|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
141856
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We assess how investors evaluate sovereign borrowers, arguing that sovereign risk is less “sovereign” than previous research assumes. Investors evaluate governments based not only on what they do, but also on investors' views of similar, “peer” countries. Professional investors use investment categorizations (geography, sovereign credit rating, or level of market development) as a heuristic device. As a result, peer country effects, as well as country-specific and global factors (booms, crises, or shocks), should explain sovereign interest rates. The peer effects we expect are regular features of international capital markets, rather than phenomena that occur in periods of market turmoil. We assess our expectations using error correction models of monthly sovereign risk premiums, which reveal significant interdependencies in sovereign risk assessments among countries, net of global and domestic predictors. Such contagion emerges principally in the short term, although we also find robust, long-term ties in sovereign risk assessments among countries sharing common regional classifications. Hence, our evidence suggests that professional investors' reliance on country categorizations facilitates the transmission of market sentiments—which include lower as well as higher risk premiums charged—across groups of countries, even when countries differ in key measures of creditworthiness. Our analyses highlight the importance of investors' ideas regarding country categorizations; they call into question the efficiency of sovereign debt markets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
165697
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Restrictive policies in Europe are accompanied by exclusionary discourses concerning national citizenship for immigrants, depicting them dichotomously as either ‘deserving’ or ‘undeserving’. In our analysis of immigration and integration policies in Belgium, we focus on how these political discourses interact to differentiate between categories of immigrants who are included or excluded to some extent in ways that are more complex than the dichotomy suggests. We conduct framing and category analyses of migration and integration policies to reveal a discursive field consisting of four central frames that generate seven categories of immigrants with varying degrees of deservingness. Instead of a linear path towards citizenship, migrants are trapped in a labyrinth. We reveal four important contradictions in the policy discourse, leading to the conclusion that permanently probationary citizenship status is the highest attainable goal for certain immigrants. Finally, we discuss the implications of this labyrinth for the socioeconomic position of immigrants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|