|
Original sin is a commonly used metaphor in economics literature. It was proposed by Barry Eichengreen, Ricardo Hausmann, and Ugo Panizza in a series of papers to refer to a situation in which "most countries are not able to borrow abroad in their domestic currency."〔Eichengreen, B., and Hausmann, R., (1999). ("Exchange Rates and Financial Fragility" ), In New Challenges for Monetary Policy. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.〕〔Eichengreen, B., Hausmann, R., and Panizza, U., (2002). ("Original Sin: The Pain, the Mystery and the Road to Redemption" ), paper presented at a conference on Currency and Maturity Matchmaking: Redeeming Debt from Original Sin, Inter-American Development Bank〕〔Hausmann, R., and Panizza, U., (2002). `"The Mystery of Original Sin: The Case of the Missing Apple", Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government. Mimeographed .〕 == Original sin hypothesis == The original sin hypothesis has undergone a series of changes since its introduction. The original sin hypothesis was first defined as a situation "in which the domestic currency cannot be used to borrow abroad or to borrow long term even domestically" by Barry Eichengreen and Ricardo Hausmann in 1999. Based on their measure of original sin (shares of home currency-denominated bank loans and international bond debt), they showed that original sin was present in most of the developing economies and independent from histories of high inflation and currency depreciation. However, this early study left the causes of original sin as an open question. In the second version of the original sin hypothesis, Barry Eichengreen, Ricardo Hausmann and Ugo Panizza in 2002 discarded the domestic element of original sin and redefined (international) original sin as a situation in which most countries cannot borrow abroad in their own currency. They showed that almost all of the countries (except US, Euro area, Japan, UK, and Switzerland) suffered from (international) original sin over time. Eichengreen, Hausmann, and Panizza concluded that weaknesses of national macroeconomic policies and institutions are not statistically related with original sin and found that the only statistically robust determinant of original sin was country size. Moreover, they claimed that international transaction costs, network externalities, and global capital market imperfections were the main reasons (which are beyond the control of an individual country) of the original sin. Hence, as a solution for the original sin problem, they proposed an international initiative and recommended development of a basket index of emerging-market currencies so that international financial institutions could issue debt denominated in this index until a liquid-market in this index had developed. Burger and Warnock (2003) suggested inclusion of information on domestic bond markets to account for the possibility that foreign investors were holding local-currency emerging market bonds to analyze the determinants of original sin. Using this expanded measure, they showed that emerging markets economies could develop local bond markets (in which they can borrow in domestic currency) and attract global investors with stronger institutions and credible domestic policies.〔Burger, J., and Warnock, F., (2003). ("Diversification, Original Sin, and International Bond Portfolios" ), International Finance Discussion Papers. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.〕 Reinhart, Rogoff and Savastano (2003) criticized the suggested international solution for the original sin problem by claiming that the main problem of emerging market economies is to learn how to borrow ''less'' (debt intolerance) rather than learn how to borrow ''more'' in their domestic currency.〔Reinhart, C., Rogoff, K., and Savastano, M., (2003). ("Debt Intolerance" ), Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1:1-62. 22:957-90.〕 In these two earlier versions of original sin hypothesis, Eichengreen, Hausmann and Panizza argued that in the presence of high levels of original sin, domestic investments will have a currency mismatch (projects that generate domestic currency will be financed with a foreign currency) so that macroeconomic and financial instability will be unavoidable. Hence, original sin and currency mismatch are used interchangeable in these early studies. Goldstein and Turner (2003) criticized this by showing that large output losses due to the currency mismatches during financial crises could not be attributed to original sin. Hence, they claimed that the original sin is not a sufficient condition for a currency mismatch.〔Goldstein, M., and Turner, P., (2003). "Currency Mismatching in Emerging Economies", paper presented at an Institute for International Economics seminar, August 14, Washington.〕 In their last version of their original sin hypothesis, Eichengreen, Hausmann and Panizza defined domestic component of original sin as the "inability to borrow domestically long-term at fixed rates in local currency" while keeping the definition of (international) original sin same.〔Eichengreen, B., and Hausmann, R., (2003). ("Original Sin: The Road to Redemption" ), unpublished paper〕〔Eichengreen, B., Hausmann, R., and Panizza, U., (2003). ("The Mystery of Original Sin" ), unpublished paper〕〔 They reported that no country (having an original sin ratio higher than 0.75) with high domestic original sin had low international original sin suggesting that if a country could not persuade its own citizens to lend in local currency at long maturities, it could not convince foreigners to do the same. On the other hand, they reported that seven countries, among the 21 emerging countries included in their sample, had low domestic original sin but relatively high international original sin, suggesting that dominant use of local currency in domestic markets is not a sufficient condition for dominant use internationally. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Original sin (economics)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|