[Abstract] Although the recent global financial crisis has stimulated a vast amount of research on the impact of public debt on economic growth and also increasingly on the role of private credit, the total levels of indebtedness of an economy have largely been ignored. This paper studies the impact of the total level of and increases in debt-to-GDP on economic growth for 26 developed countries in the short, medium and longer term. We analyse whether we can predict the future level of growth, simply by looking at the total level of debt, or increases in that debt level. We find that there is a negative correlation between high levels of debt and short term economic growth, but that this effect tapers in the medium and long term. Similarly, we find that rapid debt accumulation is negatively related to economic growth over the short term, the impact is less pronounced over the medium term and is non-existent over the long term.
The crisis of the public debt generally is the reflect of a fiscalcrisis. As in the model, where the external debt belongs to thegovernment. when the external financing stops, the governments can not reduce its deficits at the same speed so they have to look out for internal financing. The model shows that if the economy is not growing, the financing with debt constítutes and additional factor of perturbation to the macroeconomic stability ; La crisis de la deuda pública es generalmente un reflejo de una crisis fiscal, como lo muestra el modelo que se propone este artículo en el que el endeudamiento externo ha sido suscrito por el gobierno. Al interrumpirse el financiamiento externo, los gobiernos no pudieron reducir los déficits con tanta rapidez y tuvieron que recurrir a fuentes internas. El modelo muestra que si la economía no está creciendo, la financiación con deuda constituye un factor adicional de perturbación a la estabilidad macroeconómica.
Most post-modern societies are being challenged by a widening gap that divides their populations by the classic cleavages of age, class, region and religion. Exacerbated by the forces of globalization and the immediacy of technology, they result in constant clashes that cause an exponential increase in social tensions and insecurity. Even if the Norwegian killer was insane and can not be used as example, he was still a member of the dominant culture failing to accommodate to post-modern circumstances. In the United States this gap is vividly evident in the current debt ceiling debate, which is only a symptom of much serious divisions that threaten the country's social unity and political future.A brief look at recent headlines in the United States can give outsiders and idea of the country's social and political environment.On Sunday July 24th, a new law approving gay marriage came into effect in New York, making it the sixth and largest state in the nation (plus the District of Columbia) to have legalized same-sex marriage. In Manhattan, people celebrated on Fifth Avenue, singing and dancing to the music and well-suited lyrics of New York, New York ("If we can make it here, we'll make it anywhere…"). On July 0th, Republican candidates Michelle Bachman and Rick Santoro a "Marriage Vow" swearing fidelity to their spouses, promising they would "vigorously oppose any redefinition of marriage" and would take steps to amend welfare legislation that did not reinforce conventional marriage. This is only a sample of the extreme polarization the country is facing both economically and socially. It is a critical moment in United States history, one that may require a deep reflection on the basic principles the nation was founded upon and a renewal of the social compact.Prodded by the Tea Party leaders, who presently wield an amount of power disproportionate to their numbers, Republican candidates have been signing pledges on an array of different topics in order to prove their conservative credentials. Both Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney also signed a no-new-taxes pledge, together with a "cut, cap and balance pledge" to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget and congressional super majorities to raise taxes. These two pledges, albeit non-enforceable and thus largely symbolic, are now the single most important obstacle to reach a deal in Congress about balancing the budget and avoiding default on the national debt. Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips has threatened to recruit candidates to mount primary challenges against any GOP member that votes for a compromise on the debt ceiling that involves any type of revenue increases to balance the budget. The GOP Congressional leadership has been hijacked by intransigent ideologues, represented in the House by 87 freshmen with disproportionate power over the more established professional politicians who understand that democratic governance requires give and take, and that politics in a pluralistic society is the art of the achievable.This country was founded on the premise of compromise, negotiation and cooperation, as it is evident from the history of the Constitution and the layers of governmental power devised mainly to counterbalance one another: states versus federal, legislative versus executive, Senate v. House, and an independent judiciary. It was clear even then, that solutions in what promised to be a huge, diverse society with deep regional and religious cleavages would require compromise. But today, in the "worst Congress ever" as Norman Ornstein calls it in his recent article in Foreign Policy, compromise is a bad word. The House is controlled by a GOP freshmen class that owes its seats to Tea Party ideologues and is refusing to raise the debt ceiling even as President Obama has agreed to cuts in spending that include cuts in entitlements, in exchange for ending subsidies on ethanol and other corporate subsidies (he has even given up on the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts he had included in his first proposal). This package that would represent over 3 trillion dollars in cuts from the federal budget, including reductions in Medicare and other social programs, would have allowed the debt ceiling to be raised so that the US could avoid defaulting on its debt by August 2nd. It was on the table last week and close to being signed on by House Speaker John Boehner but he refused it at the last minute because of pressure from his own caucus. The Tea Party is pushing professional legislators toward the abyss, and with them, the whole country. The Tea Party is a social movement that was born out of frustration and disappointment with government spending over the last twelve years. President George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus from the Clinton-Gingrich years. But that surplus quickly vanished as Bush proposed and got passed serious tax cuts on the wealthy and then embarked on two wars that are still going on today. In response, a large coalition of Independents, Republicans and a few former Democrats formed a protest movement that defines itself for what it is against: big government, big media, big banks, unsustainable deficits and intrusive federal regulation. In spite of some evident intrinsic contradictions in their philosophy (for example some the new regulations they so vehemently oppose such as the Dodd-Frank legislation are meant to constrain the actions of "big banks" they so strongly abhor), the Tea Party has been very successful in focusing the public's attention on the federal budget deficit and on the federal debt that has ballooned in the last two decades. Those are its core concerns, together with a deep-seated contempt for and rejection of, everything the well-educated elites are for the most in favor of: environmental sustainability, a foreign policy based on multilateralism, gay rights and immigration reform legislation that recognizes the realities of the estimated twelve million undocumented workers in the country. After two months of wrangling, neither side has managed to get what it wanted, the US credit rating is about to be downgraded (with the subsequent increase in interest rates and damaging effects on an already slow economy) and the vitriolic Washington environment is alienating people on the Right and on the Left. Pressured by the Tea Partiers and their anti-tax obsession, Republicans have refused to compromise to avoid a default, and in so doing they are sabotaging their own chances for 2012. Most Americans are appalled at the GOP's refusal to endorse Obama's proposal that would cut the deficit by $3.7 trillion through a mix of spending cuts, entitlement reform and ending some corporate subsidies and tax deductions. In so doing, the GOP is alienating independent voters that want to avoid default and are ready for a deal. A new political center of gravity is forming. The number of registered voters that identify themselves as Independent is growing (40% in latest poll), while the numbers of Republicans and Democrats are sinking and there is a new online movement from the grassroots to form a third party.Paradoxically, out of all this Byzantine intrigue in the hallways of Congress, and given the outcome of no deal announced on Monday night, President Obama may come out as the winner. To the dismay of his most progressive base, Obama, intent on finding some common ground with the opposition has shifted to the center-right of the political spectrum on his proposals, daring to sacrifice some cuts on entitlements in exchange for revenue increases, only to see them rejected by the Republicans. He is close to winning a stand-alone debt ceiling increase while having proven to be the only reasonable adult in this struggle. This would gain him the support of many independents and help him avoid a confrontation within his own party. It would also allow him to focus on unemployment, the real immediate crisis that most directly impacts people's lives. However, Democrats in the House and Senate are afraid that concessions on reducing some Medicare benefits, for example, or postponing the eligibility age, would ruin the clarity of their message to seniors during the election. Conversely, Tea Partiers see a compromise involving any sort of revenue increases by the government, even non-tax measures such as ending corporate subsidies, as a betrayal of their principles. The Tea Partiers have brought into focus the spending crisis that has been growing unchecked for a long time, and one the country cannot obviously tax its way out of. Some facts cannot be denied: debt is the result of spending not backed by revenue. Total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of the GDP today from 27% in 1960. It could reach 50% by 2038. The debt-to-GDP ratio has reached 100% today, from 42% in 1980. The big moral struggle is still ahead. There is no question that the government is spending too much, but the real debate is about priorities and the philosophies that underlie those priorities. The President has recognized that the budget deficit is important to voters, most of which have come to the conclusion that since the stimulus spending did not solve the problem of unemployment, deficit reduction appears to be a better way to improve the economy than investing in education, infrastructure and new energy technologies. Obama must acknowledge this, and make it part of his discourse.But the President must also continue to make a case for the common good ("there are things we can still do together", he said in his last speech), the social safety net and America's future. He can do this by personalizing the budget battles the way Clinton did. Are budget battles about choices or necessities? Why give more tax cuts to the wealthy if their wealth has grown through the recession while the rest saw their wealth diminish? Why subsidize corporate agriculture and ethanol production? Social programs like Medicare serve all Americans, why focus on cutting it while giving a pass to the upper income- and- wealth echelon? General elections are won from the center. Strong strident advocates make for weak candidates. Undoubtedly, the 2012 election will be about money, about fiscal discipline, but it will also be about a more equal distribution, and it will require strong leadership from the two respective philosophical corners to come to a consensus. That is why the Republican establishment is so worried about the lack of gravitas in their field of candidates. That is why some yearn for budget whiz Paul Ryan, or Governor Chris Christie or Rick Perry….or anybody really, that looks and sounds as if he can take on Obama in the intricacies of the budget, the debt ceiling, and social programs reform. That may also be why Jeb Bush was asked on Fox News about his intentions to run for President again two days ago. This time his response was more nuanced: he said that while he doesn't anticipate it, he hasn't ruled it out ("but, he added, "I haven't ruled out being in Dancing with the Stars, either").In the meantime, the Wall Street Journal today announced that, based on the Pew Research Center tabulations of SIPP and Census date, the wealth gap between America's whites and its two largest minorities, Blacks and Hispanics, has widened to unprecedented levels due to the housing crisis and the Great Recession. Alan Greenspan, former President of the Federal Reserve has said repeatedly that the wealth gap that has grown consistently for the last decade is a threat not only to our country but to capitalism itself. Poverty and unemployment are a combustive mix: if fiscal responsibility ends up being based on the back of the poor, social conflict will erupt. It is unconscionable, for example, to think that hedge fund managers pay significantly less taxes than their secretaries.Some Republicans want to abolish every piece of social legislation and re-litigate every progressive judicial decision since the New Deal. As part of pledge game, Michelle Bachman and four other candidates also signed the "Susan B. Anthony pledge "promising to appoint abortion opponents to their cabinets and to deny all funding for Planned Parenthood when they become presidents. The bizarre "Marriage Vow "pledge signed by Bachmann and Santoro not only opposes same-sex marriage and includes a personal promise to be faithful to their spouses, but (most peculiarly yet redundantly) it also rejects Sharia Law (which, by the way, like Bachman, also opposes gay marriage and female adultery, which it punishes by death!)The only candidate that has refused to sign any pledge is Jon Huntsman, who understands the perils of siding too closely with the rebellious Tea Party. Even if some of its main points have successfully brought into focus the deficit issue, the Tea Party is still supported by a minority and resented by most Republicans. Its anti-technocratic, anti-Washington message has resonance, but it may have pushed the GOP too far into a corner. Its message is also becoming blurred when it steps into the social arena: its racist and homophobic overtones do not reflect the spirit of the times and are offensive to the "millenials", the youngest generation of voters born in the 80s and 90s, which Republicans still hope to attract in 2012. Social movements are major vehicles of participation and can re-energize a worn out party. They reflect the spirit of the times, often in an extremist way that is what gives them prominence: their passion for the cause, their original approach, are all important, but their message has to resonate with the public if they are to succeed. They emerge, coalesce, grow and achieve some successes. However, once their main point is made, three things can happen: they can become a party, their main ideas can be incorporated into mainstream politics, or they dissipate and be quickly forgotten. The Tea Party brought into focus the issue of fiscal responsibility, it infused conservatism with new energy and found a natural home in the Republican Party, which had become profligate, and will have to prove from now on that it is sincere about austerity. Its impact is undeniable: it has also attracted Independents and in so doing, has per force moved the Democratic Party to the center-right. Mimicking the "big tent" approach of Republicans, the Tea Party has lately been focusing strategically on fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets and its main groups have avoided divisive social issues when speaking to the general public. But their demands of ideological purity from their candidates, their emphasis on returning to the strict meaning of the Constitution and the values of the Founding Father, their defense of states rights and gun rights, belie their claims of inclusiveness for all Americans; in its coded language, its contempt for immigrants and its not-so- veiled racism, one senses a strongly reactionary sentiment bordering on uncontainable fanaticism which is completely out of step with most Americans and which will make it very difficult to widen its appeal beyond what it has already achieved.To paraphrase deceased Republican leader Barry Goldwater, the Tea Party's aim isnot to streamline government or make it more efficient, but to get rid of every piece of social legislation and economic regulation passed since the New Deal. Their purpose is not to share the burden of the weakest members of society, nor to educate their children so they can have equality of opportunity, but to defend the individual freedoms of those who can stand on their own. In sum, they are extremists for whom tolerance and moderation are vices, not virtues, and therefore they have no place in a democracy.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
En este trabajo se teoriza la deuda y la comercialización de comunicación como instrumentos de control social. Se argumenta que estos elementos se refuerzan y se apoyan mutuamente, trabajan juntos para gobernar y nos diseñan a través de "psychopower '. Juntos, crean un nuevo tipo de trabajador, abusan de la idea de libertad y destruyen la atención. La 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street protestas que surgieron en todo el mundo demostró la importancia de la ciudad como espacio público político. Aunque la investigación muestra que la energía se genera en el espacio digital, virtual y en red, el espacio físico sigue siendo decisivo para impugnar las relaciones de poder dominantes. Sin embargo, la deuda y el trabajo de comunicación basada en el marketing, pone en marcha el poder de forma simultánea tanto en el físico como en los escenarios digitales. La pregunta es, ¿cómo podemos impugnar esta dinámica específica?AbstractThis paper theorizes debt and communication marketing as social control instruments. It is argued that these elements reinforce and support each other and work together to govern and design us through 'psychopower'. Together, they create a new type of worker, abuse the idea of freedom, and destroy attention. The 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street protests that emerged all over the world proved the importance of the city as a political public space. Although research shows that energy is generated in the digital, virtual, and networked space, and physical space is still crucial to challenge dominant power relations. However, debt and marketing-based communication start power up simultaneously both on the physical and the digital levels. The question is, how can this specific dynamic be challenged? ; En este trabajo se teoriza la deuda y la comercialización de comunicación como instrumentos de control social. Se argumenta que estos elementos se refuerzan y se apoyan mutuamente, trabajan juntos para gobernar y nos diseñan a través de "psychopower '. Juntos, crean un nuevo tipo de trabajador, abusan de la idea de libertad y destruyen la atención. La 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street protestas que surgieron en todo el mundo demostró la importancia de la ciudad como espacio público político. Aunque la investigación muestra que la energía se genera en el espacio digital, virtual y en red, el espacio físico sigue siendo decisivo para impugnar las relaciones de poder dominantes. Sin embargo, la deuda y el trabajo de comunicación basada en el marketing, pone en marcha el poder de forma simultánea tanto en el físico como en los escenarios digitales. La pregunta es, ¿cómo podemos impugnar esta dinámica específica?AbstractThis paper theorizes debt and communication marketing as social control instruments. It is argued that these elements reinforce and support each other and work together to govern and design us through 'psychopower'. Together, they create a new type of worker, abuse the idea of freedom, and destroy attention. The 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street protests that emerged all over the world proved the importance of the city as a political public space. Although research shows that energy is generated in the digital, virtual, and networked space, and physical space is still crucial to challenge dominant power relations. However, debt and marketing-based communication start power up simultaneously both on the physical and the digital levels. The question is, how can this specific dynamic be challenged?
Developing States have contracted many debts; especially since the early 1980s; with creditors. These can be either States or international financial institutions. However; whoever the public debtor is; the latter will intervene more or less directly; increasingly becoming an interlocutor in any attempt to renegotiate or even totally pay the debt itself. This ubiquity arises many questions about its purpose and nature. This is particularly true of the political regimes of indebted states. Indeed; the democratization of these states has become both a means and an end for financial institutions; as the Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. Therefore; the question is whether the payment is possible or an illusion.
THE RECENT FINANCIAL CRISIS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAVE LED TO VARIOUS ATTEMPTS TO REFORM THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. FOCUSSING ON THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW DOCTRINE OF ODIOUS DEBTS THE ARTICLE ARGUES THAT BESIDE POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DRIVEN EFFORTS ALSO THE LEGAL SYSTEM WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP MECHANISMS TO REFORMULATE SOCIAL CONFLICTS INTO THE QUAESTIO IURIS. THE OPTION IS THAT LEGAL "FORMALIZATION" MIGHT BE ABLE TO DAMPEN THE RESPECTIVE DESTRUCTIVE TENDENCIES. ; AS RECENTES CRISES FINANCEIRAS NO SISTEMA ECONÔMICO GLOBAL TÊM LEVADO A VÁRIAS TENTATIVAS DE REFORMAR O CENÁRIO INSTITUCIONAL INTERNACIONAL. CONCENTRANDO-SE NA DOUTRINA DO DIREITO INTERNACIONAL PÚBLICO REFERENTE AO "DÉBITO ODIOSO", O ARTIGO SUSTENTA QUE, AO LADO DOS ESFORÇOS DIRIGIDOS POLÍTICA E ECONOMICAMENTE, O SISTEMA JURÍDICO TERÁ DE DESENVOLVER MECANISMOS PARA TRANSFORMAR CONFLITOS SOCIAIS EM QUAESTIO IURIS. A OPÇÃO É QUE A "FORMALIZAÇÃO" JURÍDICA PODE SER CAPAZ DE ARREFECER AS RESPECTIVAS TENDÊNCIAS DESTRUTITIVAS.
Artículo de revista ; The progressive entry into force of the new bank capital accord, known as Basel III, and the approval of the new regulations on the recovery and resolution of credit institutions in the European Union are increasing the need for credit institutions to have a sufficient capital buffer to absorb potential losses. In order to meet these legal requirements, European banks have, in recent years, issued contingent convertible bonds and subordinated debt. This article analyses the main characteristics of these hybrid instruments. It first presents the information available on the volumes and the numbers of issues and issuing institutions, and then analyses issuance costs and market prices of outstanding issues, paying particular attention to Spanish institutions' issues
El propósito de estos apuntes es destacar algunos elementosde discusión y análisis sobre la ciudadanía comoconcepto que transversa en la actualidad los procesosde toma de decisiones en las sociedades democráticas.Cada vez más la 'legitimidad' de los gobiernos y las políticaspúblicas pasa por el ejercicio de la llamada ciudadaníaactiva y la participación individual y organizadade los habitantes que son a la vez sujeto y objeto de losprocesos decisorios y de reconocimiento de derechosy oportunidades. El desafío adquiere mayor fuerza en Centroamérica, que transita con limitaciones en esta doble aspiración de construcción democrática con ampliación de la ciudadanía. En esta perspectiva, se espera plantear algunos aspectosa considerar en relación con los límites y alcances delconcepto y sus vínculos con las aspiraciones democráticas.Esto es, plantear los principales debates conceptualesy políticos sobre ciudadanía, como criterios quecoadyuvan a impulsar una gestión más eficaz de la democracia.Se intenta plantear desde el binomio logros/deudas, para llamar la atención de que sigue siendo enlo académico y en lo político, un concepto en construccióny una aspiración válida pero especialmente complejapara la realidad centroamericana.
In the Mexican economy four policies forced the State to redefine its strategy of development. They were: 1) the considerable purchase by the government of firms that were not strategic or of national priority; 2) the preservation of a structure of high: industrial protection; 3) an excesive reliance of the economy on oil, and 4) the perception of the increase in the price of oil as a permanent and not a temporary phenomenon, By the seventies the first two phemona restricted the possibilities of economic growth which translated into inflation. In the eighties the high dependency on oil and the weakness of its monetary value deepened those trends. The external debt became the single most significant constraint of development. The government was forced to reduce drastically sustantive public expenditure.Health was one ofthe areas more severely affected. ; En la economía mexicana se conjugaron cuatro factores que llevaron al Estado a replantear su estrategia de desarrollo. Ellos fueron: 1) la absorción desmedida por parte del gobierno de empresas que no eran estratégicas o prioritarias; 2) la preservación de una estructura de protección elevada a la industria; 3) la "petrolización de la economía"; y 4) el haber percibido el alza en los precios del petróleo como un fenómeno permanente y no temporal. A partir de los setenta, los dos primeros fenómenos limitaron las posibilidades de crecimiento económico, lo que se vio reflejado en el surgimiento del proceso inflacionario. En los ochenta la alta dependencia en el petróleo y la debilidad en su cotización exacerbaron dichas tendencias. La deuda externa se convirtió en la principal restricción al desarrollo. El gobierno se vio obligado a reducir drásticamente su gasto programable. El de la salud fue uno de los renglones más castigados.
Summary The article analyses the behaviour of fiscal policy from the perspective of the Modern Money Theory (MMT), for which the fiscal deficit does not matter. This represents a net injection of expenditure into the economy and generates private sector surpluses — by keeping the external sector's balance constant —. It is not possible to talk about reducing the fiscal deficit without considering the balance sheet of the private sector and the external sector. Whether the economy has a current account deficit in the balance of payments, and the private sector has financial problems and is not investing; reducing the fiscal deficit leads the economy to recession. Attempts to reduce the fiscal deficit may be counterproductive, as gross domestic product (GDP) growth, such as tax revenues, diminishes gross domestic product (GDP) growth and increases the payment of transfers, which increases the fiscal deficit and the debt ratio. Reducing the government deficit requires a reduction in the primary surplus and a reduction of the current account deficit to boost growth, which increases tax revenues and reduces the payment of transfers. ; Resumen El artículo analiza el comportamiento de la política fiscal desde la perspectiva de la Teoría Moderna del Dinero (MMT por sus siglas en inglés), para la cual el déficit fiscal no importa. Éste representa una inyección neta de gasto en la economía y genera superávit del sector privado -al mantener constante el balance del sector externo-. No es posible hablar de reducir el déficit fiscal sin considerar el balance del sector privado y del sector externo. Si la economía tiene déficit de cuenta corriente en la balanza de pagos, y el sector privado tiene problemas financieros y no está invirtiendo; la reducción del déficit fiscal lleva la economía a la recesión. Los intentos de disminuir el déficit fiscal pueden ser contraproducentes, debido a que disminuyen el crecimiento del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB), como los ingresos tributarios, e incrementa el pago de transferencias, lo cual ...
The dispute between the Chilean government and housing debtors has strained housing policies of the country. This article mentions the conflict created by the subsidiary policies of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. To that effect, the historical and recent evolution of state action and the perceptions of social actors are analyzed. Privatization of credit, debt cancellation and the creation of housing solutions exempt from debts did not put an end to the problematic arrears of shantytown dwellers. On the contrary, government reforms seem to have reproduced demands for debt cancellation ; El conflicto del gobierno chileno con los deudores habitacionales últimamente ha tensionado la política de vivienda del país. El artículo evoca el conflicto provocado por la política subsidiaria del Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo (MINVU). Para ello, se observa la evolución histórica y reciente de la acción pública y la percepción de los actores sociales. La privatización del crédito, la condonación de la deuda y la creación de soluciones habitacionales sin deuda no terminaron con la morosidad problemática de los pobladores. Al contrario, las reformas del gobierno parecen haber replicado las demandas por la condonación.
