Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

This paper empirically examines the link between the cost of sovereign borrowing and climate risk for 40 advanced and emerging economies. Controlling for a large set of domestic and global factors, the paper shows that both vulnerability and resilience to climate risk are important factors driving the cost of sovereign borrowing at the global level. Overall, we find that vulnerability to the direct effects of climate change matter substantially more than climate risk resilience in terms of the implications for sovereign borrowing costs. Moreover, the magnitude of the effect on bond yields is progressively higher for countries deemed highly vulnerable to climate change. Impulse response analysis from a set of panel structural VAR models indicates that the reaction of bond yields to shocks imposed on climate vulnerability and resilience become permanent after around 12 quarters, with high risk economies experiencing larger permanent effects on yields than other country groups.

This paper empirically examines the link between the cost of sovereign borrowing and climate risk for 40 advanced and emerging economies. Controlling for a large set of domestic and global factors, the paper shows that both vulnerability and resilience to climate risk are important factors driving the cost of sovereign borrowing at the global level. Overall, we find that vulnerability to the direct effects of climate change matter substantially more than climate risk resilience in terms of the implications for sovereign borrowing costs. Moreover, the magnitude of the effect on bond yields is progressively higher for countries deemed highly vulnerable to climate change. Impulse response analysis from a set of panel structural VAR models indicates that the reaction of bond yields to shocks imposed on climate vulnerability and resilience become permanent after around 12 quarters, with high risk economies experiencing larger permanent effects on yields than other country groups.

This paper empirically examines the reaction of global financial markets across 38 economies to the COVID-19 outbreak, with a special focus on the dynamics of capital flow across 14 emerging market economies. Using daily data over the period 4 January 2010 to 30 April 2020 and controlling for a host of domestic and global macroeconomic and financial factors, we use a fixed effects panel approach and a structural VAR framework to show that emerging markets have been more heavily affected than advanced economies. In particular, emerging economies in Asia and Europe have experienced the sharpest impact on stocks, bonds, and exchange rates due to COVID-19, as well as abrupt and substantial capital outflows. Our results indicate that fiscal stimulus packages introduced in response to COVID-19, as well as quantitative easing by central banks, have helped to restore overall investor confidence through reducing bond yields and boosting stock prices. Our findings also highlight the role that global factors and developments in the world’s leading financial centers have on financial conditions in EMEs. Importantly, the impact of COVID-19 related quantitative easing measures by central banks in advanced countries, which helped to lower sovereign bond yields and prop up stock markets at home, extended to EMEs, notably in relation to stabilizing capital flow dynamics. Going forward, while the ultimate resolution of COVID-19 may be expected to lead to a market correction as uncertainty declines, our impulse response analysis suggests that there may be some permanent effects on financial markets and capital flows as a result of COVID-19, particularly in EMEs.

This paper empirically examines the reaction of global financial markets across 38 economies to the COVID-19 outbreak, with a special focus on the dynamics of capital flow across 14 emerging market economies. Using daily data over the period 4 January 2010 to 30 April 2020 and controlling for a host of domestic and global macroeconomic and financial factors, we use a fixed effects panel approach and a structural VAR framework to show that emerging markets have been more heavily affected than advanced economies. In particular, emerging economies in Asia and Europe have experienced the sharpest impact on stocks, bonds, and exchange rates due to COVID-19, as well as abrupt and substantial capital outflows. Our results indicate that fiscal stimulus packages introduced in response to COVID-19, as well as quantitative easing by central banks, have helped to restore overall investor confidence through reducing bond yields and boosting stock prices. Our findings also highlight the role that global factors and developments in the world’s leading financial centers have on financial conditions in EMEs. Importantly, the impact of COVID-19 related quantitative easing measures by central banks in advanced countries, which helped to lower sovereign bond yields and prop up stock markets at home, extended to EMEs, notably in relation to stabilizing capital flow dynamics. Going forward, while the ultimate resolution of COVID-19 may be expected to lead to a market correction as uncertainty declines, our impulse response analysis suggests that there may be some permanent effects on financial markets and capital flows as a result of COVID-19, particularly in EMEs.

This paper empirically examines the reaction of global financial markets across 38 economies to the COVID-19 outbreak, with a special focus on the dynamics of capital flow across 14 emerging market economies. Using daily data over the period 4 January 2010 to 30 April 2020 and controlling for a host of domestic and global macroeconomic and financial factors, we use a fixed effects panel approach and a structural VAR framework to show that emerging markets have been more heavily affected than advanced economies. In particular, emerging economies in Asia and Europe have experienced the sharpest impact on stocks, bonds, and exchange rates due to COVID-19, as well as abrupt and substantial capital outflows. Our results indicate that fiscal stimulus packages introduced in response to COVID-19, as well as quantitative easing by central banks, have helped to restore overall investor confidence through reducing bond yields and boosting stock prices. Our findings also highlight the role that global factors and developments in the world’s leading financial centers have on financial conditions in EMEs. Importantly, the impact of COVID-19 related quantitative easing measures by central banks in advanced countries, which helped to lower sovereign bond yields and prop up stock markets at home, extended to EMEs, notably in relation to stabilizing capital flow dynamics. Going forward, while the ultimate resolution of COVID-19 may be expected to lead to a market correction as uncertainty declines, our impulse response analysis suggests that there may be some permanent effects on financial markets and capital flows as a result of COVID-19, particularly in EMEs.

This collection provides a comprehensive review of the tools and methodologies for Environmental Risk Analysis used by a few dozen financial institutions, including banks, asset managers and insurance companies. These tools and methodologies cover a wide-range of environmental/climate scenario analyses and stress tests as well as environmental, social and governance analysis and natural capital risk assessment, that can be used to analyze the potential impact on financial institutions from transition and physical risks associated with climate and other environmental factors.

This collection provides a comprehensive review of the tools and methodologies for Environmental Risk Analysis used by a few dozen financial institutions, including banks, asset managers and insurance companies. These tools and methodologies cover a wide-range of environmental/climate scenario analyses and stress tests as well as environmental, social and governance analysis and natural capital risk assessment, that can be used to analyze the potential impact on financial institutions from transition and physical risks associated with climate and other environmental factors.

This collection provides a comprehensive review of the tools and methodologies for Environmental Risk Analysis used by a few dozen financial institutions, including banks, asset managers and insurance companies. These tools and methodologies cover a wide-range of environmental/climate scenario analyses and stress tests as well as environmental, social and governance analysis and natural capital risk assessment, that can be used to analyze the potential impact on financial institutions from transition and physical risks associated with climate and other environmental factors.

Increasing resilience needs to be one of the main guiding principles when rebuilding our economies and societies after the crisis. We need to ensure we are better prepared to withstand future pandemics but also the other major looming threat to humanity—climate change.

Increasing resilience needs to be one of the main guiding principles when rebuilding our economies and societies after the crisis. We need to ensure we are better prepared to withstand future pandemics but also the other major looming threat to humanity—climate change.

Increasing resilience needs to be one of the main guiding principles when rebuilding our economies and societies after the crisis. We need to ensure we are better prepared to withstand future pandemics but also the other major looming threat to humanity—climate change.

We call for strengthening the Global Financial Safety Net (GFSN) to manage the economic effects of the outbreak of COVID-19, in particular the massive capital outflows from emerging market and developing economies and the global shortage of dollar liquidity. Both the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimate that emerging market and developing countries (EMDEs) need an immediate $2.5 trillion, yet the financing available to them is just $700 to $971 billion. To meet these immediate needs we propose to: (i) broaden the coverage of the Federal Reserve currency swaps; (ii) issue at least $500 billion of Special Drawing Rights through the IMF; (iii) improve the IMF’s precautionary and emergency facilities; (iv) establish a multilateral swap facility at the IMF; (v) increase the resources and geographic coverage of Regional Financial Arrangements; (vi) coordinate capital flow management measures; (vii) initiate debt restructuring and relief initiatives; and (viii) request that credit-rating agencies stop making downgrades during the emergency. It argues that beyond these immediate measures, leaders should swiftly move to address the following structural gaps in the GFSN: (i) agree on a quota reform at the IMF; (ii) create an appropriate Sovereign Debt Restructuring Regime; (iii) expand surveillance activity; and (iv) adopt IMF governance reform and strengthen its relations with all agents of the GFSN. All of these immediate and intermediate reforms must be calibrated toward a just transition to a more stable, inclusive, and sustainable global economy

We call for strengthening the Global Financial Safety Net (GFSN) to manage the economic effects of the outbreak of COVID-19, in particular the massive capital outflows from emerging market and developing economies and the global shortage of dollar liquidity. Both the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimate that emerging market and developing countries (EMDEs) need an immediate $2.5 trillion, yet the financing available to them is just $700 to $971 billion. To meet these immediate needs we propose to: (i) broaden the coverage of the Federal Reserve currency swaps; (ii) issue at least $500 billion of Special Drawing Rights through the IMF; (iii) improve the IMF’s precautionary and emergency facilities; (iv) establish a multilateral swap facility at the IMF; (v) increase the resources and geographic coverage of Regional Financial Arrangements; (vi) coordinate capital flow management measures; (vii) initiate debt restructuring and relief initiatives; and (viii) request that credit-rating agencies stop making downgrades during the emergency. It argues that beyond these immediate measures, leaders should swiftly move to address the following structural gaps in the GFSN: (i) agree on a quota reform at the IMF; (ii) create an appropriate Sovereign Debt Restructuring Regime; (iii) expand surveillance activity; and (iv) adopt IMF governance reform and strengthen its relations with all agents of the GFSN. All of these immediate and intermediate reforms must be calibrated toward a just transition to a more stable, inclusive, and sustainable global economy

We call for strengthening the Global Financial Safety Net (GFSN) to manage the economic effects of the outbreak of COVID-19, in particular the massive capital outflows from emerging market and developing economies and the global shortage of dollar liquidity. Both the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimate that emerging market and developing countries (EMDEs) need an immediate $2.5 trillion, yet the financing available to them is just $700 to $971 billion. To meet these immediate needs we propose to: (i) broaden the coverage of the Federal Reserve currency swaps; (ii) issue at least $500 billion of Special Drawing Rights through the IMF; (iii) improve the IMF’s precautionary and emergency facilities; (iv) establish a multilateral swap facility at the IMF; (v) increase the resources and geographic coverage of Regional Financial Arrangements; (vi) coordinate capital flow management measures; (vii) initiate debt restructuring and relief initiatives; and (viii) request that credit-rating agencies stop making downgrades during the emergency. It argues that beyond these immediate measures, leaders should swiftly move to address the following structural gaps in the GFSN: (i) agree on a quota reform at the IMF; (ii) create an appropriate Sovereign Debt Restructuring Regime; (iii) expand surveillance activity; and (iv) adopt IMF governance reform and strengthen its relations with all agents of the GFSN. All of these immediate and intermediate reforms must be calibrated toward a just transition to a more stable, inclusive, and sustainable global economy

A major issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) through the International Monetary Fund would be a key tool to provide financial support to developing and emerging economies and limit the economic and financial fallout of the COVID-19 crisis. SDRs are an unconditional resource, and the case for such an allocation is very strong during an exogenous shock, such as the current one. An SDR allocation would enhance the international liquidity in the hands of emerging and developing countries, so that public responses to the health crisis are not imperilled by financial crises. Close to two-fifths of a new SDR allocation would directly go to developing and emerging economies. In addition, a new mechanism should be created through which countries that do not need their SDR allocation lend them to the IMF, to increase the Fund’s lending capacity. Developed countries can also allocate the SDRs they do not use for official development assistance.

A major issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) through the International Monetary Fund would be a key tool to provide financial support to developing and emerging economies and limit the economic and financial fallout of the COVID-19 crisis. SDRs are an unconditional resource, and the case for such an allocation is very strong during an exogenous shock, such as the current one. An SDR allocation would enhance the international liquidity in the hands of emerging and developing countries, so that public responses to the health crisis are not imperilled by financial crises. Close to two-fifths of a new SDR allocation would directly go to developing and emerging economies. In addition, a new mechanism should be created through which countries that do not need their SDR allocation lend them to the IMF, to increase the Fund’s lending capacity. Developed countries can also allocate the SDRs they do not use for official development assistance.

A major issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) through the International Monetary Fund would be a key tool to provide financial support to developing and emerging economies and limit the economic and financial fallout of the COVID-19 crisis. SDRs are an unconditional resource, and the case for such an allocation is very strong during an exogenous shock, such as the current one. An SDR allocation would enhance the international liquidity in the hands of emerging and developing countries, so that public responses to the health crisis are not imperilled by financial crises. Close to two-fifths of a new SDR allocation would directly go to developing and emerging economies. In addition, a new mechanism should be created through which countries that do not need their SDR allocation lend them to the IMF, to increase the Fund’s lending capacity. Developed countries can also allocate the SDRs they do not use for official development assistance.

The transition to a low-carbon economy will entail a large-scale structural change. Some industries will have to expand their relative economic weight, while other industries, especially those directly linked to fossil fuel production and consumption, will have to decline. Such a systemic shift may have major repercussions on the stability of financial systems, via abrupt asset revaluations, defaults on debt, and the creation of bubbles in rising industries. Studies on previous industrial transitions have shed light on the financial transition risks originating from rapidly rising “sunrise” industries. In contrast, a similar conceptual understanding of risks from declining “sunset” industries is currently lacking. We substantiate this claim with a critical review of the conceptual and historical literature, which also shows that most literature either examines structural change in the real economy, or risks to financial stability but rarely both together. We contribute to filling this research gap by developing a consistent theoretical framework of the drivers, transmission channels, and impacts of the phase-out of carbon-intensive industries on the financial system and on the feedback from the financial system into the rest of the economy. We also review the state of play of policy aiming to protect the financial system from transition risks and spell out research implications.

The transition to a low-carbon economy will entail a large-scale structural change. Some industries will have to expand their relative economic weight, while other industries, especially those directly linked to fossil fuel production and consumption, will have to decline. Such a systemic shift may have major repercussions on the stability of financial systems, via abrupt asset revaluations, defaults on debt, and the creation of bubbles in rising industries. Studies on previous industrial transitions have shed light on the financial transition risks originating from rapidly rising “sunrise” industries. In contrast, a similar conceptual understanding of risks from declining “sunset” industries is currently lacking. We substantiate this claim with a critical review of the conceptual and historical literature, which also shows that most literature either examines structural change in the real economy, or risks to financial stability but rarely both together. We contribute to filling this research gap by developing a consistent theoretical framework of the drivers, transmission channels, and impacts of the phase-out of carbon-intensive industries on the financial system and on the feedback from the financial system into the rest of the economy. We also review the state of play of policy aiming to protect the financial system from transition risks and spell out research implications.

The G7 practices forms of external accountability to answer for its behavior to the outside world and internal accountability to lead the implementation of what it has decided. To follow up on its development related commitments, it has set up a permanent framework to produce annual public reports on how G7 national administrations have worked together to implement them.
Reports under this framework draw from implementation experience but G7 Leaders never use them to make decisions on how to carry implementation forward or design new commitments. This is because the G7 process is generally discontinuous and its accountability process is currently not targeted at facilitating feedback from implementation experience to policy making. The learning potential inherent in internal accountability is not fully used. As a result, the G7 is less effective than it could be in implementing its commitments under changing circumstances. In addition, G7 commitments and methodology do not always make it easy for outside stakeholders to check G7 words against its behavior, even though this is important for external accountability. This makes it harder to have a rational debate about G7 legitimacy.
This paper suggests ways to improve G7 accountability practice so that it systematically produces learning effects and better supports G7 legitimacy. The G7 can capture learning effects by underpinning every commitment with an explicit notion of how they want to achieve what and making sure that this notion gets tested regularly against implementation experience. Closing this feedback loop could be a job for G7 portfolio ministers who can make decisions on further implementation based on the experience set out in an accountability report. Better designed commitments and improved follow up would also support G7 legitimacy, because this would make it easier for external stakeholders to check G7 action against its words.