글로벌 금융위기의 원인과 국제적인 금융개혁의 동향

김용재 ( Yong Jae Kim ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2011 고려법학 Vol.0 No.60

At present, worldwide financial reform is underway. For instance, on July 21, 2010, the U.S. President signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (hereinafter the Dodd-Frank Act), which would clear away greed and abuses prevalent in the U.S. financial system before. Regulatory reform in one country is not sufficient to put the global crisis out. Rather, simultaneous reforms all around the world are certainly desirable to get rid of most problems arising from the global financial crisis. This paper will see a broader picture of the global financial crisis, and provide a deep understanding of the crisis, its causes and effects, and the international effort to restore global financial stability. Then, this paper will analyze the Dodd-Frank Act in detail based on the picture and understandings of the global financial crisis. Thus, this paper is quite different from other published papers just focusing on the Dodd-Frank Act per se. The global financial crisis has shown how all nations and peoples are closely interconnected to. A remarkable fact about the crisis is the international cooperation such as G-20 and international reforms it has evoked. This international cooperation is the most important reason why the world has escaped economic collapse so fast and easily. The global economic crisis having occurred since the summer of 2007 is a surprising event without an equivalent case in modern economic history. The world had experienced many economic downturns in the business cycle before, but has never experienced the current Great Recession triggered by near-collapse of the global financial system. The present crisis is also unique because its origin comes from the United States, which has been a strong source of world economy since the second World War. In addition, the crisis exposed the weaknesses of global economic and financial institutions including the IMF and the World Bank since they were completely powerless to remedy the crisis. Stagflation could be avoided only by coordinations by national governments taking active steps rewarding the very people who were responsible for the crisis. The United States which are the cornerstone of the global financial crisis has enacted comprehensive and remarkable reforms which would made fundamental changes to the post Great Fall financial systems established in 1930s. At this time, therefore, it is appropriate to examine the crisis, to determine what happened and why in the past, to analyze current financial regulatory reforms and to suggest future necessary steps to overcome the crisis completely. All these issues will be dealt from Chapter Ⅱ.

성장 없는 고용: 7개 국가의 비교 연구

김준 ( Joon Kim ) 한국질서경제학회 2017 질서경제저널 Vol.20 No.2

글로벌 금융위기 이전 2000년대 초·중반의 세계 경제 대 호황기는 고용 증가에 비해 경제성장의 속도가 훨씬 높게 나타난 ‘고용 없는 성장’의 시대였다. 반면 글로벌 금융위기의 충격이 어느 정도 마무리된 2010년대에는 경제성장은 한 단계 낮아졌지만 고용 상황은 오히려 양호한 이른바 ‘성장 없는 고용’ 현상이 나타나고 있다. 본 논문은 이와 같은 배경 하에, 우선 글로벌 금융위기를 전후하여 경제성장과 고용 간의 관계가 ‘고용 없는 성장’에서 ‘성장 없는 고용’으로 변화한 사실을 검증하였다. 이를 위해 성장에 대한 고용의 탄력성 및 취업자 1인당 노동생산성 증가율 등 두 검증 지표를 정립한 후, 세계 주요 7개 국가에 적용하였다. 다음으로 글로벌 금융위기 이후 나타난 ‘성장 없는 고용’ 현상의 원인을 분석하였다. 여기에는 전 세계적인 공통 요인과 개별 국가적 요인을 두루 살펴 본 후, 한국 고유의 요인도 분석하였다. 마지막으로 앞의 분석 결과를 바탕으로 세계와 한국 경제의 미래에 대한 전망을 제시하였다. 이에는 우리나라 고용 정책에 대한 시사점도 포함하였다. 본 논문의 분석 결과, 글로벌 금융위기 이후 2011~2015년 기간에는 세계 주요 7개 국가 중 중국을 제외한 모든 국가에서 정도의 차이는 있지만 동시다발적으로 ‘성장 없는 고용’ 현상이 일어난 사실을 확인할 수 있었다. 그 원인으로는 세계 교역의 둔화와 난민 유입의 급증 등 몇 가지 세계 및 개별 국가적 요인들을 찾을 수 있었다. 아울러 은퇴연령층과 노년층, 그리고 여성의 노동공급 증가 등과 같은 몇몇 한국적 요인들도 찾을 수 있었다. 이상의 논의를 종합해 볼 때, 세계와 우리나라에서 ‘성장 없는 고용’ 현상은 당분간 지속될 가능성이 크다. 그런데 경제성장 없이 고용의 증가가 장기적으로 이어지기는 어렵다. ‘성장 없는 고용’은 생산성 하락과 경쟁력 약화로 이어져, 결국 세계와 우리 경제는 장기 저성장으로 쇠락하고 고용 흡수력도 떨어지는 ‘고용 없는 저성장’의 악순환에 직면하게 될 것이다. 다행히 지금처럼 세계 경제가 예상보다 더 일찍 살아나고 또 고용의 양적·질적 개선정책이 더해진다면, 우리 경제에도 긍정적인 효과가 있기를 기대할 수 있을 것이다. The world economy has changed sharply after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. In the pre-Global Financial Crisis era, international trade since the 1990s exhibited an unprecedently high growth, going through the expansion of the global value chains. But in the post-Global Financial Crisis era, international trade has contracted with the rise of protectionism. The pre-Global Financial Crisis era during 2000~2007 period is an age of ‘jobless growth,’ which means that economic growth rate is relatively higher than the increase rate of employment. In contrast, the post-Global Financial Crisis era during 2011~2015 period is an age of ‘growthless jobs,’ which mean that the increase rate of employment is relatively higher than economic growth rate. This paper investigates the appearance and the causes of ‘growthless jobs’ in world economy after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. So it analyzes the transition of world economy from ‘jobless growth’ in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era to ‘growthless jobs’ in the post-Global Financial Crisis era. World economy is represented by seven countries which include five big economies and two emerging economies. They are United States of America, China, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Korea, and Taiwan. And it infers the causes of the transition from ‘jobless growth’ in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era to ‘growthless jobs’ in the post-Global Financial Crisis era. Finally, based on the findings, this paper provides policy implications. To compare ‘jobless growth’ in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era during 2000~2007 period with ‘growthless jobs’ in the post-Global Financial Crisis era during 2011~2015 period, two indicators are used. One is the elasticity of employment to economic growth, that is a value of the increase rate of employed persons denominated by economic growth rate. If the elasticity of employment to economic growth in the post-Global Financial Crisis era is higher than in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era, we can confirm that there is a change from ‘jobless growth’ to ‘growthless jobs.’ Another indicator is the increase rate of value-added labor productivity per employed person, that is approximated by a subtraction of the increase rate of employed persons from economic growth rate. If the increase rate of labor productivity in the post-Global Financial Crisis era is lower than in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era, we can also confirm that there is a change from ‘jobless growth’ to ‘growthless jobs.’ According to the analysis, five economies including Korea, U.S.A., Japan, United Kingdom, and Taiwan reveal robust changes from ‘jobless growth’ to ‘growthless jobs.’ Germany reveals a weak change. But in case of China, the outcomes are contradictory. So we can conclude that world economy except China has changed from ‘jobless growth’ in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era to ‘growthless jobs’ in the post-Global Financial Crisis era. What are the causes of ‘growthless jobs’ after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis? Some world-wide explanations are plausible. First, because of increase in economic uncertainty, maturity of the global value chains, and the rise of protectionism, international trade has contracted severely in the post-Global Financial Crisis era. The contraction of international trade has induced gains from specialization to decrease. Accordingly, economic growth rate of world economy is lower in the post-Global Financial Crisis era than in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era. Second, there are strengthened financial regulations and weakened credit allocation in advanced economies. Especially in United States of America, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has become effective since 2010. In United Kingdom, Stewardship Code was established in 2010. These have strengthened regulations on financial institutions, so their role of credit allocation has weakened. Therefore economic growth rate of advanced economies in the post-Global Financial Crisis era is lower than in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era. Third, a great many refugees have come into the member states of EU from Africa and the Middle East. Most of refugees are employed as part-time or temporary workers in service sector such as call centers and cleaning business. Accordingly, the increase rate of employed persons in EU is relatively higher in the post-Global Financial Crisis era than in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era. Besides, non-standard employment relationships, including temporary and part-time employment, have risen since the crisis hit in 2008. In contrast, the drop in total factor productivity growth following the Global Financial Crisis has been widespread and persistent across the world. And that decline has been one of the main contributors to output losses relative to pre-Global Financial Crisis trends. It seems that there are several causes which are specific to Korea. First, the expansion of capital intensive industries has shrunk, but labor intensive industries have revived after the Global Financial Crisis. Second, the emigration of domestic industries abroad has weakened after the Global Financial Crisis. Third, because the participation rate in labor market of women and old generations increases rapidly, labor supply is more in the post-Global Financial Crisis era than in the pre-Global Financial Crisis era. Forth, demand for service commodities grows very slowly. So in spite of its contributions to employment, service sector contributes little to economic growth. ‘Growthless jobs’ are expected to last for some time. But ‘Growthless jobs’ can never be sustainable. If weak economic growth continues, employment can not but shrink. As a result, ‘Growthless jobs’ will fall in the trap of ‘jobless low-growth’ in the end, which means that both economic growth and employment are depressed together. If world economy recovers more rapidly than expected, the global value chains and international trade will improve soon. Hence Korean economy will also recover more rapidly than expected. It is crucial to maintain a sound economic structure through continuous structural reforms. In addition to economic growth, employment is a very important issue. Employment is more sensitive to domestic demand than to export. To enlarge employment, better maintenance of domestic demand is desirable.

Getting Global Financial Stability Through Precautionary Principle

Jin Yul Ju 서울국제법연구원 2012 서울국제법연구 Vol.19 No.2

1976년 브레튼우즈 체제 붕괴 이후부터 2012년 오늘날까지 국제사회는 거의 10년을 주기로 심각한 국제금융위기를 겪어 왔지만 국제금융시장의 안정화를 위한 국제법제도를 마련하지 못하고 있다. 1930년대 대공황 이후 세계경제에 가장 큰 악영향을 미친 금융위기로 평가되는 2008년 위기의 주범으로 샤도우뱅킹과 장외파생상품과 같이 그 파급효과를 전혀 예측할 수 없는 대단히 복잡하고 불확실한 투기적 금융관행이 지목되고 있음에도 불구하고, 미국을 비롯한 주요 금융선진국은 이러한 투기적 관행을 금지시키지 않고 있다. 현재 주요 금융 선진국이나 국제금융기구는 기존의 수리통계학적 리스크분석방식에 기초한 금융리스크관리법으로 글로벌금융시장의 안정화를 추구하고 있지만, 이러한 방식으로는 복잡한 투기적 금융관행으로 인한 글로벌금융위기의 재발을 사전에 방지할 수가 없다. 글로벌금융시장의 안정화를 위해서는 사전주의적 차원에서 그 파급효과의 예측이 불가능한 투기적 금융관행을 국내입법과 국제조약을 통해 전면 금지해야 할 필요가 있다. 그런데 투기적 금융관행일 수록 금융계의 큰 수입원이 되고, 글로벌금융시장을 사실상 지배하고 있는 소수 국가들의 정부와 국제금융기구가 금융업계의 로비에 포획되어 있기 때문에, 투기적 금융관행에 대한 사전주의적 금지입법이 쉽지는 않을 것으로 보인다. Today international society faces a challenge in addressing the global financial crises. Despites never-ending debating on the key causes of financial crises, it seems quite certain that there do exist a great deal of "uncertainty" in global financial market. Unlike risk, uncertainty cannot be forecasted by statistical inference. For instance, over-the-count derivatives are too complex to predict whether they can cause financial crisis or not. While some says that derivatives enhance economic efficiency, others criticize that derivatives are "financial weapons of mass destruction." At any rate, the recent global financial crisis well shows that any scientific risk assessment of too-complex-to-predict (TCTP) financial practices can never forecast future crisis. If it is true that financial industry did not intend to cause the 2007-8 financial turmoil and the governments were not aware of a possibility of crisis, it can be assumed that TCTP practices have unintended economic consequences which makes the lives of ordinary people worse. This paper argues that TCTP financial practice should be considered as "potentially dangerous" for the purpose of global financial stability. Of course there is an uncertainty whether a particular TCTP practice would really cause financial crisis. In regard to this, this paper finds that global financial system can be analogized to complex ecosystem where the consequences of human actions are not predictable and the Precautionary Principle (PP) says that uncertainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prohibit TCTP human behaviors. In this context, this article suggests that the PP should be introduced to deal with TCTP financial practices. Of course there are critiques of the PP. It is true that the PP can be misused in some circumstances where unreasonable and speculative fears of future harms are exaggerated. But when considering already-happened catastrophic financial crises, fears of next crises can never be considered as unreasonable and speculative. Moreover, when considering a possibility that large fiscal expansion to mitigate private financial sectors crisis causes another sovereign debt crisis, it is highly needed to introduce the PP in dealing with TCTP practices. As the PP may have various forms in different contexts, the argument for it is just a starting point. To have a real meaning in the real world, the PP is required to be more specified. This article argues that the strongest form of the PP should be introduced. It must be financial firms, rather than the government or the public, who bear the burden of proof that TCTE practices would not cause financial crisis. As far as potentially dangerous practices give financial firms a chance of astronomical amount of money, TCTP practices will be nothing more than rational choice for them. If financial industry fails to prove it, the governments should prohibit a TCTE practice in question to protect the lives of ordinary people which are particularly vulnerable to financial crisis.

세계금융과 민주주의의 관계에 관한 재고찰

정진영(Jin-Young Chung) 동아시아국제정치학회 2013 국제정치연구 Vol.16 No.1

The outbreak of the global financial crisis and the subsequent Euro crisis provide a good opportunity to reexamine the relationship between global finance and democracy. This is because the crisis period has lay bare the political foundation of the global financial system. Before the crisis, it was often presumed that financial globalization was an inevitable trend, as was the consequential restraint of democratic politics at the national level. Capital mobility hypothesis and financial policy trilemma have supported this view. Under the condition of high international capital mobility, nation states cannot avoid sacrificing their autonomy in pursuing their economic policies. In other words, democratic governments cannot be as responsive to popular demands, so long as they remain adherent to the demands from global financial markets. However, the outbreak of global financial crisis and subsequent developments put an end to the belief in the possibility of self-regulating financial markets and brought about widespread popular protests against the global financial system and strong demands for strengthening financial regulation. Polanyi’s concept of “double movement” provides an appropriate explanation of this turnaround. Comprehensive and strong financial regulatory reforms have been pursued at both the international and national levels since the crisis. Consecutive G20 summits have been providing political legitimacy and dynamics to this financial reform drive. The Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision have been instrumental in designing and developing new regulatory measures. The so-called ‘systematically important financial institutions,’ or SIFIs, and the shadow banking sector have received special attention because they were believed to be the main weak points of the pre-crisis global financial system. Financial regulatory and supervisory agencies have also been strengthened in the countries of all the major economies. If all these reform measures are to be successfully adopted at both the national and international levels, we may live under a completely different global financial order in the years to come. However, there are still important obstacles ahead, which reflect the fundamental nature of the comtemporary global political economy; namely, the coexistence of globally integrated financial markets and nationally divided regulatory authorities. Under these kinds of circumstances we can hardly be sure that financial regulatory measures will be implemented optimally. This means that the shape of a new international financial order will also be determined through national and international political processes. This is why we argue that the relationship between global finance and democracy should be viewed not from an one-way structural perspective, but from that of a mutually constituting political process. When we adopt this perspective, we come to ascertain that we are living in a period of another great transformation through which democracy and global finance can find a new compromise for their stable coexistence.

글로벌 금융위기에 관한 정치경제학적 분석

황준성 ( Jun Seong Hwang ),윤여협 ( Yeo Hyub Yoon ) 한독경상학회 2009 經商論叢 Vol.27 No.3

현 글로벌 금융위기는 신흥시장이 아닌 미국경제에 그 근원이 있고, 그 위기가 현재 세계적위기로 확산되었다는 점에서 가장 큰 특징이 있다. 본 논문에서는 현 미국 금융위기의 주요원인이 세계적 불균형(global imbalance)과 금융기관들의 경기 순응적 레버리지(procyclical leverage) 관리방식에 있고, 위기의 세계적 전염 문제의 중심에 글로벌 금융자본의 자유로운 이동이 존재한다고 분석하였다. 금번 미국 발 글로벌 금융위기를 포함한 최근의 금융위기의 만개는 1980년대 이래 추진된 금융자유화와 금융세계화의 진전에 따라 발생한 것이다. 그리고 분명한 것은 위기의 중심에서 글로벌 금융자본이 주요한 역할을 하고 있다는 점이다. 따라서 위기와 심화와 재발을 막기 위해서는 국내 신용 시스템과 글로벌 금융자본에 대한 보다 단호한 규제와 감독 시스템을 포함한 통제방안이 필요하고, 금융위기의 전염을 막는 공적, 집단적, 국제적인 금융질서의 개혁논의가 더욱 활성화되어야 한다. The global financial crisis of 2008~2009 began in July 2007 when a loss of confidence by investors in the value of securitized mortgages in the U.S. resulted in a liquidity crisis that prompted a substantial injection of capital into financial markets by the U.S.Federal Reserve, Bank of England and the European Central Bank. The TED spread, an indicator of perceived credit risk in the general economy, spiked up in July 2007, remained volatile for a year, then spiked even higher in September 2008, reaching a record 4.65% on October 2008. In September 2008, the crisis deepened, as stock markets worldwide crashed and entered a period of high volatility, and a considerable number of banks, mortgage lenders and insurance companies failed. The financial crisis is remarkable in several ways; being now very much a global affair, even though the crisis started in the U.S. housing market; the roots of the crisis lie not in the emerging markets but in the U.S. market which is the center of global financial market. This paper analyzes the fragility of global imbalance and pro-cyclical leverage actions of the U.S financial institutions as the main factors that have contributed to current financial crises. The authors also examine that international financial flows are the propagation mechanism for contaminating financial instability across borders. The recent wave of financial crises has followed the surge in global financial flows since 1980s. It became clear that leveraged global financial intermediaries-commercial banks, hedge funds, mutual funds-have played major roles at the heart of financial market melt-down. Under these circumstances, in order to curb the recurrence of financial crises, the policies are required to manage domestic credit systems as well as the international flows. They, specifically, include increased government controls on the global financial capital, strong surveillance of private and international capital market, and a reform of the international monetary and financial system which provides all countries with well-functioning collective insurance against financial crises and protect them from the contamination of financial crises.

글로벌 금융위기 시점의 실제이익조정행태에 관한 연구

안성윤(Sungyoon Ahn) 대한경영학회 2016 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.29 No.2

본 논문은 2007년과 2008년 글로벌 금융위기 시점에 유가증권 상장기업의 실제이익조정행태를 실증분석하고 있다. 글로벌 금융위기는 자본시장의 글로벌화로 인해 다른 나라의 외부충격에 국내 자본시장이 동조화되는 특성을 보이며 경영자와 투자자 사이의 정보불균형이 증가되는 경제위기에 해당한다. 이는 외부자본시장으로부터 자금조달이 제약된 금융시장의 위기가 실물경제로 확대되어 전 세계적 경기불황을 유발하고 전체 산업에 영향을 미쳤다는 점에서 흥미로운 회계학 연구주제를 제공한다. 실증분석결과 글로벌 금융위기가 시작된 2007년 시점 성장주 기업은 상대적으로 경영자의 재량이 발휘되기 용이한 판매관리비 중 재량적 비용을 감소시켜 보고이익을 상향조정하는 실제이익조정을 수행하였다. 경제위기 상황에서는 경영성과가 악화될 가능성이 높아 이익조정을 통해 경영성과를 높게 보고하고자 하는 경영자의 기회주의적 재무보고 유인이 증가한다. 반면, 정부의 적극적인 경제위기극복 지원과 다양한 이해관계자들의 감시가 강화된 2008년에는 성장주기업은 생산수준을 감소시켜 단위당 고정제조원가 배부액을 증가시킴으로써 보고이익을 하향조정하는 실제 이익조정을 수행하였다. 이는 미래에 대한 불확실성이 증가됨에 따라 기업은 보수적으로 이익을 보고하게 되고, 미래 경영성과를 악화시킬 수 있는 실제이익조정을 선호하지 않은 결과로 보인다. 또한 성장주의 경우 미래 성장기회로 인한 수익성이 높아 경영성과가 높을 것이라는 기대로 정상적인 영업활동의 수준으로 유지하는 것을 재무보고이익 상향조정보다 더 중시한 것으로 해석된다. 글로벌 금융위기 동안 영업현금흐름을 저하시키는 신용매출액 증가를 통한 실제이익조정은 나타나지 않았다. 이상의 결과는 가장 최근의 경제위기에 해당하는 글로벌 금융위기 시점 자본시장 참여자들 간의 정보비대칭이 심화된 회계정보환경에서 기업들이 기회주의적 재무보고를 수행하기 위해 실제 경영활동을 조정하는가를 실증분석하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 이는 자원의 효율적 배분을 달성하기 위해 중요한 정보원천인 회계정보가 어떻게 산출되는가를 연구하는 회계학 연구의 가장 본질적인 영역에 해당하는 것으로 회계정보환경이 기업의 경영활동 및 재무보고에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가를 보여주는 연구결과에 해당한다. This paper provides empirical evidence on the effects of global financial crisis during 2007 and 2008 on real earnings management that affects resource distribution and cash flows through real operating activities in order to manage financial reporting outcomes. The globalization of financial markets led to the co-movement among financial markets after the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis, triggered in the U.S. and spread globally around the world, has caused the problem of asymmetric information between firms’ managers and investors. The largest and sharpest drop in global financial markets brought out a sharp downturn of the real sector of the economy across whole industries. The unusual and important financial crisis of the modern era, the global financial crisis, creates an interesting research question in accounting about earnings management through real operating activities under asymmetric information. The main results demonstrate the real earnings management behavior in the global financial crisis as follows. In 2007, growth firms with higher market-to-book ratios reduce discretionary expenditures such as selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and abnormally lower discretionary expenses relative to sales. Consequently, showing the effect of concern about reported income on discretionary spending decisions, growth firms manage reporting earnings upward. During the crisis, the significant decrease in earnings performance may cause managerial opportunism in financial reporting. In order to reduce the possibility of default situation, managers are likely to report higher income and avoid the costly violation of contractual obligations. In order to meet earnings benchmark, it is relatively easier for managers to use real activity-based earnings management through controlling discretionary expenditures rather than through managing production costs or trade credit policy. In 2008, the profitable growth firms decrease abnormal production costs through lowering production volumes thereby reducing the reported income in the financial statements. During the global financial crisis, earnings should be managed downward in consequence of enhanced external monitoring such as more-intensive auditing, government regulatory surveillance, creditor monitoring, board oversight, public scrutiny, etc. Firms may have the incentive to income-reducing earnings management so as to obtain the government support for financially distressed firms or the benefits from the fiscal and tax policies. In addition, the increased uncertainty and risk of future that stemmed from the economic crisis could strengthen firms’ risk aversion and conservatism in financial reporting. While real earnings management boosts income in the current period, it can negatively affect subsequent operating performance in the future. For example, if firms increase production volumes more than necessary in order to increase earnings in the current period thereby generating abnormally high production costs for a given sales level, overproducing inventory defers current manufacturing costs to the subsequent periods and results in the inventory control problem such as storage of excess inventory, outdated sales, and so on. With regards to the effects of firms’ growth measured by the market-to-book ratio (MB) on real activity-based earnings management measured by the abnormal production costs in 2008, since growth firms’ higher market values reflect attractive growth opportunities and higher future profitability performance, growth firms should have lower incentives to raise reported income through manipulating real business activities with costly efforts. This paper contributes to accounting research by providing insights into how firms involve the real activity-based earnings management through financial reporting under asymmetric information during the recent global financial crisis. This brings a fundamental issue for schola

글로벌 금융위기 이후 거시경제 불균형의 한(韓),미(美) 간 전이 효과 분석: 물가,환율을 중심으로

김윤영 ( Yun Yeong Kim ) 한국금융학회 2011 금융연구 Vol.25 No.4

본고는 미국의 양적완화 통화 정책이 단기적으로 미국경제에 불균형을 초래하면서 물가, 환율 등 국내 경제에 장·단기적으로 어떤 영향을 미치는 지를 통화주의적 접근을 통해 분석해보았다. 실증분석 모형으로는 우리나라와 미국의 거시 펀더멘탈 변수들로 구성된 공적분 장기균형과 이에서 정의된 오차항으로 구성된 변환 오차수정 모형을 분석에 사용하였다. 분석결과 글로벌 금융위기 이후 우리나라와 미국 모두 물가의 불균형 오차가 켜졌음을 알 수 있으며 이는 금융위기 극복을 위한 급격한 양적 완화 정책으로 인한 통화 증가에도 불구하고 물가가 아직 장기균형 수준으로 상승하지는 않았음을 나타낸다. 이와 함께 한·미간 불균형오차의 상관계수와 연계성이 글로벌 위기 이후 크게 높아졌으며 이에 따라 확대된 미국의 물가 불균형이 한국 물가 불균형으로 전이될 가능성이 있는 것으로 보인다. 한편 충격반응함수분석 결과 물가 충격반응 구조가 글로벌 위기 이후 기간이 외환위기 이전 기간과 유사한 점이 다수 나타났다. 이는 경제 주체들이 통화량 팽창에 물가 예측 반응 조정으로 신속히 대응하는 구조가 글로벌 위기 이후 외환위기 이전과 유사해 지고 있을 가능성이 있는 것으로 추정되며 합리적기대이론이 시사하는 정책무력성 명제와의 관련성이 주목된다. The paper analyzes how quantitative easing of the United States generates the disequilibrium of her economy in the short run, which will also affect to Korean economy, especially to the price and Won/Dollar exchange rate. For this, the prices and exchange rate may be decomposed into the long run co-integration equilibrium defined from the monetaristic approach and cointegration disequilibrium error. Using this decomposition and a VAR(vector-autoregressive) representation of error correction model, the dynamic relations of non-fundamental factors between fundamentals and price and exchange rate disequilibrium may be analyzed. The motivation of analysis is give as follows. The equilibrium holds whenever the excess demand disappears because the price equates the demand and supply of economy(or disequilibrium error becomes as zero). If the law of demand and supply holds, then any non-zero disequilibrium error disappears as time passes and thus it converges to zero. However, if the demand curve has a positive slope because of speculative demand, then the disequilibrium error does not converge to zero as time passes. Note some equilibria points may show instability and thus the price may diverges. For instance, if the demand curve is moved due to the monetary policy, then, at the former equilibrium, now excess demand may be induced and thus the price diverges from the equilibrium. We estimated long run equilibria using OLS method. In case of Korea, the size of coefficient and t-value of money were large, but the the size of coefficient for industrial production was small. However, in case of the US, both the size of coefficient and t-value were quite large. Finally, the estimation result for Won/Dollar equation show the role of money becomes large after global financial crisis unlikely it of the interest rate. Johansen cointegration test results show that there are at least three cointegration relations with 10%-significance level for every periods. That does not contradict with our structure of three long run equilibria in the model. The residual based showed the similar results except for the price equation of the US after global crisis probably due to rapid monetary easiness policy. The ratio of disequilibrium errors to price become large for Korea and the US after global financial crisis and this implies that the prices have not increased up to the equilibrium levels after the rapid monetary easiness. Further the correlation coefficient of disequilibrium errors for Korea and the US becomes large after global financial crisis. Scatter diagram for Korean and the US disequilibrium errors also shows the similar result. Impulse response analyses of VAR model with Korean and the US disequilibrium errors were conducted. After global crisis, Korean disequilibrium error is significantly responding to the impulse of the US disequilibrium error at its initial stage. However any significant reverse impulse response does not appear. The estimation results for price disequilibrium equation shows that the roles of money after Asian crisis and the interest rate after Asian crisis and global financial crisis. Further the estimation results for Won/Dollar exchange rate disequilibrium equation shows that the roles of industrial production after Asian crisis and the interest rate after global financial crisis. Estimations of co-integration regression when the oil price is added are conducted. In there we find that the importance for the price of oil price was disappeared after global financial crisis in the US. However, in Korea, the importance for the price of oil price was increased during the same period. In short, we find the disequilibrium errors of prices for Korea and the U.S. have been increased after the global financial crisis, which imply that the money expansion to overcome the crisis has not increased the price up to the long run equilibrium level. Further the disequilibrium correlation between Korea and the U.S., has been increased after the global financial crisis and thus we suspect that the increased price disequilibrium of the U.S. may be transmitted to Korean economy. According to the impulse response analysis, we find that the pattern for the price sector during the global financial crisis was similar to it during the Asian financial crisis.

The Role of Financial Innovations in the Current Global Financial Crisis

Yoon-Shik Park 서울대학교 경제연구소 2009 Seoul journal of economics Vol.22 No.2

Several macroeconomic missteps such as global imbalance have been blamed for causing the current international financial crisis. Others have also blamed the excessive Wall Street greed for the crisis. While the above factors may have played a supporting role in the financial crisis, they were certainly not the primary causes of the crisis. The root cause of the current international financial crisis is the abuse of various innovative financial techniques and new investment instruments that have been developed. In recent decades, the pace of financial innovations has accelerated precipitously, which in turn has driven the explosive growth in both the size of global financial markets and its array of new financial products and techniques. The current crisis is primarily the direct result of the abuse of some of the latest and most innovative financial techniques, most of which are too esoteric and technical to be comprehended correctly by both government regulators and academic economists. Many crises are usually a byproduct of the cycle of financial innovations.

글로벌 금융위기와 금융규범의 대응방안에 관한 논고

허범 국제거래법학회 2011 國際去來法硏究 Vol.20 No.1

This article reviews and reflects on the causes of the 2008 global credit crisis (the “global crisis”) and the responses of financial laws and regulations. The causes of the global crisis are analysed as being the accumulated consequences of multiple factors, including macro-economic imbalances, the failure of risk management by systemically important financial institutions, and lapses of the relevant prudent regulations and supervisions. All these factors are facilitated by the tools of complex financial products, such as credit risk transfer products including securitisation,collateralised debt obligations and credit derivatives. While each factor plays a part in having contributed to the systemic meltdown of financial markets, it is suggested that the concentration of risk through the process of excessive leverage and exposure by financial institutions should be considered as the defining factor of the global crisis. In view of the regulatory responses to the global crisis, this article presents an analysis of the Basel III framework and certain regulatory issues currently being discussed in tandem. The five pillars of Basel III consist of strengthening capital,enhancing risk coverage, mitigating leverage, reducing pro-cyclicality and addressing liquidity management. Based on a perusal of the causes and corresponding international regulatory responses, three major issues of financial laws and regulations particularly relevant to the context of Korean financial markets have been selected as responses to the potential problem of excessive leverage and exposure by financial institutions. These proposals seek to enhance the systemic transparency of Korean financial markets by assessing: (i) how to systemically approach financial laws and regulations based on the concept of ‘risk transfer’ function in financial markets; (ii) how to curb the moral hazards of financial institutions conducting ‘risk transfer’; and (iii)how to effectively deal with regulatory arbitrage opportunities without suffocating financial innovation. The flobal crisis has shown the nature and adverse impact of the undisclosed,excessive and interconnected risks in the financial system. Accordingly, the underpinning principles of legal and regulatory responses at both the international and domestic level should focus on enhancing transparency through the complete and accurate disclosure of existing and newly evolving risks. The complete and accurate disclosure of ‘risks’ should assess financial institutions and complex financial products in terms of ‘leverage’ and ‘exposure’, with insightful consideration of the potential areas of regulatory pitfalls. This article concludes that the function of ‘risk transfer’ in converged financial markets should be to provide a conceptual framework within which to conduct the systemic approach of financial laws and regulations under the dual context of both global and Korean financial markets. Legal and regulatory responses should collectively serve as effective tools to ensure that risks will be prudently originated and underwritten, and disclosed and distributed appropriately by financial institutions serving to be trustworthy originators, managers and facilitators of ‘risk transfer’for the common good.

세계 금융위기와 중국의 대응담론 -원인, 대응 및 중국의 역할을 중심으로-

김애경 ( Ae Kyung Kim ) 아시아.유럽미래학회 2014 유라시아연구 Vol.11 No.1

이 글은 2008년 미국발 세계 금융위기에 대한 원인과, 이후 대응 및 대응과정에서 중국의 역할에 대한 중국 내 담론분석을 목적으로 한다. 2008년의 세계 금융위기는 1990년대 중후반 동아시아 지역에서 발생한 금융위기와는 다르게 그 파장이 매우 커서 전세계적 차원의 문제로 인식되고 있다. 또 1990년대 중후반과 비교하여 2000년대 후반 중국의 국제적 위상이 크게 향상되었기 때문에 금융위기의 수습과정에서 중국이 자국의 역할을 어떻게 규정하고 있는지는 향후 세계질서에 대해 상당한 함의를 갖는다. 그동안 미국은 자국이 추진하는 정치경제모델을 전세계 국가들이 학습해야 하는 보편적 발전모델로 주장하여 왔으나, 2008년 금융위기는 미국에서 시작되었기 때문에 미국식 신자유주의적 발전모델과 미국중심의 자본주의 세계체제에 대해 근본적인 문제제기의 계기가 되었다고 할 수 있다. 2008년 미국발 금융위기 발발의 원인에 대한 논의는 다양한 차원에서 진행되었다. 미국발 금융위기 발발 원인에 대한 중국 지도부의 반응은 신중하였다. 중국 지도부는 다양한 기회를 통해 금융위기 발발의 원인은 다양하지만 부적절한 거시경제정책의 운용과 금융부문의 관리감독 부족이라고 주장하였지만, 향후 각국이 적절하게 대응해야 한다는 점을 강조하였다. 중국 지도부의 신중한 태도는 중국이 미국과의 관계에 있어 갈등보다는 협력을 더 중시하고 있음을 강조하여 세계의 공동발전을 촉구하는 국가임을 부각시키기 위한 것으로 사료된다. 반면 상대적으로 중국학자들의 진단은 다소 비판적이었으며 금융위기 발발의 원인을 미국 국내경제정책 조정실패로 규정하였다. 또 그들은 금융위기가 전세계로 확산되는 원인으로 미국 중심의 단일화폐시스템과 미국에 기원을 두고 있는 신자유주의 정책과 자본주의 경제의 모순이 드러났기 때문이라고 주장하였다. 2008년 금융위기는 자본주의 체제의 중심부인 미국 내부에서 시작되어 전세계로 확산되었기 때문에 미국 중심의 자본주의와 신자유주의 모델의 구조적 위기로 봐야한다는 근본적인 비판과 반성이 제기되었다. 동시에 논의는 미국식 자본주의와 신자유주의 모델에 대한 대안을 탐색하고 사회주의에 대한 재해석으로 이어졌다. 그러나 중국학자들도 중국식 발전모델이 금융위기 이후의 대안이 되어야 한다거나, 자본주의의 대안으로 사회주의라고 주장하지는 않았다. 다만 그들은 신자유주의 모델과 자본주의에 대한 성찰의 필요성을 제기하고 중국식 발전모델은 더욱 더 중국적 특색을 더해가야 한다는 점을 강조하였다. 결국 이러한 비판적 논의들은 앞으로 중국이 지역과 세계적 차원의 거버넌스 프레임 짜기와 관련하여 중국의 발언권을 높여가려는 의지를 보여주었다. 금융위기 이후의 중국의 역할에 대한 학계의 논의는 여전히 조심스럽다. 대부분의 대책논의는 금융위기가 중국 국내경제에 가져다 줄 수 있는 영향을 최소화할 수 있는 방안에 초점이 맞춰져 있었다. 위기이후 지구 거버넌스에 대한 중국의 역할에 대해서는 다소 소극적으로, 점진적 차원으로 접근해 가자는데 의견이 모아지고 있다. 중국의 국제적 위상의 변화는 확실히 중국으로 하여금 많은 국제적 권리와 의무를 요구한다. 동시에 중국의 위상 제고는 결국 중국이 지속적으로 발전해 온 결과라고 학자들은 주장한다. 중국의 세계경제에서 차지하는 위상이 국제질서에 미치는 영향은 단순히 시장규모나 화폐 등의 물질적인 측면에 한정되는 것이 아니다. 이는 자연스럽게 물질적 측면 이외에도 제도나 규범, 관념과 같은비물질적 부분의 재구성에까지 미칠 수 있다. 결국 중국의 국제경제체제에서의 시장규모와 금융부문, 화폐구조 등의 물질적 측면에서의 영향력이 확대되는 동시에 국제적 권리에 대한 요구가 증대되어 규범,관념과 같은 비물질적 부분에 대한 영향력까지도 확대될 수 있으며 이는 세계질서의 새로운 조정을 통해 기존의 이해관계에 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 것이다. 중요한 것은 금융위기 이후 대응과 관련된 중국 내 논의들이 현실의 세계 정치 경제에서 기존의 제도적 표준 경쟁에 반영될 지이다. 발전모델로서 워싱턴 컨센서스와 베이징 컨센서스와 관련된 담론의 핵심은 시장경제 체제 하에서 국가의 자율성과 역할에 대한 논의이다. 이와 관련된 중국 내 논의는 시장경제하에서 국가의 역할이 어느 정도의 수준인지를 논하는 것에서부터 자본주의 모델에 대한 성찰까지 매우 다양한 스펙트럼을 보이고 있다. 이러한 제도나 표준의 경쟁은 세계질서를 두고 기존의 패권국과 부상국의 담론경쟁으로 이어질 가능성이 높다. 이러한 담론경쟁은 결국 현실 질서에서의 세력관계와도 밀접한연관이 있다. 때문에 위기이후 지역과 세계적 차원의 거버넌스 프레임 짜기에 대한 중국의 접근법은 국내에서의 경험과 유사하게 점진적인(摸著石頭過河: 돌을 더듬어 가며 강을 건넌다) 영향력 확대를 추구할 것으로 판단된다. 금융위기 이후 지역과 세계적 차원의 거버넌스에 대한 미국과 중국의 담론경쟁이 한국에게 어떠한 영향을 미칠 수 있을지, 한국의 전략적 선택지는 무엇인지에 대한 입장을 정리하는 것이 매우 중요할 것이다. 경제력을 바탕으로 동아시아 지역질서에 중심이고자 하는 중국과 전략의 중심을 아시아로 이동하려는 미국의 경쟁과 협력이라는 이중주 속에서 한국은 어떤 역할을 할 수 있고, 해야 하는가? 양국의 영향력을 최소화하는 방안은 모색할 수 있는가? 2008년 금융위기 이후 다양한 차원에서 전개되는 지역과 세계적 차원의 거버넌스 프레임 짜기 경쟁은 앞으로 한국에게 더 현명한고 지혜로운 대답을 요구할 것이다. The purpose of this study was to analyze China’s discourses on the causes of crisis, subsequent response and the role of China in responding processes of 2008 global financial crisis departed from the U.S. The wavelength of the global finance crisis in 2008 different from the finance crisis occurring in East Asia in mid and late 1990s was so huge that it has been recognized as a matter in a global dimension. Also since China’s global status of is increased as compared with that of mid and late 1990s, how China defines their role has a significant implication upon the future world orders in the process of settling the finance crisis. In the meantime, the U.S. has argued that the political and economic models that drove forward are universal development models that all the countries in the world should follow, but it can be said that since year 2008 financial crisis started in the U.S., it has become a chance to pose radical problems for the U.S. type of new liberalistic development models and the U.S. centered capitalism world system. Discourses on the causes of finance crisis in 2008 starting from U.S. have been made in various dimensions. Chinese Leadership was discreet in responding the causes of the outbreak of financial crisis started from the U.S. Additionally, they addressed that the causes of the spread of finance crisis were U.S. centered single monetary system, new liberalism policy originated from U.S., and discrepancies of capitalistic economy. On the other side, Chinese scholars’ diagnoses were relatively somewhat critical and they defined the causes of financial crisis occurrence belonged to the U.S. failure of coordinating their internal economic policies. As finance risk in 2008 arose in U.S., the center of capitalistic system and spread to all over the world, there have been fundamental critics and self-reflections that we should consider it as structural risk of U.S. centered capitalism and new liberalism model. At the same time, discourses were led to search for alternatives to U.S. centered capitalism and new liberalism model and re-interpretation of socialism. However, even Chinese scholars did not address that Chinese development model should be the alternative in post finance crisis or socialism should replace capitalism. What they emphasized was the necessity to reflect new liberalism model and capitalism and they concluded that more Chinese characteristics should be reflected on the Chinese style development model. They are signs of China’s expansion of influence in physical aspects including market size, finance sector, and currency structure, etc. in the global economic system, and at the same time, their expansion of influence in non-physical aspects such as regulations and notions increased by the demand of global rights, which may affect existing interests through new adjustment of the world order. The U.S. centered single currency system and neoliberalpolicies originated from the U.S were stipulated as causes of spreading the financial crisis, and these critical discussions showed the intention that China would raise their voice in relation with local and global dimension governance framework. Debates in academic world on the role of China after the finance crisis are still cautions. Most of discussions on countermeasures are focused on the methods to minimize influences that finance crisis could bring to domestic economy in China. They agreed that they China would approach to global governance gradually and somewhat passively at post crisis. Changes in international status of China require more international rights and responsibilities. At the same time, they remember that the status upgrade of China is resulted from their continuous development. The effects of the status of China in international economy on international order are not limited to material aspects such as market size or currencies. It can affect reconfiguration of non-material aspects such as institutions, norms and notions as well as material aspects. What is important is whether discourses in China related to responses after the finance crisis will be reflected to conventional institutional standard competition in global politics and economy in the real world. The core concept of discourses related to Washington Consensus and Beijing Consensus as development models is discussion on autonomy and roles of nations under the market economy. Discourses related it show diverse spectra from the level of national roles under market economy to introspection on capitalistic model. Such competition in institutions and standards can be led to discourse competitions between existing powers and new emerging power for the world order. Such discourse competition is closely related to power relations in the reality. Thus, after the crisis, it is estimated that China’s way of access to the local and global dimension governance framework is to be gradual (摸着石斗過河: fumble their way across the river) influence expansion similar to that of their internal experience. It is important to identify what effects the discourse competition between U.S. and China at post-crisis in regional and world governance can make on Korea, and what are the strategic selections that Korea can have. What roles can Korea play between China that want to become the center of the region of East Asia based on its economic power and U.S. that want to move the strategic center to Asia in the duet of competition and cooperation? Can we find the method to minimize influences of those two countries? The competition to establish a new regional and world dimension governance frame in various dimensions after finance crisis in 2008 will require Korea to have wiser and smarter answers in the future.