Abstract
The governance discourse encourages the production of regulative modalities of global scope from different logics from that of the market and of the state. The promoters of the Collective Action Clauses (CACs) models of 2014 recognized that the political matrix from which these models emerged was largely constructed over the basis of the contractual reform previous experience (2001-2003); but also, they warned of its innovative nature. This article compares the political matrices from which the CACs 2003 and 2014 emerged showing who participated in them and how their participants were articulated. The analysis shows empirically that in both processes were involved practically the same agents, albeit by means of a different cooperation dynamics: the typical-ideal characteristics of governance can be visualized in the second experience more than in the first one. However, and contrary to what its proponents postulate, it is argued in this paper that the two cases put in movement imperfect governance forms that strategically exclude from the processes of production of these global norms those agents with potential to dispute the power of the elites that dominate the sovereign debt market since the 1970s/1980s.
Governance; sovereign debt; International Monetary Fund (IMF); Collective Action Clauses (CACs); pari passu clauses