Typical street scene in Santa Ana, El Salvador. (Photo: iStock)
March 22, 2010
While governments focus on winding down stimulus measures used to combat the global economic crisis even as unemployment remains high, researchers are looking back at what caused the crisis, how it affected countries differently, and what the long-term implications are.
After the storm: economists are assessing the causes and implications of the crisis (photo: Newscom)
F&D on what went wrong and how
The latest issue of the IMF's quarterly magazine Finance & Development (F&D) examines why some countries—mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia—were hit harder than others by the global crisis, and how foreign bank lending practices may have protected Latin America. Even though the overall impact varied across countries and regions, the global slowdown was notable for its synchronization.
F&D explains how the spillover effects of the U.S. and U.K. financial markets played a role in this “coordinated” downturn.
While most of the economy suffers, bankers are getting bonuses: Steven Kaplan defends this while Simon Johnson argues we need to stop financial players from taking reckless risks. And some of the effects of the crisis are still to come: although the world has resisted protectionism so far, it might become tougher to do so.
Pelin Berkmen, Gaston Gelos, Robert Rennhack, and James P. Walsh
Why some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, were hit harder than others by the global crisis.
Jorge Ivan Canales-Kriljenko, Brahima Coulibaly, and Herman Kamil
Foreign-bank lending to emerging markets during the global crisis differed from continent to continent. This might explain why Latin America was not hit as hard by the crisis as other emerging markets.
Trung Bui and Tamim Bayoumi
The U.S. and U.K. financial market crises had a spillover effect on the rest of the world, which explains the synchronized global slowdown.
Christian Henn and Brad McDonald
So far the world has resisted widespread resort to trade measures, but the hardest part may be yet to come.
Steven N. Kaplan defends bankers' bonuses; Simon Johnson says they are a symptom of a bigger problem—reckless risk taking by big financial players.
Should Bankers Get Their Bonuses?
Steven N. Kaplan
Bonuses and the “Doom Cycle”
Simon Johnson
Comments on this article should be sent to imfsurvey@imf.org
