On International and National Dimensions of Risk Sharing

Crucini, Mario J.

doi:10.1162/003465399767923836

Cited by 147 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

226

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5 They find a high degree of risk sharing among Canadian provinces but little risk sharing across international borders. In a similar vein, Crucini (1999) finds substantial risk sharing among Canadian provinces and U.S. States; but a much lower degree of risk sharing between these and other countries. Ostergaard et al (2002) also use U.S. and Canadian data to focus on the consumption-smoothing role of credit markets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Interstate risk sharing in Germany: 1970-2006

Hepp

Hagen

2012

Oxford Economic Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Asdrubali et al. (1996). Their framework allows us to estimate the degree of smoothing of a shock to a state's gross domestic product by factor markets, the government sector, and credit markets, respectively. For the time period from 1970 to 1994 -pre-unification Germany -we find that about 19 percent of shocks to a state's gross domestic product (GDP) are smoothed by private factor markets, 50 percent are smoothed by the German government sector, and a further 17 percent are smoothed through credit markets. For the post-reunification period, 1995 to 2006, the relative importance of the smoothing channels changes. In the complete sample, factor markets contribute around 50.5 percent to consumption smoothing, and credit markets contribute another 17.5 percent. The government sector's role is diminished: it smoothes around 10 percent of a shock. For this period, we also split our sample between West and East German states. In West Germany, 63 percent of idiosyncratic income shocks are smoothed out by factor markets; and another 15 percent by the government sector. In East Germany, factor markets smooth about 34.5 percent of the volatility in state GDP, the government sector about 19 percent, and another 18 percent are smoothed by credit markets. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Interstate risk sharing in Germany: 1970-2006

Hepp

Hagen

2012

Oxford Economic Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A comparison of the variance-decomposition results of Asdrubali, Sorensen, and Yosha (1996) on the United States with those of Sorensen and Yosha (1998) on the OECD suggests that financial markets play a much bigger role in consumption smoothing among U.S. states than is the case among industrial countries. Crucini (1999), using an alternative method, concludes that Canadian provinces pool risks more effectively than U.S. regions, and that either country shows more internal risk pooling than does the sample of industrial countries. Bayoumi and Klein (1997) find that Canadian provinces display more financial integration with each other than with the outside world.29 So there indeed is a puzzle as to why intranational consumption risk sharing is more efficient than international risk sharing, but it can be resolved in the same manner as we have resolved the home-bias and Feldstein-Horioka puzzles.…”

Section: Incompleteness Of Domestic Vs International Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause?

Obstfeld¹,

Rogoff²

2000

NBER Macroeconomics Annual

558

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This type of measure has also been used in other contexts. For example, it can also be used to gauge the welfare costs of international risk sharing-see van Wincoop (1994) and Crucini and Hess (2000).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Economic Welfare Cost of Conflict: An Empirical Assessment

Blomberg¹,

Hess²

2012

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. War, whether external or internal, large or small, is a costly endeavor. Loss of life, loss of close friends or family, and the destruction of material possessions all play a part in the costs of war. The purpose of this paper is to capture only the material, economic welfare costs of conflict stemming from the altered path of consumption resulting from conflict. As such, the measure is quite a lower bound for the true and more encompassing welfare loss from living in a non-peaceful world. But how much would individual be willing to pay to avoid just the economic costs of conflict? Remarkably, even these pure economic welfare losses from conflict are quite large. I find that, on average, individuals who live in a country that has experienced some conflict during the 1960-1992 sample would permanently give up to approximately 8 percent of their current level of consumption to live in a purely peaceful world. Such large potential welfare gains from reducing warfare should make economists and policy-makers take note, and continue to investigate and advocate for domestic and international institutions to realize such gains. Terms of use: Documents inJEL Classification: E21, E32, H56.

show abstract

On International and National Dimensions of Risk Sharing

Cited by 147 publications

References 18 publications

Interstate risk sharing in Germany: 1970-2006

Interstate risk sharing in Germany: 1970-2006

The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause?

The Economic Welfare Cost of Conflict: An Empirical Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About