Emerging economies, which have implemented since the end of the 80's a process of financial liberalization, are confronted at the same time to banking crisis. The latter highlight the role played by the institutional framework in the process of financial liberalization. The objective of this paper is to go through the usual alternative too much/ too little market in order to explain that the success of any liberalization process relies on the complementarity between market and intermediation. Institutions defined as rule-following behavior represented the cornerstone of such an evolution. The point is that the solution to financial instability is to be found within the institutional dynamics in which emerging economies may benefit from intermediation in order to enforce the market process.
The conditionality employed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its lending policy is one of the main themes of controversy in the debate on the new international financial architecture. The purpose of this paper is to propose an analytical framework integrating the diverse explanations of the failure of IMF conditionality. Our analysis is based on the idea that the IMF is a key player in the running of markets in a global economy. More precisely, we explain that most of the criticisms concerning conditionality should be analyzed through what we agree to call the institutional failures of IMF conditionality. These institutional failures must be appreciated at two complementary levels: the first level refers to the intrinsic bureaucratic bias of the IMF while the second deals with the inability of the IMF to manage the institutional change required for the development of market processes and hence to maintain the institutional order in recipient countries. Although the first level failures have been particularly well studied via the international public choice approach, those of the second are, at best, often reduced to a simple statement. However, analyzing both levels of institutional failure of the IMF together is not without implications for the way in which the reforms of conditionality are conceived. Indeed, by including an analysis of the second level of failures, i.e. those relating to the relationship between conditionality and domestic institutional change, the recommendation of ex-ante conditionality emanating from the public choice approach, which tackles the first level of failures, will be invalidated. Instead a new approach will be proposed that suggests the separation of the role of the IMF as financial backer from its role as adviser to countries confronted by the globalization process.
Since the late 80s', emerging economies are striking by a recurrent instability of their financial system. The main lesson is that the domestic institutional infrastructure represents a critical condition necessary for successful liberalization. This critical condition refers to what we agree to call the "domestic governance" approach. The traditional answer provided in order to deal with this instability refers to the so-called "new international financial infrastructure". This initiative seems insufficient because it does not take into account the degree of adaptability of the prevailing domestic institutions. The purpose of our paper is to propose an analytical framework aimed at studying the relationship between "domestic governance" and "global governance". The challenge becomes to organize a multi-speed financial liberalization process in which capital controls could play a decisive role. An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the International Conference on Global Economic Transformation after the Asian Economic Crisis, May 27-28, 2000, Hong-Kong. We thank the participants for their remarks and suggestions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.