| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,822,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,940,000、Indirect Cost: ¥882,000)
Fiscal Year 2009: ¥1,885,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,450,000、Indirect Cost: ¥435,000)
Fiscal Year 2008: ¥1,937,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,490,000、Indirect Cost: ¥447,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The purpose of this study is to explore, from a comparative perspective, political processes on financial restructuring that governments of South Korea, Thailand, and Mexico tackled after the financial crises in the 1990s.
The researcher visited Thailand and Mexico in 2009 and South Korea in 2010 for making research. In the three countries, he had interviews with incumbent and former executives of ministry of finance, central bank, professors and researchers of university and institutes, staffs of Japanese embassies and Japanese commercial banks. Also he worked to collect documents, articles and books at university libraries, institutions, and government organizations.
The researcher made an analysis based on the research in the three countries and reached the following conclusion.
The Kim Dae Jung government of Korea chose a government-led approach because of legacy of its interventionism in the market and the control of commercial banks. This legacy was evident in the organization and p
… More
ersonnel of economic ministries such as the Financial Supervisory Commission.
In Thailand, two legacies influenced the government decision to adopt a market initiative approach. First, Thailand's economic ministries had maintained non-interventionism in the market since the 1960s. Second, under the oligopoly of the largest banks, which continued even in the post-crisis years, government policy tended to reflect the preference of private bankers for the market-led approach. Mexico's financial restructuring, featuring government initiative and substantial access for foreign capital (free market principles), was determined by two different factors. First, the government initiative reflected the PRI's tradition of interventionism in the economy. Second, however, government leaders no longer hoped to control the financial market as they had done before the Peso crisis. Their economic ideology was transformed into neoliberalism. This ideological change occurred because they had been seriously damaged by the two financial crises in 1982 and 1994. Less
|
