Beyond financial repression and regulatory capture. The recomposition of European financial ecosystems after the crisis

The financial crisis has radically and rapidly changed the political economy of the European financial system. The evolution of relations between European states and their respective financial systems has given rise to two competing narratives. On the one hand, government agencies are often described as being at the mercy of the financial sector, regularly highjacking political, regulatory and supervisory processes. This trend is often referred to as "regulatory capture" and would explain the "soft touch" regulation and bank bailout. On the other hand, governments are portrayed as subverting markets and abusing the financial system for their benefit, mainly to obtain better financing conditions and allocate credit to the economy on preferential terms, a trend called "financial repression" that is considered corrosive to the proper functioning of free markets and a source of capital misallocation. This paper takes a critical look at this debate in the European context. First, he argues that the relationship between governments and financial systems in Europe cannot be reduced to the polar notions of "capture" and "repression", but that the channels of pressure and influence between governments and their financial systems have often been two-way. Secondly, it puts these issues in a historical perspective and shows that the current reconfiguration of national financial systems in Europe is not simply a return to the "interventionist" policies of the past, although it is influenced by the path-dependency of national institutions and characterised by a broader political and economic role for public bodies (public credit institutions, financial supervision agencies, central bank, European relief fund, etc.)

Natural vs. financial insurance in the management of public-good ecosystems

In the face of uncertainty, ecosystems can provide natural insurance to risk averse users of ecosystem services. We employ a conceptual ecological-economic model to analyze the allocation of (endogenous) risk and ecosystem quality by risk averse ecosystem managers who have access to financial insurances, and study the implications for individually and socially optimal ecosystem management, and policy design. We show that while an improved access to financial insurance leads to lower ecosystem quality, the effect on the free-rider problem and on welfare is determined by ecosystem properties. We derive conditions on ecosystem functioning under which, if financial insurance becomes more accessible, (i) the extent of optimal regulation increases or decreases; and (ii) welfare, in the absence of environmental regulation, increases or decreases.ecosystem quality, ecosystem services, ecosystem management, endogenous environmental risk, insurance, risk-aversion, uncertainty

Evaporating Asset: Water Scarcity and Innovations for the Future

The World Economic Forum has identified "water crises" as one of the top ten issues of greatest concern to the global economy in 2014. What is causing these crises and how do we address them? Through research supported by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2014, SustainAbility explored the challenges faced by freshwater and freshwater ecosystems globally due to growing sectoral competition -- between agricultural, industrial and municipal users -- for limited water. This paper illuminates some of the most innovative approaches to protect, preserve and replenish freshwater ecosystems

Annual Report: 2009

I submit herewith the annual report from the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, for the period ending December 31, 2009. This is done in accordance with an act of Congress, approved March 2, 1887, entitled, “An act to establish agricultural experiment stations, in connection with the agricultural college established in the several states under the provisions of an act approved July 2, 1862, and under the acts supplementary thereto,” and also of the act of the Alaska Territorial Legislature, approved March 12, 1935, accepting the provisions of the act of Congress. The research reports are organized according to our strategic plan, which focuses on high-latitude soils, high-latitude agriculture, natural resources use and allocation, ecosystems management, and geographic information. These areas cross department and unit lines, linking them and unifying the research. We have also included in our financial statement information on the special grants we receive. These special grants allow us to provide research and outreach that is targeted toward economic development in Alaska. Research conducted by our graduate and undergraduate students plays an important role in these grants and the impact they make on Alaska.Financial statement -- Grants -- Students -- Research Reports: Partners, Facilities, and Programs; Geography; High-Latitude Agriculture; High-Latitude Soils; Management of Ecosystems; Natural Resources Use and Allocation; Index to Reports -- Publications -- Facult

Launching the Grand Challenges for Ocean Conservation

The ten most pressing Grand Challenges in Oceans Conservation were identified at the Oceans Big Think and described in a detailed working document:A Blue Revolution for Oceans: Reengineering Aquaculture for SustainabilityEnding and Recovering from Marine DebrisTransparency and Traceability from Sea to Shore:  Ending OverfishingProtecting Critical Ocean Habitats: New Tools for Marine ProtectionEngineering Ecological Resilience in Near Shore and Coastal AreasReducing the Ecological Footprint of Fishing through Smarter GearArresting the Alien Invasion: Combating Invasive SpeciesCombatting the Effects of Ocean AcidificationEnding Marine Wildlife TraffickingReviving Dead Zones: Combating Ocean Deoxygenation and Nutrient Runof

Re-establishing an Ecological Discourse in the Debate over the Value of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

The approach of conceptualizing biodiversity and ecosystems as goods and services to be represented by monetary values in policy is being championed not just by economists, but also by ecologists and conservation biologists. This new environmental pragmatism is now being pushed forward internationally under the guise of hardwiring biodiversity and ecosystems services into finance. This conflicts with the realisation that biodiversity and ecosystems have multiple incommensurable values. The current trend is to narrowly define a set of instrumental aspects of ecosystems and biodiversity to be associated with ad hoc money numbers. We argue that ecosystem science has more to offer the policy debate than pseudo-economic numbers based on assumptions that do not reflect ecological or social complexity. Re-establishing the ecological discourse in biodiversity policy implies a crucial role for biophysical indicators as policy targets e.g., the Nature Index for Norway. Yet there is a recognisable need to go beyond the traditional ecological approach to create a social ecological economic discourse. This requires reviving and relating to a range of alternative ecologically informed discourses (e.g. intrinsic values, deep ecology, ecofeminism) in order to transform the increasingly dominant and destructive relationship of humans separated from and domineering over Nature. (author's abstract)Series: SRE - Discussion Paper

Securing the Livelihoods and Nutritional Needs of Fish-Dependent Communities

Starting in June 2012, the Rockefeller Foundation began investigating the pressing problem of the declining health of the oceans due to climate change, overfishing, pollution and habitat destruction, and the effects of this decline on poor and vulnerable people who depend on marine ecosystems for food and livelihoods. The goal was to better understand the nature of the problem and the potential impact of interventions in the fields of fisheries, aquaculture, poverty, and food security.The Foundation assembled a portfolio of learning grants that examined this problem from multiple perspectives in order to inform and assess the viability of and potential impact for future engagement on this topic. We supported four scoping studies that sought to identify populations dependent on marine fisheries, as well as review past experience with integrated approaches to fisheries management within a livelihoods and food security context. In partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies, we also supported scoping work in four countries to assess opportunities for a coordinated strategy integrating national policy, local management, and innovative financing.We have learned a tremendous amount from the work our grantees have done, captured here by partner FSG in a summary and synthesis. We hope this information will contribute to the broader body of knowledge on this topic, as well as our own work