Search results

At the time they occurred, the savings and loan insolvencies were considered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Contrary to what was then believed, and in sharp contrast with 2007–2009, they in fact had little macroeconomic significance. Savings and Loan (S&L) remediation cost between 2 percent and 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), whereas the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the conservatorships of Fannie and Freddie actually made money for the US Treasury. But the direct cost of government remediation is largely irrelevant in judging macro significance. What matters is the cumulative output loss associated with and plausibly caused by failing financial institutions. I estimate output losses for 1981–1984, 1991–1998, and 2007–2026 (the latter utilizing forecasts and projections along with actual data through 2015) and, for a final comparison, 1929–1941. The losses associated with 2007–2009 have been truly disastrous – in the same order of magnitude as the Great Depression. The S&L failures were, in contrast, inconsequential. Macroeconomists and policy makers should reserve the word crisis for financial disturbances that threaten substantial damage to the real economy, and continue efforts to identify in advance financial institutions which are systemically important (SIFI), and those which are not.

This paper aims to investigate whether stock markets can reduce the output costs of banking crises. The work is motivated by Alan Greenspan’s claim that capital markets serve as a financial “spare tire” in the event of a banking crisis.

We test the impact of stock market capitalization, liquidity and turnover on the output losses of 76 banking crises in 66 countries over the period of 1975-2008.

Our results indicate that stock markets can mitigate the effect of banking crises on economic activity. There is also some evidence that foreign equity holdings lower output costs.

These results suggest that the development of equity markets will contribute to reducing the costs of banking crises. Such development, however, should be accompanied by adequate supervisory and regulatory oversight.

Our analysis is the first direct empirical investigation of the impact of stock markets on the output costs of banking crises. This paper demonstrates that equity markets can lessen the severity of such crises.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an alternative way of calculating the deadweight loss triangle in oligopolistic markets which takes inefficient use of inputs into account. The author shows that the result of the approach coincides with the one that exists in the economics literature. However, the author explicitly accounts for the inefficient use of inputs.

The market supply curve that is extensively used for competitive markets has been reconsidered for the imperfectly competitive markets. The necessary condition for the efficient use of resources is investigated and a price level is derived at which the market output of oligopoly is produced efficiently. The degree of inefficient use of inputs is reported via the definitions of Input Inefficiency Measure (IIM) and the Ratio of Inefficient usage of Inputs to Total Deadweight Loss (RITD).

The author discovers that the area under the supply curve of the competitive market corresponds precisely to the minimum total costs of producing any given market output. To make this important finding operational in imperfectly competitive markets, the IIM reports the degree of distorted input allocation among firms with differentiated cost structures in producing a given equilibrium imperfectly competitive market output. In measuring the monopoly power, it is known that CRn or HHI market concentration indexes, which are calculated based on the market shares of firms regarding the demand side of the market, are widely used. The measures, which take into account of the distortions in input usage, and hence, the supply side may be considered as an additional index. For example, if the market demand were shared equally by two firms (no dominant firm with respect to the demand side), it is known that the leadership would still arise when the costs of firms differed as in the dominant firm model in favor of the lower cost producing firm.

The author recommends some more theoretical research extensions of the approach suggested here to other oligopolistic markets like the Cournot-Nash, the Stackelberg and other models. In all cases, there is a need for additional work to find some measurable variables in practice in order to estimate the input inefficiency given by the two measures and differentiate it from the inefficiency of units of outputs that are not produced.

It may be interesting to decompose the various estimates of welfare losses due to monopoly power as a percentage of GNP that were discussed in the literature into two inefficiency components: units of outputs that are not produced and units of inputs that are misallocated among firms.

The government officials might be interested in assessing the degree of loss of input usage by firms in addition to output loss in oligopolistic markets summarized by the two inefficiency indexes. Law economists may be inspired in discussing the issue of input inefficiency in the context of on antitrust policy.

The author emphasized that the area under the market supply curve minimized the aggregate cost of producing a given total market output in competitive markets. Having recognized the importance of this finding, the author tried to apply it to imperfectly competitive markets and especially to the calculation of deadweight loss in such markets. The author showed that the total social cost could be calculated by including the input inefficiency which can be defined as the extra cost to society arising from not using the most appropriate economic resource allocation among firms in addition to the usual deadweight loss triangle. Moreover, the author had to introduce some more new terms like the market supply curve allocation, the adjusted competitive price, efficiency gain and so on, as they were necessary along the course of the analysis.

This paper aims to revisit the assumption of the cyclicality of the property-liability insurance market and identify a scenario in which the so-called underwriting cycles are unpredictable, according to a dynamic cash flow model which generates non-cyclical output dynamics.

This paper is on the intersection of real business cycle models and financial cycles. The authors construct a dynamic model of an insurer’s cash flows with stochastic loss shocks and capacity constraints, in which loss shocks have a dual impact on both underwriting profits and access to external capital. They simulate the insurer’s optimal output responses to loss shocks, including output movements in underwriting coverage and external capital, to explore the source of unpredictable underwriting cycles through linear quadratic approximation in the model economy.

The authors find that the effect of loss shocks on the insurer’s cash flows could spread out and amplify over time because of the dynamic interaction between its underwriting capability and ability to raise external capital. This dynamic interaction can generate a non-cyclical pattern of changes in underwriting coverage and access to external capital in the benchmark economy. Applied to different experimental economies, the simulation results reveal that the determinants of the level of output fluctuations include the size of loss shocks, the sensitivity of capital market to loss shocks and the tightness of capital market.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has been no attempt to study insurance output cyclicality with a dynamic cash flow model based upon the real business cycle literature, in which the dynamic interaction between underwriting and access to external capital because of loss shocks has an amplifying effect on output markets. This paper contributes to the current body of research by being able to simulate and show the insurance output dynamics resulting from the amplifying effect under capacity constraints.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how a drought which initially affects agricultural productivity can ultimately affect an entire economy. The study aims to assess the magnitude of the impact as well as highlight key issues that can inform the implementation of drought mitigation programmes.

The paper presents the literature on the economic impact of drought and uses a computable general equilibrium model where productivity shocks are applied to the agricultural industries following which the resulting impacts on the rest of the sectors of the economy are obtained.

The findings show that the key macroeconomic variables, namely, real GDP, industry output, employment, the trade balance and household consumption are negatively affected by the drought shock.

The results point to the fact that in the absence of drought mitigation mechanisms, the occurrence of even a short drought as modelled in this paper can impose substantial socioeconomic losses.

First, a general equilibrium framework which uses climate and economic data when evaluating the social-economic impacts of drought is used. Most studies employ partial equilibrium analysis in analysing drought impacts on specific sectors or crops within a limited geographical area. Others use global or multi-regional models which impose averages on the observed impacts. The current study provides valuable insights on the potential damage which droughts can impose on a single economy. This gives a basis for decision making to support drought mitigation policies and programmes.

The purpose of this paper is to measure the systemic importance of industry in the world economic system under the system-wide event – the crisis of 2008-2009, by viewing this system as a weighted directed network of interconnected industries.

First, the authors investigate this crisis at three different levels based on network-related indicators: the “macro” global level, the “meso” country level, and the “micro” industry level. This investigation not only provides evidence for the systemic influence, that is, systemic risk, of the crisis, but also reveals the contagion mechanism of the crisis, which supports the stress testing. Second, the authors use a network-related business intelligence algorithm, the combined hyperlink-induced topic search (HITS) algorithm, to measure the contribution of a given individual industry to the overall risk of the economic system or, in other words, the systemic importance of the individual industry.

The HITS algorithm considers both the market information and the interconnectedness of the industries. Based on the stress testing, the performance of the combined HITS is compared with the purely market-based systemic risk measurement. The results show that the combined HITS outperforms the baseline in finding the top N systemically important industries.

The combined HITS algorithm provides a novel network-based perspective of systemic risk measurement.

Measuring the systemic importance based on the combined HITS algorithm can help managers and regulators design effective risk management policies. In this respect, the work initiates a research direction of studying the systemic risk in a business system based on a network-related business intelligence algorithm because the business system can be viewed as an interconnected network.

Traditionally, economic production models consider pollution as bads that may be modeled as either outputs or inputs in economic models. The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of these modeling choices on the measurements of productive efficiency and private costs of pollution control.

The authors apply the hyperbolic distance functions to measure trucking efficiency and the private costs of pollution control.

The results show: (i) regardless of the choice of modeling, when only one bad was incorporated in hyperbolic distance functions, the efficiency loss and private abatement cost measures derived from the two models were equivalent, but potential pollution reduction and good output expansion differed; (ii) when more than one bad were introduced, the equivalence of efficiency loss measure in (i) did not hold; and (iii) the potential amounts of pollution reduction and good output expansion were larger when bads were modeled as inputs. With multiple bads, private abatement costs varied considerably under the two modeling treatments.

From a policy standpoint, the results suggest that one should consider the modeling options with caution when multiple economic bads are involved, because the resulting measures of economic burden of pollution control differ.

The paper shows that the traditional conceptual framework for modeling pollution in hyperbolic distance functions could yield inconsistent results.

Three difficulties confront researchers in the resilience arena. At the conceptual level, there is the need to identify resilient actions, including those that may seem to violate established norms, such as rational behavior. At the operational level, it may be difficult to model individual, group, and community behavior in a single framework. At the empirical level, it is especially difficult to gather data on resilience to specify models. The purpose of this paper is to summarize progress on all three planes. First, defines several important dimensions of economic resilience to disasters. Second, shows how computable general equilibrium modeling represents a useful framework for analyzing the behavior of individuals, businesses, and markets. Third, summarizes recent progress in the conceptual and empirical modeling of resilience, including the incorporation of disequilibria and the recalibration of key behavioral parameters on the basis of empirical data. Fourth, uses the results of a case study to illustrate some important issues relating to the subject.

The purpose of this paper is to review the post-harvest loss experience of several Asia-Pacific economies to analyse the potential impacts of reduction of such losses using a range of remedial measures.

A conceptual framework has been developed and then applied to a case study based on several Asia-Pacific economies to provide an empirical basis for the analysis in the paper.

Limited access to vital farm inputs and credit, poor infrastructure and lack of technical and market information are some of the critical challenges confronting many small farmers in developing economies including those in the selected case-study countries. The estimated “food savings” are considerable if Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s pledge to reduce food losses and waste by 10 per cent by 2020, relative to the 2011-2012 levels is realised in the case-study economies.

Further work is urgently required to collect more up-to-date data on food losses along the food supply chain, including post-harvest losses, in many economies across the world, including the Asia-Pacific region.

The analysis of post-harvest losses is underpinned by a conceptual framework that has been developed and applied to several Asia-Pacific economies.