We examine the impact of the 1997 Asian Crisis on governance. We look into how the crisis affected High-Income OECD, High-Income Non-OECD, Upper-middle Income, Lower- Middle Income, and Low Income Countries. For measures of governance, we use the World Bank’s Governance Indicators dataset which includes six measures of governance. We find that pre- and post-crisis, the ranking of each income group has not changed except for year 2004 when the High-Income Non-OECD Countries surpassed the High-Income OECD Countries in “Political Stability and Absence of Violence” category. In other words, our results show that, other than that exception in 2004, both pre- and post-crisis, the High-Income OECD Countries had the best governance measures, the High-Income Non-OECD Countries had the second best measures, and so on, in the order shown above. One point to note here: The High-Income Non- OECD Countries performed much better than the other groups after year 1998. After 1998, this group improved in all six dimensions of governance. We conclude that although crises affect all income groups, because of certain characteristics of the High-Income Non-OECD group, they tend to better react to crises.
In this study, we examine the impact of the 2008 Global Crisis on “access to finance” in high-income OECD, high-income non-OECD, middle-income, and low-income countries. We use three measures of access to finance. These are “Number of bank branches per 100,000 adults”, “Value traded of top 10 traded companies to total value traded (%)”, and “Market capitalization outside of top 10 largest companies to total market capitalization (%)”. During the run-up to the crisis and immediately after the crisis, we do not find any significant change in any of the three “access to finance” measures. We find that, during the crisis, only middle-income countries were affected significantly. These countries were affected in only one of the measures which is “Value traded of top 10 traded companies to total value traded (%)”. This measure went up and this change is marginally significant. We conclude that the global crisis only affected “access to finance” in middle-income countries.
We examine the impact of the Global Crisis on entrepreneurial aspirations and entrepreneurial attitudes. We focus on three aspiration variables (Growth Expectation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity, New Product early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity, and International Orientation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity), and eight attitude variables (Entrepreneurial Intention, Entrepreneurship as Desirable Career Choice, Fear of Failure Rate, High Status Successful Entrepreneurship, Know Startup Entrepreneur Rate, Media Attention for Entrepreneurship, Perceived Capabilities, and Perceived Opportunities). Our results show that, two of the attitude variables have changed significantly three years after the crisis. Entrepreneurial Intention is significantly higher in 2011 (i.e. three years after the crisis started) when compared to 2008, and Know Startup Entrepreneur Rate is significantly lower in 2011 when compared to 2008. On the other hand, we find no significant change in any of the aspiration variables.
In this study, we examine the impact of the 2008-2009 Global Crisis on poverty rates across the globe. Our results are mixed. We find that, after the crisis, there was a marginally significant increase in the number of the poorest group of people (living on less than $1.25 a day at 2005 international prices) across the world. However, we do not find any significant increase in the number of people in the other low-income categories (living on less than $2, $2.50, $4, or $5). Although we do not find any significant increase in the poverty headcount ratios (the percentage of poor people in the population living on less than $1.25, $2, $2.50, $4, or $5), our results show that, interestingly, there has been a significant decrease in the national poverty headcount ratios (percentage of people living below the national poverty line which is based on estimates from household surveys) after the crisis. Overall, we suggest policymakers to focus on the poorest group of people during these hard times since this group is affected the most.
In this study, we examine the regional impacts of the 1997 Asian Crisis on Governance. We use World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (i.e. WGI) which includes six dimensions of governance. These six dimensions are “Voice and Accountability”, “Political Stability and Absence of Violence”, “Government Effectiveness”, “Regulatory Quality”, “Rule of Law”, and “Control of Corruption”. The seven regions that we examine are North America, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Middle East and North Africa. Our findings show that, due to the crisis, while the overall rankings of Latin America and Caribbean, and Sub-Saharan Africa improved, the overall rankings of Europe and Central Asia, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia, and Middle East and North Africa declined. There was no change in the ranking of North America due to the crisis. Both pre- and post-crisis, North America has the highest ranking in all six measures of governance.
The 2008-2009 global crisis has severely affected the world economy. Most national governments utilized fiscal policy measures including subsidies to reinforce and sustain their economies. In this study we examine the impact of the 2008-2009 global crisis on subsidies paid to manufacturing firms either by their governments or the European Union (i.e. EU). Our results indicate that, overall, a significantly larger proportion of firms had received subsidies after the global crisis. When we look into different subgroups, we find that firm size, female ownership, female management, and quality certification did not matter (more firms in all of these subgroups had received subsidies). On the other hand, our results demonstrate that firm type and top manager’s experience level made a difference in terms of subsidies received after the crisis.