Financialisation and the financial and economic crises: theoretical framework and empirical analysis for 15 countries

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract: This paper analyses the long-run effects of financialisation and of the recent financial and economic crises for 15 countries. In order to provide a theoretical framework, we first outline three types of regimes under the conditions of financialisation, namely a debtled private demand boom, an export-led mercantilist, and a domestic demand-led regime. We then take a look at the sectoral financial balances of the main macroeconomic sectors and at the growth contributions of the demand aggregates for each of the 15 countries, focusing in particular on the trade cycle before the crises. This enables us to cluster these countries according to the typology of regimes and describe the development dynamics among various groups, which were complementary and often mutually reinforcing, in the years leading up to the crises. Subsequently, we focus on the period following the outbreak of the crises and, by considering transmission mechanisms and main obstacles to recovery, analyse how countries in each of these clusters were affected. Finally, we focus on the regime shifts which have taken place in the course of the crises and we discuss the implications of these recent developments for the world economy. Terms of use: Documents in

Welfare models and demand-led growth regimes before and after the financial and economic crisis

“…4. The liberalisation of international capital markets and capital accounts has allowed for rising and persistent current account imbalances at the global but also at regional levels, in particular within the Eurozone, as has been analysed by several authors including Dodig et al (2016), Hein (2012, chapter 6; 2014, chapter 10), Hein and Mundt (2012), Horn et al (2009), Stockhammer (2010, UNCTAD (2009), and van Treeck and Sturn (2012).…”

“…1 The contribution of our paper is thus threefold. First, we clarify several ambiguities and misunderstandings of PK demand-led growth regimes and their empirical indicators in the recent CPE literature, and, following the recent PK literature (Dodig et al 2016;Hein 2012;Hein et al 2016), we provide a theoretically consistent and empirically applicable classification of demand and growth regimes under the conditions of finance-dominated capitalism. We distinguish four regimes, i.e.…”

Inequality and Growth: Marxian and Post-Keynesian/Kaleckian Perspectives on Distribution and Growth Regimes Before and After the Great Recession

“…Initially, the 'export-led mercantilist' countries were hit particularly hard through these channels but then recovered at a relatively quick rate until 2011, whereas the other countries had some more problems (Figure 8). The quick initial recovery of the 'export-led mercantilist' economies was driven by the ongoing dynamic development in countries such as China, India and other emerging market economies which were hardly hit by the crisis (Dodig et al 2016). Overall, the recovery until recently, however, has been slow in historical comparison, which has led Summers (2014Summers ( , 2015 and others to rediscover the 'secular stagnation' hypothesis.…”

Financialisation and tendencies towards stagnation: the role of macroeconomic regime changes in the course of and after the financial and economic crisis 2007–09

“…The countries in this study comprise the two liberal Anglo-Saxon economies of the US and the UK, a representative country from the Nordic welfare states, Sweden, three relevant Eurozone countries, France, Germany and Spain, as well as the core Eurozone as a whole. In my analysis I build on what we have found in Dodig et al (2016) in a similar approach on 15 countries, including the six countries in my analysis. However, here I will extend the time period to the most recent years, focus on the changes in distribution before and after the crisis, try to explicitly establish the link with stagnation tendencies, and more extensively draw the economic policy implications from this analysis.…”

“…I will thus not attempt to include emerging market or East European former transition economies into the analysis, as inDodig et al (2016) andHein and Mundt (2012), because the focus in the current paper is on the role of regime changes for stagnation in mature capitalist economies.3 See also the summaries in Dodig et al (2015), Hein and Dodig (2015) and Hein et al (2015b).…”