西方世界深陷三重危村

西方的金融危机导致财政状况空前恶化，引发主权债务危机，主权债务危机的扩散造成金融市场和实体经济剧烈震荡，西方世界进入“财政危机—金融动荡一经济停滞”的严重恶性循环中，经济财政危机引起了西方社会对资本主义体制的再思考。     

试析发达经济体的主权债务危机风险

当前,西方国家刮起了一场主权债务风波,尤以欧元区国家为烈。希腊爆发了债务危机,其他一些欧元区国家也益显危机迹象。美国和日本的财政赤字和国债也居高不下,远超警戒线。这场主权债务风波表明,欧盟国家和美、日长期形成的"债务经济"是不可持续的。     

欧洲主权债务危机及其对中国—东盟金融合作的启示

欧洲主权债务危机的爆发给本来就复苏缓慢的欧盟经济蒙上了一层阴影,并对全球经济复苏造成严重影响。本文对此次债务危机的原因及其影响进行了深入分析,在此基础上,结合中国—东盟金融合作的具体情况,提出中国—东盟金融合作要认真吸取欧洲主权债务危机的教训,在中国—东盟金融合作过程中,各国政府之间要建立良好的政策协调机制、危机应对机制和监管机制,以防范区域性危机的发生。     

荆棘丛生的道路 暗淡迷茫的前景——1997～1998年俄罗斯的经济形势分析及前景预测

一、对俄罗斯１９９７年经济形势的回顾与分析１９９７年俄罗斯经济下滑速度有所放慢，国内生产总值呈现微弱回升，但是，其总体经济社会形势依然严峻，国家实力进一步削弱，投资危机、财政危机、支付危机有增无减，“债务经济”的特征日益鲜明而突出。俄罗斯的债务经济是...     

世界经济复苏阶段的新风险——主权债务增长与危机

在国际金融危机和经济衰退期间，各经济体采取了扩张性的财政政策和货币政策。反危机措施虽然阻止了经济“自由落体式”的下滑，但使发达经济体和一些新兴经济体的公共债务大为膨胀。希腊主权债务危机只是“冰山一角”。欧洲的主权信用风险和危机正在蔓延和扩散，削弱了欧盟、欧元区的凝聚力及欧元的吸引力，并影响到世界经济的复苏。亚洲新兴经济体应从希腊主权债务危机中汲取教训和警示，在经济复苏、增长与实施反周期措施之间，寻找“两难选择”的平衡点。     

主权债务危机的发展前景和影响

尽管欧盟和国际货币基金组织出台了大规模救援计划,金融市场仍然对欧洲主权债务危机的前景充满疑虑。这是因为解决危机的各项政策措施实施起来都存在较大难度,而主权债务危机形成的制度性缺陷若不解决,未来债务危机和货币危机可能会反复出现。最终,欧洲国家可能还是要采取＂债务货币化＂的手段解决债务危机,并因此引发汇率贬值和通胀上升,为世界经济增长带来不利影响。我国可能也将面临输入性通胀和人民币汇率升值的双重压力。     

世界经济增速同步放缓及其前景

当前,世界经济整体增长疲弱,增速放缓.美国房地产业出现温和复苏迹象,但整体经济表现平平；欧债危机持续恶化,欧元区整体陷入衰退；日本经济高开低走,全年可能回归“零增长”；在西方经济同步走弱的同时,新兴经济体也面临一些困难.世界经济未来走势近期主要取决于美国“财政悬崖”能否平稳解决,主权债务危机能否得到有效控制,中长期看新技术革命能否取得突破性进展.     

对国际格局演变的几点看法

当前,世界继续发生深刻复杂的变化,大发展、大变革、大调整是国际形势的主旋律,和平与发展仍然是时代主题.世界多极化、经济全球化深入发展,文化多样化、社会信息化持续推进.国际关系正经历深刻调整,国际和地区格局正加速调整、演变. 第一,国际金融危机和西方主权债务危机对国际格局的影响进一步显现.2008年爆发的国际金融危机推动世界经济进入深度转型、调整期.受金融危机的打击,西方在世界格局中的地位相对下降.     

主权债务危机对欧盟外交的影响

欧盟主权债务危机爆发两年多来,欧盟外交所受的影响逐渐显现。欧盟外交最明显的变化表现在经济领域,追求商贸和经济利益成为其当前的首要目标。同时,欧盟及各成员国对新兴大国的态度和政策总体上更趋重视,也更为务实。债务危机还影响到欧盟的外交意愿特别是行动能力。外交资源日趋减少使欧盟外交呈收缩之势,其外交重点将进一步向周边地区倾斜。此外,债务危机加速了欧盟的内部分化,其"外溢"效应将弱化欧盟共同外交。     

欧洲主权债危机和欧元的前景

2009年11月希腊爆发的国家主权债危机引发欧洲货币市场流动性短缺加剧，继而使西班牙、爱尔兰、葡萄牙和意大利等国也遭受信用危机，一时间，欧洲主权债危机风声鹤唳。欧洲央行及欧元区国家出台一系列应对措施及救助计划，终于使危机加剧势头得以遏止。当前欧洲主权债危机虽尚未结束，但通过对危机的处置，欧洲一体化程度将会进一步加强。强大的欧洲经济和强大的欧元符合中国的利益，应对全球性债务危机（尤其是美国的巨额债务）将是世界经济面临的最严重的挑战。     

美国金融危机对泰国金融业的影响

作为1997年亚洲金融危机的始发国和重创国，泰国金融业在此次金融危机中受到的影响程度备受关注。本文在金融危机传导机制的基础上分析了美国金融危机对泰国金融业的影响，并探索对我国金融业健康发展的一些启示。     

German crisis management and leadership—from ignorance to procrastination to action

The financial crisis of 2008 and even more so the crisis of the Eurozone drastically increased the demand for decisive leadership and public crisis management. Due to the size of its economy and its position in the global as well as in the European economy, Germany should take the lead in this crisis management. Germany’s management of the two crises differs but also shows strong similarities. A “center-left Grand Coalition” managed the global financial crisis; a global crisis in which Germany was one among several relevant global players. A center-right government under the leadership of the same chancellor then during the sovereign debt crisis manages the Eurozone crisis. This is a regional crisis but with global implications. German government was slow in responding to both crises but acted eventually after some procrastination. Both cases, however, differ with regards to Germany’s actual role in crisis management. During the global financial crisis, other global actors pushed Germany to the forefront. The Eurozone crisis, a regional crisis, demands a leading role of Germany, the largest economy and member state of the EU. The paper, however, argued that the German crisis management with regards to the Eurozone is very much driven by ideas that preserve German norms but do not live up to the challenges of the crisis. Germany’s insistence in its own interests and norms hinders the delivery of a comprehensive crisis management of the Eurozone crisis within the European Union.     

Responses to Financial Crises: An Evolutionary Perspective

As the world currently faces the ever-deepening sub-prime crisis, we are reminded that the process of globalisation can cause significant disruptions in global markets and political systems. This article focuses on the evolution of financial crisis responses to gain a better understanding of the dynamics affecting current responses. By using a focused comparison of case studies it argues that the development of crisis response and the dominance of the current multilateral actors is a result of an evolutionary process. This process privileges learning and innovation within a complex political economic system. The crises of each era, born of many of the same problems, generate a variety of responding actors, a few of which are adopted. These actors help to address the immediate problems and even work well for a while. Eventually, they are overwhelmed by the tendency of financial interactions to grow. Another set of crises generates another round of actors and mechanisms. As time goes on, crisis response requires more formal institutions that can deal with more complex systems. The article concludes that response actors are becoming more public, multilateral and global in scope. Understanding this pattern of response should help to shed light on the potential for reform of the financial architecture and help to explain the dominance of multilateralism as a crisis response.     

Two crises, two responses: adjustment of economic governance in ASEAN and the European Union

The financial crisis of 1997/1998 in Southeast Asia triggered institutional developments inside the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and beyond. They deepened intra-regional cooperation in the economic area and laid down the foundations for the ambition of creating an ASEAN Economic Community that would allow easier exchanges of productive factors. Concurrently, ASEAN also widened its response in the financial domain by initiating various “ASEAN plus” arrangements to pool risks and address volatility in financial markets. The European Union (EU) was hit by the global financial crisis in 2008 and subsequently by the sovereign debt crisis. The EU response to this has been a deepening of legally binding macroeconomic cooperation and the strengthening of the regulatory framework. On top of this, and contrary to the ASEAN case, the EU 27-Minus initiatives go further towards closer political coordination. In parallel, the legally binding scheme has been adopted to strengthen the stability of the Euro Area. This paper analyses the policy responses in both regions to their respective crises. It aims at understanding the driving forces behind the different policy responses, looking at both the region-specific and the more generic institutional and regulatory responses to the crises.     

美国金融危机阴影下的东南亚经济

美国金融危机引发全球性经济衰退，对东南亚各国的虚拟与实体经济同样产生严重影响。由于东南亚国家在经历了1997年金融危机之后执行了较为审慎的宏观经济与金融改革，国家层面、地区和泛地区层面的危机应对举措得力，2008年大部分国家的经济基本良好，金融体制依然健康，资本和外贸市场的动荡仍在可控范围内。但随着美国金融危机“溢出”效应的加强，2009年东南亚的实体经济还会受到进一步损害，金融和经济增长仍面临更为严峻的挑战和考验。     

进退失据:检视李明博的内外政策

自李明博政府执政以来,韩国国内外政策起初设定的目标几乎全面落空.由于牛肉风波及接蹱而至的全球金融风暴,韩国经济大有陷入第二次金融危机之虞,不仅所谓的"747计划"很可能成为空中楼阁,而且李明博政府目前根本无力在国内达成应对危机所必需的政治共识.对外政策方面,韩美同盟修复与扩展的议程众多却无实质性举措,美国对朝政策的急剧变化更使韩国手足无措;韩中双边关系虽有提升之名却无突破之实,南北关系在朝方的步步紧逼之下更是走到了全面断绝的边缘.深陷内外危机,却处处应对失策,李明博政府的执政能力正经受严峻的考验.     

俄罗斯两次金融危机的比较分析

通过俄罗斯两次金融危机的比较可以发现,1998年金融危机爆发的根源是大规模的财政赤字,并且与俄罗斯脆弱的银行体系和外资大量流出密切相关。而2008年金融危机的爆发则明显带有世界性特征,美国金融危机严重影响了俄罗斯的能源出口,外资大量撤离使卢布贬值,企业和银行普遍面临流动性短缺。俄罗斯应当充分吸取两次金融危机的教训,调整金融自由化战略,并以治理金融危机为契机,调整国内产业结构,摆脱经济对能源的过度依赖。     

世界经济“半外围区”的金融脆弱性——以两次金融危机中的韩国为例

1997年和2008年,韩国两次遭遇严重的金融动荡,且韩国经济在这两次金融动荡中的演进轨迹具有颇多相似之处.这说明外生的结构性因素在制约着韩国宏观经济的变迁.其实,这个外生结构性因素,就是与美国主导的霸权秩序结合在一起的世界经济"中心-外围"结构.韩国在这一结构中所处的"半外围区"的位置,正是韩国金融脆弱性的根源所在.从"中心-外围"结构的视角分析韩国的金融脆弱性的形成机理,可以发现"半外围区"金融运作的普遍特点.而分析韩国的金融脆弱性,对中国具有重要的警示意义.     

应对金融危机:从比较中看俄罗斯经济的转型与发展

1998年和2008年的两次金融危机俄罗斯都没能幸免。两次危机中,虽然诱因不同,但俄罗斯均表现出了股市下挫、银行遭遇流动性危机、卢布贬值等特征。就危机前的宏观经济背景而言,两次危机期间都发生了国际原油价格的大幅下挫,但石油价格下降的原因、幅度及其对俄罗斯造成的影响却有所不同;两次危机都使俄罗斯受负债拖累,但1998年以主权债务为主,而2008年以企业债为主。从根本上来讲,两次危机都暴露出了俄罗斯"依靠油气收益和外国低息贷款来发展经济"的致命弱点,并且显示出近十年的经济转型与发展尚未从根本上改变其经济结构和发展模式。通过两次危机的对比,也再次证明市场经验不足的转型与发展中国家一定要慎重对待金融的开放与自由化。     

Quest for a stronger regional leadership and an upgraded global profile

The Korean economy has suffered two major economic crises over the past 15?years — the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis. After analyzing both the changes in policy environments and Korea’s policy responses, the article argues that the ongoing global financial crisis provided a welcomed opportunity for Korea to increase its regional and global influence. Korea’s regional leadership has been strengthened especially in promoting the “development” issue in a number of international forums and in establishing a more effective crisis-prevention framework in the Asian region. As the host country of the 5th G20 Summit Meeting in 2010, Korea initiated a number of global issues, such as “development”, “global financial safety net”, “green growth strategy”, and has been successful in fortifying its position in the global arena. As a result, the global profile of Korea appears to have been raised both substantially and substantively.