Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis work aims to offer a contribution in the analysis and management, from an economic and financial point of view, of the flood risk, and extended to the hydrogeological risk, from the perspective of a public administration. As main responsible actor for containing the phenomenon through the maintenance of the territory, public administration is responsible for the cost of restoring of the services that have been damaged by this type of phenomenon. The assets of which the public administration must ensure the restoration are all public infrastructures (i.e. transportation, energy and water supply system, communication) together with the damage suffered by private property, if these affect services to be guaranteed to the population. In this work, the authors propose possible strategies that a public administration can put in place to deal with flood risk. Three main strategies are analysed: an absolute passivity that provides for the payment of damages as they occur (i.e. business-as-usual scenario), a classic insurance scheme, a resilient and innovative insurance scheme. The economic–financial profiles of these strategies proposed in this work put an emphasis on how the assumption of a time horizon can change the convenience of one strategy compared to the others. This study highlights the key role of the quantification of flood risk mitigation measure from an engineering perspective, and their potential issues to pursue these objectives in connection to the regulatory framework of the public administrations. This synergy is supported by the potential use of Blockchain-based tools. Within the paper is highlighted the key role that such platform IT data management platform could have within risk analysis and management schemes, both as a data collection tool and as certification of the various steps necessary to complete the process.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to do an empirical analysis assessing whether banks highly involved into trading activities show specific business model choices. Key factors in the analysis are a proper measure for trading activities and a consistent classification of banks in terms of business choices.Design/methodology/approach– We investigate three measures for trading activities proposed by regulators in the context of bank structural reform in Europe. Through robust statistics we identify the key trading players and classify banks into a limited number of business model clusters, relying on a set of balance sheet and income statement indicators.Findings– Using a sample of 100 European banks in 2007-2012, results show that the measures identify similar, but not identical, sets of banks highly involved into trading. The measure proposed by the European Commission selects fewer banks and is more consistent over time. The business model analysis identifies six rather stable clusters, from small-medium retail-focused banks to very large investment groups. The measures coherently identify as key trading players the largest investment groups and select very few retailed focused banks. Differences among measures arise for very large retail-diversified and medium/large wholesale banks.Originality/value– These results could feed the debate on which measures for trading regulators could consider depending on the target of the reform they would implement. For instance we show that the measure proposed by the European Commission selects less well capitalized retail-diversified banks compared to the others.

This study presents an empirical analysis of the resilience of European countries to the financial and economic crisis that started in 2007.1 The analysis addresses the following questions: Which countries showed a resilient behaviour during and after the crisis? Is resilience related only to the economic dimension? Has any of the EU countries been able to use the crisis as an opportunity and 'bounce forward'? Is it possible to identify any particular country characteristics linked to resilience? The analysis is based on the JRC conceptual framework for resilience (Manca et al., 2017) which places at its core the wellbeing of individuals, thus going beyond the merely economic growth perspective. The study carefully selects a number of key economic and social variables that aim to capture the resilience capacities of our society. Resilience is measured by investigating the dynamic response of these variables to the crisis in the short and medium run. In particular, we define four resilience indicators: the impact of the crisis, the recovery, the medium-run, and the 'bouncing forward'. Results from a narrow exercise focusing on macroeconomic and financial variables confirm the validity of the proposed measurement approach: Germany appears to be among the most resilient countries; Ireland, after having been severely hit, shows a good absorptive capacity; Italy seems to be still struggling with the recovery, while Greece remains the most affected. After measuring resilience, we identify underlying country characteristics that may be associated with resilient behaviour. As such, these could indicate entry points for policies to increase countries' resilience to economic and financial shocks. Results from a narrow exercise focusing on macroeconomic and financial variables confirm the validity of the proposed measurement approach: Germany appears to be among the most resilient countries; Ireland, after having been severely hit, shows a good absorptive capacity; Italy seems to be still struggling with the recovery, while Greece remains the most affected. After measuring resilience, we identify underlying country characteristics that may be associated with resilient behaviour. As such, these could indicate entry points for policies to increase countries' resilience to economic and financial shocks. The exercise has led to the following results and conclusions. - Ranking countries according to their resilience is not trivial. Their resilience performance depends on the indicator of reference: countries that are more resilient in their short-term response may not necessarily be the ones that perform better in the medium term. For example, while Germany and Poland appear to be among the most resilient countries both in the short and medium run, Bulgaria and the Baltics score better in the medium run than in the short run. - Broadening the perspective from a purely economic to a socio-economic viewpoint has an impact on the resilience assessment of a number of countries. For instance, Bulgaria proves more resilient when social variables such as social exclusion, happiness, health expenditures and wages are included in the analysis. Conversely, Hungary becomes less resilient when the social dimension is factored in. The importance of this broader perspective further reinforces the case for the European Pillar of Social Rights, and for the inclusion of the social dimension in the work of the European Semester. - We assess whether countries have been overall able to 'bounce forward', i.e. to improve their situation compared to the pre-crisis period. Countries'performance in this respect is substantially heterogeneous: while Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Spain still lag behind their pre-crisis performance in the majority of relevant socio-economic dimensions, countries like Germany and Malta managed to bounce forward in many areas. - In most countries, active labour market measures, productivity and R&D expenditures have increased compared to their pre-crisis level. Countries have been generally able to 'bounce forward' more as far as monetary aspects of wellbeing (GDP, consumption and income) are concerned, compared to non-monetary aspects of wellbeing (e.g. happiness, inequality, social exclusion and the share of young people not in employment, nor education, nor training). This latter finding confirms the need to consider the social dimension. - The analysis tested over 200 candidate characteristics for their association with resilience. Relevant country characteristics can differ in their association with short- and medium-run resilience. In particular: - High values of pre-crisis government expenditures on social protection turn out to be the most important feature in predicting the country absorptive capacity (lower impact). - When focusing on the medium run, the countries performing better are those that exhibit higher political stability. - As for the capacity of countries to 'bounce forward', what becomes critical is the business environment and in particular the perception of wages being related to productivity. - More generally, data show that countries that are net creditors vis-`a-vis the rest of the world tend to be more resilient than net debtors in all dimensions analyzed.