Search results

This dissertation is a collection of essays in two areas of financial stability. The first part deals with systemic risk in the banking sector. First, it asks whether countercyclical macroprudential policy tools can be an effective way of reducing cyclicality in bank lending. The main finding is that these policies can be counterproductive and may incentivize more intertwined banks, and hence, endanger financial stability. The next paper investigates, and provides some evidence of, the possibility that banks actively change their portfolios in order to influence the likelihood of joint bank failure. The second part of this dissertation studies the connection between public finance and financial stability. Chapter 4 looks into the interaction between bank capital regulation and taxation and finds that banks trade off leverage risk against portfolio risk in response to a higher corporate income tax rates. Finally, Chapter 5 analyses banks' excessive holdings of domestic government debt as one of the sources of the interrelatedness of public finance and bank stability. Two possible explanations of banks' home bias are tested: voluntary government bond hoarding and government induced bond buying.

This paper reviews key features of the 2007–08 financial crisis, 'Great Recession' and European public debt problem. In the light of these it discusses new avenues of research that have opened up. A large body of opinion supports continued research within the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) paradigm, dealing incrementally with inter alia financial frictions, heterogeneous agents, and more descriptively realistic models of wage and price adjustment than 'Calvo contracts'. However, the crisis has boosted more radical approaches to money and finance, modelling bubbles in asset prices, and taking forward insights from psychological research and experimental and behavioural economics.

"Public Financial Management covers the five major pillars of this sub-discipline of public administration: context, public finance, retirement systems, performance measurement and budgeting, and international perspectives. This text offers practitioners information valuable in their day-to-day operations, while also providing students in public administration and public management programs with a solid foundation for their own development as future professionals and researchers. Overall this volume promotes linkages between resource allocation and "value-adds" for citizens and stakeholders, driving innovations in operations and increased transparency in reporting."--Provided by publisher.

Despite much commentary in the media and the popular assumption that the banking industry exerts undue influence on government policy-making, the academic literature on the role of the banks since the 2008 financial crisis remains theoretically and empirically under-specified. In particular, we argue that different forms of financial power are often conflated, while favorable policy outcomes are too-readily assumed to be evidence of regulatory capture. In short, we still know relatively little about how bank influence varies over time and in different national contexts, the extent to which banking interests are unified or divided, and the conditions under which banks are capable of producing meaningful variation in policy outcomes. This article has three objectives: 1) to explain why the debate on bank influence matters; 2) to examine the evidence of bank influence since the international financial crisis; and 3) to set out a range of conceptual tools for thinking about bank power.

The economic crisis of 2008-2009 and beyond has provided the greatest challenge to public policy in the developed world since the Second World War, as the use of public monies to support banks and declining tax revenues have resulted in rising government borrowing and national debt. This book evaluates the failures of public policy in the half decade before the crisis, using the conceptual framework of complex systems. This analysis reveals the fundamental failings of globalization and the lack of a robust and resilient public sector paradigm to assist countries in economic recovery. The re.

Despite the large size of the Brazilian debt market, as well the large diversity of its bonds, the picture that emerges is of a market that has not yet completed its transition from the role it performed during the megainflation years, namely that of providing a liquid asset that provided positive real returns. This unfinished transition is currently placing the market under severe stress, as fears of a possible default from the next administration grow larger. This paper analyzes several aspects pertaining to the management of the domestic public debt. The causes for the extremely large and fast growth of the domestic public debt during the seven-year period that President Cardoso are discussed in Section 2. The main culprit is the very high and risky interest rate, with the recognition of old debts (hidden liabilities and state debt renegotiation) coming in second. Section 3 computes Value at Risk and Cash Flow at Risk measures for the domestic public debt. These risk measures show that the current composition of the public debt is very risky. The rollover risk is introduced in a mean-variance framework in Section 4, and the maturity structure evolution is discussed. The increased riskness was the cost to improve the maturity structure. Section 5 discusses a few issues pertaining to the overlap between debt management and monetary policy. Finally, Section 6 wraps up with policy discussion and policy recommendations.

Despite much commentary in the media and the popular assumption that the banking industry exerts undue influence on government policy-making, the academic literature on the role of the banks since the 2008 financial crisis remains theoretically and empirically under-specified. In particular, we argue that different forms of financial power are often conflated, while favorable policy outcomes are too-readily assumed to be evidence of regulatory capture. In short, we still know relatively little about how bank influence varies over time and in different national contexts, the extent to which banking interests are unified or divided, and the conditions under which banks are capable of producing meaningful variation in policy outcomes. This article has three objectives: 1) to explain why the debate on bank influence matters; 2) to examine the evidence of bank influence since the international financial crisis; and 3) to set out a range of conceptual tools for thinking about bank power.