Search

This paper analyzes the dynamics of gross capital flows since the 1990s across three regions, i.e. East Asia, Europe and Latin America, and across types of capital flows, i.e. foreign direct investment, portfolio equity flows, portfolio debt flows and other investment. First, we demonstrate distinct features of gross capital inflows and outflows with selected EMs across the three regions by types of capital flows. Then, using panel data regression in the period of 2000-2015, we show how both domestic and global factors contribute to the dynamics of these gross capital flows. We confirm that both global factors such as expected growth and international investors’ risk perception in AEs, and domestic factors such as exchange rate regimes, and financial deepening in EMs, contribute to the dynamics. Furthermore, we detect significant regional diversities in relative importance and sensitivities in the roles of these factors.

Despite generally solid growth in East Asia since the 1980s, there remain large differences in productivity across the economies. Focusing on convergence in industrial productivities, this paper examines their convergence processes. We decompose industrial productivity growth into intra-industry productivity growth and inter-industry reallocation of resources. We find that, as contrasting to ANIEs (Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan), ASEAN4 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand) have not shown persistent industrial productivity convergence nor persistent structural transformation toward industrialization, while China’s productivity growth shows some magnified version of those of Korea and Taiwan. In other words, we argue that ANIEs and ASEAN4 make two distinct groups in terms of aggregate and sectoral productivity convergence.

We examine the role of financial shocks in business cycles in general and in financial crises in particular in East Asia (Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand) since the 1990s. Estimating a Financial Conditions Index, we found that financial shocks explain most of business downturns in all the economies in the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) in 1997-98, but that the effects of financial shocks are diverse across economies in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008-09. In the GFC, the financial shocks played a relatively minor role in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, while it played a similarly dominant role in Korea. Among individual financial channels, risk factors related to volatile external financial inflows were most significant in all the economies in the AFC and in Korea in the GFC.

This paper examines the role of structural change in productivity growth in Japan, focusing on her recent “lost decades”, with reference to the United States. Japan is now known to have a sharp slowdown in productivity growth in the 1990s, when we find a slowdown in intra-industry productivity growth is the main cause. We also find that the contribution of inter-industry reallocation of employment is almost zero in the 1990s and even significantly negative in the 2000s. Interestingly, the same holds true in the US, too. We will argue that structural change or the lack of it may not be responsible for the lost decades in Japan, and that these contrasting outcomes between Japan and the US come from a common factor.

This paper overviews the studies on the role of finance in economic development. Their focus has shifted from savings mobilization through financial liberalization to risk management through securitization. Due to intrinsically imperfect capital markets, however, financial globalization has occasionally witnessed booms and busts in advanced and emerging market economies. Observing interactions between alternative international monetary systems and financial globalization in the history of modern economic growth, this paper argues that the recent financial cycles have driven the shift of policy frameworks from inflation targeting to macro-prudential policy in macroeconomic stabilization and from securitization to possible financial internalization in economic growth.

application/pdf, 弘前医学. 59(Suppl.), 2007, p.S199-S201

The purpose of the present paper is to examine how the financial system of the Philippines has become vulnerable in the process of interaction with such macroeconomic policies as monetary and fiscal and exchange rate policies during the crisis in the 1980s, and then to search for the key aspects to be tackled in order to rebuild the system into a sounder and more robust one. We ensure that a vicious circle has operated through the past two decades. Government intervention in the financial system repressed its function with various forms of regulations. When the resulting cumulative distortions in the system led to financial crises, the intervention took the form of "relief, " which generated more serious moral hazard, imposed heavier costs on government finance and then led to macroeconomic instability, i.e. domestic as well as external imbalances. This instability has made the financial system more and more vulnerable. Then we argue that, in order for the Philippines' financial system to work out its essential function, it is indispensable to establish fiscal discipline not to "socialize" commercial risks. to promote private financial intermediation through improved protection of depositors and strengthened surveillance of financial institutions, and, finally and most importantly, to maintain the macroeconomic stability., この論文は国立情報学研究所の学術雑誌公開支援事業により電子化されました。

この論文は国立情報学研究所の学術雑誌公開支援事業により電子化されました。