In 2007, countries in the Euro periphery were enjoying stable growth, low deficits, and low spreads. Then the financial crisis erupted and pushed them into deep recessions, raising their deficits and debt levels. By 2010, they were facing severe debt problems. Spreads increased and, surprisingly, so did the share of the debt held by domestic creditors. Credit was reallocated from the private to the public sectors, reducing investment and deepening the recessions even further. To account for these facts, we propose a simple model of sovereign risk in which debt can be traded in secondary markets. The model has two key ingredients: creditor discrimination and crowding-out effects. Creditor discrimination arises because, in turbulent times, sovereign debt offers a higher expected return to domestic creditors than to foreign ones. This provides incentives for domestic purchases of debt. Crowding-out effects arise because private borrowing is limited by financial frictions. This implies that domestic debt purchases displace productive investment. The model shows that these purchases reduce growth and welfare, and may lead to self-fulfilling crises. It also shows how crowding-out effects can be transmitted to other countries in the Eurozone, and how they may be addressed by policies at the European level.

In 2007, countries in the euro periphery were enjoying stable growth, low deficits, and low spreads. Then the Financial crisis erupted and pushed them into deep recessions, raising their deficits and debt levels. By 2010, they were facing severe debt problems. Spreads increased and, surprisingly, so did the share of the debt held by domestic creditors. Credit was reallocated from the private to the public sectors, reducing investment and deepening the recessions even further. To account for these facts, we propose a simple model of sovereign risk in which debt can be traded in secondary markets. The model has two key ingredients: creditor discrimination and crowding-out effects. Creditor discrimination arises because, in turbulent times, sovereign debt offers a higher expected return to domestic creditors than to foreign ones. This provides incentives for domestic purchases of debt. Crowding-out effects arise because private borrowing is limited by financial frictions. This implies that domestic debt purchases displace productive investment. The model shows that these purchases reduce growth and welfare, and may lead to self-fulfilling crises. It also shows how crowding-out effects can be transmitted to other countries in the euro zone, and how they may be addressed by policies at the European level.

In 2007, countries in the Euro periphery were enjoying stable growth, low deficits, and low spreads. Then the financial crisis erupted and pushed them into deep recessions, raising their deficits and debt levels. By 2010, they were facing severe debt problems. Spreads increased and, surprisingly, so did the share of the debt held by domestic creditors. Credit was reallocated from the private to the public sectors, reducing investment and deepening the recessions even further. To account for these facts, we propose a simple model of sovereign risk in which debt can be traded in secondary markets. The model has two key ingredients: creditor discrimination and crowding-out effects. Creditor discrimination arises because, in turbulent times, sovereign debt offers a higher expected return to domestic creditors than to foreign ones. This provides incentives for domestic purchases of debt. Crowding-out effects arise because private borrowing is limited by financial frictions. This implies that domestic debt purchases displace productive investment. The model shows that these purchases reduce growth and welfare, and may lead to self-fulfilling crises. It also shows how crowding-out effects can be transmitted to other countries in the Eurozone, and how they may be addressed by policies at the European level.

Central banks came out of the Great Recession with increased power and responsibilities. Indeed, central banks are often now seen as 'the only game in town', and a place to put innumerable problems vastly exceeding their traditional remit. These new powers do not fit well, however, with the independence of central banks, remote from the democratic control of government. Central Banking in Turbulent Times examines fundamental questions about the central banking system, asking whether the model of an independent central bank devoted to price stability is the final resting point of a complex development that started centuries ago. It dissects the hypothesis that the Great Recession has prompted a reassessment of that model; a renewed emphasis on financial stability has emerged, possibly vying for first rank in the hierarchy of objectives of central banks. This raises the risk of dilemmas, since the Great Recession brought into question implicit assumptions that the pursuit of price stability would also lead to financial stability. In addition, the border between monetary and fiscal policy was blurred both in the US and in Europe. Central Banking in Turbulent Times asks whether the model prevailing before the Great Recession has been irrevocably altered. Are we entering, as Charles Goodhart has hypothesized, into the 'fourth epoch' of central banking? Are changes to central banks part of a move away from the global liberal order that seemed to have prevailed at the turn of the century? Central Banking in Turbulent Times seeks to answer these questions as it examines how changes can allow for the maintenance of price stability, while adapting to the long-term consequences of the Great Recession.

This paper reviews empirical and theoretical work on the links between banks and their governments (the bank-sovereign nexus). How significant is this nexus? What do we know about it? To what extent is it a source of concern? What is the role of policy intervention? The paper concludes with a review of recent policy proposals.

Central banks came out of the Great Recession with increased power and responsibilities. Indeed, central banks are often now seen as 'the only game in town', and a place to put innumerable problems vastly exceeding their traditional remit. These new powers do not fit well, however, with the independence of central banks, remote from the democratic control of government. Central Banking in Turbulent Times examines fundamental questions about the central banking system, asking whether the model of an independent central bank devoted to price stability is the final resting point of a complex development that started centuries ago. It dissects the hypothesis that the Great Recession has prompted a reassessment of that model; a renewed emphasis on financial stability has emerged, possibly vying for first rank in the hierarchy of objectives of central banks. This raises the risk of dilemmas, since the Great Recession brought into question implicit assumptions that the pursuit of price stability would also lead to financial stability. In addition, the border between monetary and fiscal policy was blurred both in the US and in Europe. Central Banking in Turbulent Times asks whether the model prevailing before the Great Recession has been irrevocably altered. Are we entering, as Charles Goodhart has hypothesized, into the 'fourth epoch' of central banking? Are changes to central banks part of a move away from the global liberal order that seemed to have prevailed at the turn of the century? Central Banking in Turbulent Times seeks to answer these questions as it examines how changes can allow for the maintenance of price stability, while adapting to the long-term consequences of the Great Recession.

Financial crises usually trigger off demands for stricter rules, better compliance and improved risk management. But this always comes at a cost. Imposing burdens with the view to improve internal control and risk management has much of the buying stability with the money of shareholders. In theory, shareholders buy risk for prospects of future return while executive officers trade their possibly adventurous mindset against job stability and their managerial reputation. But in practice it seems to have a different outcome, which does not quite fit with the efficient market hypothesis. The continuing financial crisis makes it increasingly difficult to seriously deny that something went wrong. But is it also a failure of corporate governance? If so, what are the implications for the European reform agenda? Is there actually a need for a new European legislation on corporate groups?Whatsoever new requirements are being proposed, the arguments in favour of new legislation must be balanced against increased reporting costs burdening companies. The situation consisting of information overkill effectively preventing investors from digesting all the data made available by issuers, should be definitely avoided. Instead, more emphasis is necessary to introduce more uniformity in the manner, how the information is being served to its consumers, that is, the investors. Any future reforms need to be made cautiously. The corporate governance reform is not a linear process. It is largely about learning from failure and many of the reform initiatives have had a reactive nature. But there is always a risk of regulatory overreaction and an inherent temptation - mostly on the part of politicians - to make opportunistic use of a crisis situation to achieve crisis-unrelated or loosely related objectives.