What Was the Plaza Accord? Impact on the Dollar and Japan

Search Fintrev

Search our guides, reviews and glossary.

The Plaza Accord was a 1985 agreement among the G-5 economies (the United States, Japan, West Germany, France and the United Kingdom) to push the U.S. dollar lower against other major currencies, chiefly the Japanese yen and the German deutschmark. Finance ministers and central bank governors signed it on September 22, 1985, at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, which gave the deal its name. The goal was to shrink large U.S. trade deficits, especially with Japan and West Germany, by making American exports cheaper abroad and imports more expensive at home.

Why the U.S. wanted a weaker dollar in 1985

From the start of 1980 to its peak in March 1985, the dollar rose more than 47.9% in real terms against major currencies. High U.S. interest rates in the early 1980s attracted foreign capital, and that demand for dollars kept pushing the currency up.

A strong dollar makes foreign goods cheaper for Americans and American goods more expensive for foreigners. U.S. manufacturers lost ground both at home and in export markets, and the trade deficit widened. Large companies such as Caterpillar and IBM lobbied Congress for relief. Protectionist proposals, including tariffs and import quotas, gained support in Washington. A negotiated currency adjustment gave the Reagan administration, led at the Treasury by Secretary James Baker, a way to address the trade gap without starting a tariff fight with allies.

Japan and West Germany had their own reason to sign. Both ran large surpluses with the United States, and both faced the risk of U.S. trade barriers if the imbalance kept growing.

How the Plaza Accord worked

The Plaza Accord set no target exchange rate, so it did not work like a peg. Currencies were already floating, so the agreement relied on two tools.

1. Policy commitments. The United States pledged to reduce its federal budget deficit. Japan and West Germany agreed to boost domestic demand, for example through tax cuts, so that their economies would rely less on exports and buy more from abroad.
2. Coordinated intervention. All five governments agreed to intervene directly in currency markets when needed to correct current account imbalances. In practice, central banks sold dollars and bought other currencies, which added dollar supply to the market and pushed its price down.

The public announcement mattered as much as the intervention itself. When the largest economies said together that the dollar was too strong, traders had good reason not to bet against them. Some of the move also came before the deal: the dollar had already started falling in the months after its March 1985 peak.

What happened to the dollar and the yen

The dollar fell steeply after the accord. In real terms it dropped as much as 25.69% over the next two years. Against the yen the move was larger in nominal terms. The dollar bought roughly 240 yen at the time of the accord and fell to about half that by the end of 1987.

The trade results were mixed. The U.S. deficit with West Germany fell significantly, but the deficit with Japan shrank and remained large, which many critics count as the accord’s main failure. Japanese firms’ ability to absorb a stronger yen and barriers to selling U.S. goods in Japan help explain why the exchange rate alone did not close the gap. The broader U.S. current account balance as a share of GDP stabilized between 1985 and 1987 and reached a slight surplus by 1991, helped by other forces such as slower U.S. growth around 1990 and 1991.

Example: how a yen move changes export prices

In this hypothetical example, a Japanese automaker needs to receive 2,400,000 yen per car to cover costs and margin. The U.S. price is the yen price divided by the exchange rate:

U.S. price = yen price ÷ yen per dollar

• At 240 yen per dollar: 2,400,000 ÷ 240 = $10,000
• At 160 yen per dollar: 2,400,000 ÷ 160 = $15,000

If the automaker keeps its yen revenue unchanged, the U.S. sticker price rises 50%. If it holds the U.S. price at $10,000, it receives only 1,600,000 yen per car, a one-third cut in revenue. In practice exporters often split the difference by cutting costs, accepting lower margins or moving production abroad, which is why trade balances adjust slowly. This example assumes no change in costs, tariffs or shipping, and the arithmetic works in reverse for a U.S. exporter: a weaker dollar lets it charge less in yen while earning the same number of dollars.

The Plaza Accord and Japan

The strong yen, often called endaka, hit Japan’s export sector hard in the short term. To offset it, the Japanese government turned to expansionary fiscal and monetary policy. The Bank of Japan cut its discount rate several times, to 2.5% by early 1987, and credit grew quickly.

The accord also had a lasting structural effect. A stronger yen made foreign assets and overseas factories cheaper for Japanese companies. Japan expanded trade and investment across East Asia and became less dependent on the U.S. market.

The cheap money had a cost. Combined with financial deregulation and other policies, it fed huge bubbles in Japanese stocks and real estate in the late 1980s. The Nikkei 225 peaked at the end of 1989. The Bank of Japan then raised rates sharply, and the bubble burst in the early 1990s. Falling asset prices left banks holding bad loans, credit tightened, and Japan entered years of weak growth and deflation. Rate cuts came late, and by then the economy was close to a liquidity trap.

This period is known as Japan’s Lost Decade, often extended to cover the 2000s. The Plaza Accord helped set it in motion, but saying the accord “destroyed Japan” overstates the case. The currency shock created pressure. The policy responses, first too loose and then too tight, did most of the damage.

From the Plaza Accord to the Louvre Accord

By early 1987 the dollar had fallen enough that the United States no longer wanted it to drop further. Finance officials met at the Louvre in Paris in February 1987 and agreed to stabilize exchange rates around their current levels. Canada joined the original five, and Italy declined to take part. Under the Louvre Accord, the participants agreed to intervene if currencies moved outside unannounced ranges, and Japan and the United States made monetary policy commitments.

The Louvre Accord partly reversed the Plaza Accord’s direction. Its ranges proved hard to defend, and the dollar fell again later in 1987. The Plaza Accord itself was a one-time agreement with no ongoing legal obligations, and currencies have continued to float since.

Limitations and common confusions

• Not a devaluation under a fixed regime. The 1971 Smithsonian Agreement realigned fixed exchange rates. The Plaza Accord worked within floating rates and moved prices through intervention and expectations.
• The exchange rate is not the whole trade balance. Savings, investment, fiscal deficits and market access all shape trade flows, which is why the U.S. gap with Japan persisted. Exchange rates can also stay away from purchasing power parity levels for years.
• Timing is disputed. Given the dollar’s earlier decline, economists debate how much of the later move the accord itself caused.
• Hard to repeat. Modern proposals for a “new Plaza Accord,” for example aimed at China, face different conditions. Capital markets are far larger, and the U.S.-Japan security relationship that helped secure Japan’s agreement in 1985 has no direct equivalent in every case.

The Bottom Line

The Plaza Accord matters to anyone weighing whether coordinated currency moves can fix trade imbalances. It showed that governments can push a floating currency down, yet the U.S. deficit with Japan stayed large because savings, investment and market access also drive trade. Japan's later bubble and Lost Decade owed more to its loose and then tight policy responses than to the accord alone.