Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  macroeconomic imbalance
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The European Union (EU) has had a five-year experience with the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) that was introduced by the European Commission in December 2011 as a response to accumulation of huge imbalances with the EU and the euro area. This paper evaluates results of the MIP and aims to examine what kind of imbalances have been revealed by the MIP, evaluate the current settings of the MIP and propose reforms that would enhance functioning and applicability of the MIP in practice. Based on results published in Alert Mechanism Reports and In-Depth Reviews and evaluation of the yearly cycle of the MIP, we propose several reforms and changes in the MIP and the scoreboard of indicators in particular. We bring forward a concept of relative thresholds that reflect economic development much better than currently applied absolute thresholds. Moreover, we recommend modification of some of the indicators involved in the MIP and introduction of maximally three flagship indicators that would receive special attention in assessment of the risk stemming from macroeconomic imbalances.
EN
The seriousness of problems stemming from macroeconomic imbalances in the EU and particularly in the euro area contributed to introduction of the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure which also includes a scoreboard of 11 indicators. The results of the scoreboard serve as an alert mechanism and are interpreted from an economic perspective with a view to identifying developments in the member states that may point to a risk of imbalances. The aim of the paper is to evaluate the risk of imbalances in the Visegrad countries using selected indicators from the scoreboard. Furthermore, the author extends the existing scoreboard methodology of absolute indicators by implementation of relative indices that are more valuable for effectiveness of the policy making process. The results suggest that the only Visegrad country with a significant risk of imbalances is Hungary. However, the relative indicators revealed a sign of possible imbalances also in the Czech Republic and Poland.
3
Content available remote

Globalna architektura finansowa po kryzysie

100%
EN
The article aims to present the existing global financial architecture against a background of global architecture and directions of necessary reforms in the context of global economy protection against the global financial and economic crises. The future global financial architecture on the one hand should be based on broader legitimization and on the other hand should provide higher effectiveness of preventing and fighting with crises. The main reason for the failures of the present global financial architecture in this field is its inability to keep up with the development of globalization processes that are a source of global macroeconomic imbalance as well as new risks for stability of the global financial system. It is necessary to introduce changes of the liberalizing and regulating global financial architecture into a model of coordinated market economy – also on a global scale. In the new architecture, a bigger role should be played by the countries with the highest economic potential: the so called emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil, etc. The reforms that are being implemented in the global financial institutions – the IMF and the World Bank – are going exactly in this direction. Moreover, it is necessary to consider the development of a global financial institution sharing both liberalizing and regulating powers. The institution should condition financial liberalization on accepting the adopted adequate regulatory solutions by the member states
EN
During the debt crisis in Europe as well as during the global financial crisis it became clear that existing solutions on economic governance were highly unsatisfactory. After numerous measures having rather uncoordinated features and executed in an ad hoc manner, even in the particular member states, the EU has started to examine the framework of an economic governance in Europe. The intention of this text is to present, in the chronological order, measures having been adopted in the last three – four years. We start with a description of so called Sixpact consisting of five regulations and one directive. These legal acts aim to strengthen discipline concerning fiscal policies not only in the eurozone but also in all the remaining member states of the EU. They also cover measures on counteracting excessive macroeconomic imbalances. European semester constitutes a very important part of the Sixpact that should foster the co-ordination of the economic governance in the EU. Next, a Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Economic Governance has been detailed. It has been indicated that TSCG will not be binding (similarly as the Euro Plus Pact) for all the member states. Finally, the newest European project, so called Twopack, has been described. Twopack significantly interferes into procedures of forming national budgets in the eurozone member states. The article does not provide for the European Stability Mechanism because its description would largely surpass the allowed length of the text.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.