Developing country vulnerability in light of the global financial crisis: Shock therapy?

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Development Finance Pub Date : 2013-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rdf.2013.02.001
Dennis Essers
{"title":"Developing country vulnerability in light of the global financial crisis: Shock therapy?","authors":"Dennis Essers","doi":"10.1016/j.rdf.2013.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper adopts a vulnerability perspective to look into some of the key developmental issues that have been raised in discussions following the global financial and economic crisis of 2008–2009. We contend that country vulnerability, defined as <em>probability of shocks</em> <!-->×<!--> <!-->(<em>exposure</em> <!-->−<!--> <em>resilience</em>), matters for future growth and poverty reduction. However, different ways of dealing with vulnerability all have specific advantages as well as downsides. First, <em>coping</em> with the aftermath of shocks can be painful and is inherently backward-looking. Second, <em>prevention</em> by reducing exposure is typically a long-term process. Third, increasing resilience through <em>self-insurance</em> often carries high opportunity costs. And fourth, <em>market insurance and hedging</em> may be politically sensitive and is largely unavailable to countries that need it most. Hence we argue for a multi-layered ‘therapy’, combining different approaches with attention to the short and long term, mindful of country specifics and with roles to play for both developing countries themselves and international actors. A tentative exploration of how vulnerability has been dealt with before and during the crisis suggests that, in some areas, important progress has been made. Nevertheless, and particularly for low-income countries, there is still a long way to go.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39052,"journal":{"name":"Review of Development Finance","volume":"3 2","pages":"Pages 61-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rdf.2013.02.001","citationCount":"72","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Development Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879933713000043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 72

Abstract

This paper adopts a vulnerability perspective to look into some of the key developmental issues that have been raised in discussions following the global financial and economic crisis of 2008–2009. We contend that country vulnerability, defined as probability of shocks × (exposure  resilience), matters for future growth and poverty reduction. However, different ways of dealing with vulnerability all have specific advantages as well as downsides. First, coping with the aftermath of shocks can be painful and is inherently backward-looking. Second, prevention by reducing exposure is typically a long-term process. Third, increasing resilience through self-insurance often carries high opportunity costs. And fourth, market insurance and hedging may be politically sensitive and is largely unavailable to countries that need it most. Hence we argue for a multi-layered ‘therapy’, combining different approaches with attention to the short and long term, mindful of country specifics and with roles to play for both developing countries themselves and international actors. A tentative exploration of how vulnerability has been dealt with before and during the crisis suggests that, in some areas, important progress has been made. Nevertheless, and particularly for low-income countries, there is still a long way to go.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全球金融危机下的发展中国家脆弱性:休克疗法?
本文采用脆弱性视角来研究2008-2009年全球金融和经济危机后讨论中提出的一些关键发展问题。我们认为,国家脆弱性被定义为遭受冲击的概率×(暴露度-复原力),对未来的增长和减贫至关重要。然而,处理脆弱性的不同方法都有其特定的优点和缺点。首先,应对冲击的后果可能是痛苦的,而且本质上是向后看的。其次,通过减少接触来预防通常是一个长期的过程。第三,通过自我保险增强韧性往往会带来很高的机会成本。第四,市场保险和对冲可能在政治上很敏感,对最需要的国家来说基本上是无法获得的。因此,我们主张采取多层次的“治疗”,将不同的方法结合起来,关注短期和长期,注意国家的具体情况,并为发展中国家本身和国际行动者发挥作用。对危机前和危机期间如何处理脆弱性的初步探索表明,在某些领域取得了重要进展。然而,特别是低收入国家,还有很长的路要走。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Development Finance
Review of Development Finance Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determinants of the non-life insurance market in Brazil Institutions, inward foreign direct investment, trade openness and credit level in emerging market economies Determinants of credit risk in the banking system in Sub-Saharan Africa Cash holdings and corporate governance: The effects of premium listing in Brazil Bank competition and regional integration: Evidence from ASEAN nations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1