its 2025 agenda emphasizes resilience against pandemics, conflict, and climate risks.

Key Distinctions – IMF vs World Bank

• Time Horizon: The IMF focuses on immediate crises (e.g., stabilizing Argentina’s peso), while the World Bank invests in decades-long development (e.g., Ethiopia’s rural electrification).
• Scope: The IMF addresses macroeconomic policies globally, including advanced economies, while the World Bank targets developing nations’ structural needs.
• Approach: The IMF’s loans come with strict policy conditions, while the World Bank’s project-based lending emphasizes technical assistance and capacity-building.
• Impact: IMF interventions aim to restore market confidence (e.g., Greece’s bailout), while World Bank projects seek tangible outcomes like schools or hospitals.

Criticisms of the IMF

• Conditionality and Austerity: The IMF’s SAPs often mandate fiscal austerity, privatization, and deregulation, criticized for exacerbating poverty and inequality. For example, during the 1997 Asian crisis, Indonesia’s austerity measures led to a 13.1% GDP contraction and social unrest. Critics argue these policies prioritize creditor repayment over human welfare.
• Western Bias: The IMF’s governance, dominated by the US (16.5% voting share) and Europe, is seen as favoring Western interests. Developing nations, like China (6.1% voting share), demand greater influence, fueling calls for reform.
• One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Standardized loan conditions often ignore local contexts. In Greece (2010–2018), IMF programs underestimated social costs, prolonging the recession (25% GDP decline).
• Debt Trap Concerns: Critics, especially in Africa, argue IMF loans deepen debt burdens. Zambia’s 2020 default highlighted risks, with 70% of its debt owed to non-IMF creditors like China.
• Lack of Accountability: The IMF’s opaque decision-making and limited recourse for affected populations draw scrutiny. Posts on X in 2025 reflect frustration over its role in Argentina’s ongoing crisis.

Criticisms of the World Bank

• Large-scale projects, like India’s Narmada Dam (1980s–1990s), displaced communities and harmed ecosystems, sparking protests. Despite greener policies, 2023 reports criticized coal-related lending in Indonesia.
• Neoliberal Policies: Like the IMF, the Bank’s push for market reforms (e.g., water privatization in Bolivia, 2000) has led to price hikes and inequity, alienating local populations.
• Ineffective Poverty Reduction: Despite its mission, global poverty persists (9.4% of the world’s population, or 700 million people, lived below $2.15/day in 2022). Critics argue the Bank prioritizes growth over equitable distribution.
• Governance Imbalance: The US holds 15.6% of IBRD voting power, while low-income countries have minimal say, undermining fairness. This fuels perceptions of neo-colonialism.
• Corruption and Mismanagement: Funds have been misused in corrupt regimes (e.g., Zaire under Mobutu, 1970s). A 2023 X post highlighted concerns over aid leakage in fragile states like Haiti.

Data Sources:

• IMF Annual Reports (2020–2023); World Bank Group Financial Statements (2023)
• Bretton Woods Project (criticisms, 2023); Statista (poverty data, 2022)
• IMF Article IV Consultations; World Bank Project Databases
• X posts on IMF/World Bank (2023–2025)
• Reinhart, C., et al. (2012). Debt Overhangs: Past and Present.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Accept YouTube Content

Final Say

The landscape of external debt management in ASEAN countries, particularly Malaysia, is poised for notable transformations influenced by global economic trends. As we move forward, these nations face dynamic financial environments that necessitate strategic approaches to managing external obligations. Key factors shaping the future of external debt include fluctuating interest rates, exchange rate volatility, and geopolitical developments that may impact economic stability. Policymakers must remain vigilant to ensure that debt remains sustainable and manageable.

The global shift towards more restrictive monetary policies is a significant trend affecting ASEAN nations. This change may lead to higher borrowing costs, making it imperative for countries to assess their current debt structures critically. A proactive stance on restructuring existing debt, prioritizing concessional financing, and diversifying funding sources will be essential strategies for maintaining a favorable debt profile in an increasingly challenging global economic landscape.

Moreover, as countries adapt to the effects of climate change and the ongoing digital transformation, policymakers should consider incorporating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into debt management frameworks. Such an integrated approach can enhance the attractiveness of sovereign bonds, potentially attracting foreign investments while addressing sustainability goals. In addition, increasing cooperation among ASEAN countries to share best practices in debt management will bolster collective resilience to external shocks.

Furthermore, it is crucial for governments to develop robust monitoring systems that provide real-time insights into debt levels and potential risks, allowing for timely interventions. Education and capacity-building initiatives targeting both government officials and the private sector can enhance awareness of effective debt management strategies. Ultimately, a combination of prudent fiscal policies, strategic international partnerships, and comprehensive risk assessment mechanisms will be vital in securing a sustainable debt future for ASEAN countries and Malaysia.