Search

This article reviews the main issues of regulating and supervising banks in emerging markets with a view toward evaluating the long-run options. Particular attention is paid to Latin America and East Asia. These economies face a severe policy commitment problem that leads to excessive bailouts and potential devaluation of claims of foreign investors. This exacerbates moral hazard and makes a case for importing external discipline (for example, acquiring foreign short-term debt). However, external discipline may come at the cost of excessive liquidation of entrepreneurial projects. The article reviews the tradeoffs imposed by external discipline and examines various proposed arrangements, such as narrow banking, foreign banks and foreign regulation, and the potential role for an international agency or international lender of last resort. Liberalization and integration of financial markets have been associated with an increase in capital movements and with the financial crises. In particular, surges in foreign short-term debt have been blamed for crisis episodes in emerging economies in Asia (Thailand, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea) and Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador, and Argentina), as well as in the periphery of Europe (Turkey). These crises have proved costly in terms of output. Several policy responses have been suggested. Among them have been the reduction of short-term debt, the development of stock markets, the improved regulation and supervision of domestic financial system, enhanced transparency requirements and market discipline, and the establishment of an international lender of last resort. A catalog of “solutions” has been proposed to take care of the problems of banking in emerging market economies including moving to a narrow bank system, building a currency union, and leaving banking in the hands of foreign banks and offshore institutions. This article identifies policy responses tailored to the needs of emerging market and developing economies. The question is whether the regulatory policies and

Unless developing countries embrace a corporate governance perspective, privatization is unlikely to provide the benefits of improved performance with accountability. This article introduces the concept of governance chains that can constrain the grabbing hands of public and private actors by providing information and accountability mechanisms to help investors monitor managers. Empirical data on established firms from 49 countries provide estimates of the relative importance and strength of private and formal chains of governance. The framework and empirical benchmarks help explain the outcomes of past privatizations and suggest certain steps that governments can pursue to be sure to get the most out of future privatization activity.