There are a number of explanations for the liberalization policies that have been applied in Latin America. One school argues that there is a nationalist-populist policy cycle that begins with state intervention, nationalization, and protectionism, then consolidates an "import-substitution" development strategy, and finally enters into crisis because of growing state and trade deficits, macroeconomic imbalances, and declining competitiveness, leading to the initiation of the "liberal revolution." Another line of argument focuses on the growth during the 1970s of a class of transnational Latin capitalists, linked to the world market and benefiting from state-sponsored export strategies, who became the central nucleus defining the strategy of liberalization. A third school emphasizes the role of the foreign debt and the leverage and influence of the World Bank and the IMF in imposing the liberal agenda as a condition for refinancing the debt. Others emphasize class conflict and the changing relationship of class forces, both internally and externally. According to this line of inquiry, a coalition made up of the national bourgeoisie, the working class, and the peasantry, which formed the basis of the import-substitution strategy, broke apart as a result of a "squeeze" on profits and state resources, leading to a new coalition of military regimes linked to an export bourgeoisie in partnership with MNCs. Parallel to this internal shift, the collapse of Eastern European socialism eliminated an alternative source of funding and markets, forcing Latin regimes to adapt to the demands of the remaining global powers—the advanced capitalist countries.