Sovereign Risk Management in Recession: The Cases of Sweden and China

Zhang, Yuewen (2010): Sovereign Risk Management in Recession: The Cases of Sweden and China.

Abstract

Sovereign risk became a common issue after 2007 financial crisis happened. However, the crisis was only an incentive. Some high sovereign risk countries had lacked reliable sovereign risk management framework and lend overmuch debt before the crisis came. High cost of crisis and succeeding recession gave the world a critical strike. Using the cases of Sweden and China, I argue that fiscal expenditure constraints, debt control, and surplus accumulation in common time are most important measures to manage sovereign risk. A stable and efficient sovereign risk management regime framework is beneficial. A medium-term fiscal stability target should be included. Early intention, temporary stimulus policy and other budget measures could decrease cost of crisis and recession. A development domestic debt market could help relief refinancing pressure of government when some external shock happened. Perfect framework of statistics, specific accounting standard, high transparency will help the government, creditors, and investors reach some debt restructure agreement.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: China, Sweden, risk management, Sovereign risk,
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E6 - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook > E62 - Fiscal Policy; H - Public Economics > H6 - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt > H60 - General; G - Financial Economics > G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance > G32 - Financing Policy ; Financial Risk and Risk Management ; Capital and Ownership Structure ; Value of Firms ; Goodwill

References

1. Alan Sutherland, 1997, Fiscal Crises and Aggregate Demand: Can High Public Debt Reverse the Effects of Fiscal Policy? , Journal of Public Economics, 65 (1997) 147-162.

2. Ali Abbas and Jakob. Christensen, 2007, “The Role of Domestic Debt Markets in Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation for Low-income Countries and Emerging Markets”, IMF Working Paper, WP/07/127.

3. Audrey Desbonnet and Sumudu Kankanamge, 2007, “Public debt and aggregate risk”, working paper.

4. Bohn Henning, 2005, “The sustainability of fiscal policy in the United States”, CESIFO working paper, NO. 1446.

5. Blanchard Olivier, Jean-Claude Chouraqui, Robert Hagemann, and Nicola Sartor, 1990, “The Sustainability of Fiscal Policy: New Answers to an Old Question,” OECDEconomic Studies, No. 15 (Autumn), pp. 7–36.

6. Committee on the Global Financial System, 2007, “Financial stability and local currency bond markets”, CGFS Papers, No 28.

7. Frank Bohn, 2002, Public Finance under Political Instability and Debt Conditionality, working paper.

8. Honohan Patrick, and Daniela Klingebiel, 2000, “Controlling the Fiscal Costs of Banking Crises,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 2441.

9. Ilzetzki Ethan and Vegh Carlos, 2008, “Procyclical fiscal policy in developing countries: truth or Fiction?” , NBER Working Paper, No. 14191

10. International Monetary Fund, 2003, “Chapter Ⅲ: Public Debt in Emerging Markets: Is it too high?”, World Economic Outlook, September.

11. International Monetary Fund, 2009, “Fiscal Implications of the Global Economic and Financial Crisis”, IMF Staff Position Note, SPN/09/13.

12. International Monetary Fund, 2010a, Global Financial Stability Report, April.

13. International Monetary Fund, 2010b, World Economic Outlook, April.

14. International Monetary Fund, 2008a, “Fiscal Risks—Sources, Disclosure, and Management”, IMF working paper.

15. International Monetary Fund , 2008b, Fiscal Policy for the Crisis, IMF Staff Position Note, SPN/08/01.

16. James Hamilton and Marjorie Flavin, 1986, “On the Limitations of Government Borrowing: A Framework for Empirical Testing”, 1986, The American Economic Review, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 808-819

17. Ljungman Gösta, 2008, “Expenditure Ceilings—A Survey”, IMF Working Paper, WP/08/282.

18. Ministry of finance, 2009, Updating of Sweden's convergence programme, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/action/browse/c/y2010/c/203.

19. Morris Goldstein, 2001, “IMF Structural Conditionality: How Much is Too Much?”, Peterson Institute Working Paper Series, No WP01-4.

20. Michael Gavin and Roberto Perotti, 1997, “Fiscal Policy in Latin America”, in NBER Macroeconomics, Annual 1997, Volume 12, MIT Press.

21. Graciela Kaminsky , Reinhart Carmen and Vegh Carlos, 2004, When It Rains It Pours: Procyclical Capital Flows andMacroeconomic Policies, MPRA Paper, No. 13883.

22. Reinhart Carmen，Kenneth. Rogoff and Miguel Savastano，2003，NBER Working Paper Series, 9908