Search

Begin New Search Topic Debt Publication Year within 5 Years

31. European Union debt financing: leeway and barriers from a legal perspective

Author:
Sebastian Grund and Armin Steinbach
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
We explore legal leeway for two approaches to debt-financing European Union spending: creation of extra-budgetary, one-off and temporary EU funds to finance European public goods (similarly to NextGenerationEU), and debt-financing the EU’s regular budget, hence creating an on-budget, permanent borrowing capacity at EU level. We find that NGEU could in principle be replicated. This would require an amendment to the Own Resources Decision (ORD) – a unanimous Council decision that designates the main sources of EU financing and requires ratification by each member state – to authorise borrowing and specify how the borrowing proceeds are to be used. However, this approach would be constrained by the legal requirement that financing EU spending through ‘other revenues’ (as opposed to ‘own resources’ designated as such in the ORD) remain exceptional. As a result, no permanent EU tasks could be financed through NGEU-like funds and NGEU-like financing could not exceed financing through ‘own resources’. We also find that, while EU primary law does not stop the EU from debt-financing its budget, the scope for EU borrowing would remain severely limited compared to a sovereign state. The permissible amount of borrowing must be specified in the ORD and the EU must be able to meet its debt service in any year, which must be secured by a sufficient amount of (non-borrowed) own resources. Finally, considerable flexibility exists for the spending of borrowed funds, regardless of whether this occurs through new NGEU-like extrabudgetary funds or on budget. Borrowed funds could be allocated to climate funding, cohesion policy, infrastructure or research. In the event that borrowing proceeds are established as an ‘own resource’ in an appropriately amended ORD, borrowed funds could even be used for general financing of the EU budget.
Topic:
Debt, Markets, European Union, Finance, and Public Goods
Political Geography:
Europe

32. Life or Debt: The Stranglehold of Neocolonialism and Africa’s Search for Alternatives

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
Dossier no. 63 explores the origins of the debt crisis in Africa, exposing the Western financial chokehold as its source and exploring what alternatives can be built.
Topic:
Debt, IMF, Sovereign Debt, and Neocolonialism
Political Geography:
Africa

33. Debt Policy of State-Owned Mining Enterprises in Mongolia

Author:
Andrew Bauer and Batpurev Ayushsuren
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Natural Resource Governance Institute
Abstract:
Mongolia relies heavily on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to manage several key mining assets. Baganuur, Shivee Ovoo, Erdenet, Mongolrostsvetmet and Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi are the most important majority state-owned companies operating large-scale mines. From 2019 to 2021, debt held by mining SOEs increased 4.3 times. The total liabilities of these companies reached USD 2.3 billion, representing 15 percent of GDP. The new debt was largely issued to cover social spending and an economically questionable railway project. It is unclear how the government intends to service this debt, particularly since profitability at most mining SOEs has been weak and most face liquidity challenges. Mining SOEs’ poor financial health is due to the combination of quasi-fiscal activity financing, poor project selection and management, and inadequate legislation and control mechanisms for new debt issuance. Legal reforms to new debt issuance and stronger Ministry of Finance oversight of SOEs are needed, in addition to stricter implementation of existing legal requirements such as collecting and disclosing complete data on SOE debt. Mongolia’s government should also review mining SOE quasi-fiscal expenditures, such as price controls on coal, and other reasons for low profitability of mines.
Topic:
Debt, Natural Resources, Mining, and State-Owned Enterprises
Political Geography:
Mongolia and Asia

34. Using RRF resources to kick-start a job-rich recovery in Greece

Author:
Manos Matsaganis and Georgios Manalis
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is a golden opportunity for those member states that were most badly hit first by the debt crisis then by the pandemic. Greece, one of the largest beneficiaries in per capita terms, is due to receive very significant resources that can help arrest the decline of the 2010s. Can these resources be spent wisely and efficiently enough to kickstart the process of inclusive and sustainable growth? This paper briefly reviews the Greek National Recovery and Resilience Plan (Greece 2.0), assessing its potential contribution to upgrading the economy’s growth model, enhancing skills, and boosting employment. In 2007-19, total investment in Greece shrank by a stunning 70% in real terms. Over the same period, public investment fell by 62%, business investment by 44%, and household investment (on housing, mostly) by 89%. Under-investment constrains growth and undermines the future prospects of the Greek economy. The Recovery and Resilience Facility offers Greece a unique opportunity to bridge the investment gap, giving a boost to the sustainable recovery of the Greek economy. Technically, Greece 2.0, the country’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan is competently drafted, as its favourable reception by the European Commission indicates. Still, critical issues abound. In this sense, Greece 2.0 embodies the contradictions of the current juncture. On the one hand, there is a consensus that the Greek economy should rebalance, by pursuing a growth strategy that relies much more on exports than in the recent past, and much less on domestic consumer demand fuelled by debt. On the other hand, the legacy of the past weighs heavily on social and political actors, limiting their room for manoeuvre. The list is daunting. It remains to be seen how the above will play out over the next few years.
Topic:
Debt, Economy, Crisis Management, Resilience, and Economic Recovery
Political Geography:
Europe and Greece

35. Household Wealth Inequalities in the wake of the Greek Debt Crisis

Author:
Apostolos Fasianos
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
Despite the renowned interest in wealth disparities, the distribution of wealth in Greece is largely understudied. This study maps the levels, dynamics, and composition of household wealth using data from the three waves of the Household Finance and Consumption Survey for Greece for the period after the debt crisis of 2009-10 till 2017. The evidence suggests that the richest 1% of the population holds roughly as much wealth as the poorest 50%, while the richest 10% holds about four times the wealth of the poorest 50%. Most inequality indicators employed indicate increasing trends in wealth disparities between 2009 and 2017. During this period, average and median wealth holdings decreased by about one third, and the share of financially fragile households increased by about 20%. Estimates from factor inequality decompositions suggest that, although relatively evenly distributed, housing asset holdings explain much of the increase in overall wealth inequality in Greece, followed by self-employment business equity; financial assets play a negligible role. Financial wealth inequality is much more pronounced than housing wealth inequality in Greece. The findings of the paper carry important implications for the design of appropriate policies aiming at reducing wealth inequalities and strengthening financial resilience.
Topic:
Debt, Income Inequality, Economic Crisis, and Wealth
Political Geography:
Europe and Greece

36. The ABCs of Sovereign Debt Relief

Author:
Rakan Aboneaaj, Jocilyn Estes, and Clemence Landers
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
We are living in a time when many countries face heightened debt vulnerabilities. Already high before the pandemic, debt levels reached a 50-year peak following the growth in government spending to combat COVID-19. Debt is not inherently bad; borrowing can allow countries to finance vital government investment. But unsustainable levels of debt can have devastating consequences for a country’s population, crowding out government spending on even basic necessities including food, medicine, and fuel imports. In Sri Lanka, for example, 71 percent of government revenue was spent on debt service before the country defaulted. Even where the tradeoff is not so dire, unsustainable debt service can limit productive investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other sectors, hampering the economic growth necessary to reduce a country’s debt burden. After a decade-long period of low borrowing costs, a confluence of rising interest rates, inflation, and commodity shocks have raised the likelihood of overlapping debt crises in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) now estimates that 30 percent of emerging market countries and 60 percent of low-income countries could face trouble paying down their debts or will soon. There is no international bankruptcy mechanism for countries that default on their external obligations. Instead, countries have historically depended on a patchwork of precedents, contracts, and conventions to bring creditors to the table for debt relief negotiations. The United States has a legacy as the lead architect of large global debt relief initiatives, from the Brady Bond plan for Latin America to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative that kickstarted debt relief for poor countries in the 1990s. However, the global creditor landscape has changed significantly over the past decade. Low-income sovereigns’ largest creditors today—China and private bondholders—operate under much different principles than the leading bilateral creditors of the past, making the traditional norms and structures less effective for present debt challenges. The objective of the international financial architecture—historically overseen by the IMF and its shareholders— will be to corral these new creditors into a cooperative arrangement to deliver on debt relief.
Topic:
Debt, Development, Governance, Credit, and Sovereign Debt
Political Geography:
Global Focus

37. Domestic Revenue Mobilization and Debt Relief: The Lack of Any Link

Author:
Mark Plant and Nancy Lee
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
As the global financial community considers how to extend debt relief accompanied by IMF adjustment programs to vulnerable low-income countries, the issue of policy conditions for fiscal adjustment will inevitably arise. This paper considers the effectiveness of conditions related to domestic revenue mobilization (DRM) in the last systematic round of debt relief in the early 2000s Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (HIPC/MDRI). We find that debt relief had no impact on low-income countries’ DRM. Countries benefitting from debt relief had roughly the same DRM as those that did not. And DRM grew only slightly over time for both sets of countries. In the months to come there will be pressure to use debt restructuring and leverage to accelerate fiscal reforms and boost domestic revenue mobilization so that LICs can be seen to be contributing “their fair share” to economic recovery and transformation. Experience with the HIPC/MDRI tells us that we must be realistic in our expectations: external forces have limited impact unless combined with strong internal will and implementation capacity.
Topic:
Debt, Economics, IMF, and Credit
Political Geography:
Global Focus

38. Don’t look only to Brussels to increase the supply of safe assets in the European Union

Author:
Francesco Papadia and Heliodoro Temprano Arroyo
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
A sufficient supply of safe assets denominated in euros is critical if the European Union is to achieve full banking and capital markets union while fostering the euro’s international role. The European debate on developing the supply of safe assets has so far focused on the possible creation of a common safe asset. This has tended to underplay the potential contribution of sovereign assets. Expanding the supply of national safe assets, notably through the gradual implementation of fiscal and growth-oriented structural policies in euro-area countries, leading to upgrading of their sovereign ratings, provides a promising, and perhaps more feasible, option. An upgrade to triple A of those euro-area countries that are currently rated double A could produce substantially more safe assets than most common safe asset proposals, including those based on the development of ‘synthetic’ safe assets. There has been a remarkable increase in the share of supranational assets in the stock of euro-based safe assets since 2008, reflecting downgrades in sovereign ratings and the EU’s financial responses to the euro-area crisis and the pandemic. However, safe assets in euro remain dominated by those issued by euro-area governments. Although common safe assets have certain advantages over national safe assets, reflecting their built-in risk diversification properties, there is currently not much political appetite for such proposals. Meanwhile, sovereign safe assets already offer many of the advantages of common safe assets. Sound fiscal policies and growth-stimulating reforms, which are in any case desirable, should be implemented to improve the credit ratings of euro-area sovereigns. This might not be politically feasible in the short-term, given the difficult economic environment currently faced by the EU, but it should be a key component of the EU’s medium-term safe asset strategy. Should the political consensus be found to create a common safe asset, such an asset could be incorporated into the euro area’s existing safe asset system, reinforcing its positive effects.
Topic:
Debt, Markets, Monetary Policy, European Union, Regional Integration, European Monetary Union, and Banking
Political Geography:
Europe

39. CAN DEBT RELIEF CONSTRAIN REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS?

Author:
Brett L. Carter
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
The African continent is confronting the prospect of a new debt crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on government finances. The Russian government’s war against Ukraine has increased the cost of food and energy, and compelled investors to sell off government bonds in emerging markets. Rising interest rates in the United States will increase the cost of borrowing. The Chinese economy is struggling under the weight of Xi Jinping’s “Zero COVID” policy and accumulated real estate debt. In 2015, the International Monetary Fund announced that eight countries were in debt distress. By March 2022, 23 were. In June, public debt ratios reached a 20-year high. Africa’s debt-distressed governments “are unlikely to default” in 2022,” The Economist observed, “but face trouble by 2024.” There is some evidence that the debt crisis is especially acute for Africa’s non-democracies. The impending debt crisis coincides with a general sense that Africa is experiencing a democratic recession. Voters are increasingly subject to intimidation and violence. Incumbent presidents are removing term limits. The longstanding norm against military coups is fading.
Topic:
Cold War, Debt, World Bank, GDP, Repression, and IMF
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Ukraine, Asia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and United States of America

40. Istanbul Journal of Economics: Volume 72 Issue 1

Author:
Gökhan Karabulut
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Istanbul Journal of Economics
Institution:
Istanbul University Faculty of Economics
Abstract:
Istanbul Journal of Economics-İstanbul İktisat Dergisi is an open access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal published two times a year in June and December. It has been an official publication of Istanbul University Faculty of Economics since 1939. The manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal must be scientific and original work in Turkish or English. Being one of the earliest peer-reviewed academic journals in Turkey in the area of economics, Istanbul Journal of Economics-İstanbul İktisat Dergisi aims to provide a forum for exploring issues in basicly economics and publish both disciplinary and multidisciplinary articles. Economics is the main scope of the journal. However, multidisciplinary and comparative approaches are encouraged as well and articles from various social science areas such as sociology of economics, history, social policy, international relations, financial studies are welcomed in this regard. The target group of the journal consists of academicians, researchers, professionals, students, related professional and academic bodies and institutions.
Topic:
Debt, Development, Economics, Budget, Finance, Investment, Trade, Unemployment, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Asia