充分的潜在违约: 大流行时代主权债务的经济与法律层面
Enough Potential Repudiation: Economic and Legal Aspects of Sovereign Debt in the Pandemic Era
Annual Review of Economics · 2022 · [{"name": "Anna Gelpern", "affiliation": ["Peterson Institute for International Economics", "Georgetown University"]}, {"name": "Ugo Panizza", "affiliation": ["Centre for Economic Policy Research", "Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies"]}]
中文摘要
本文结合新冠疫情（COVID-19）冲击，回顾了近期关于主权债务的经济学与法学文献。两个学科中的大多数核心理论贡献，都将豁免权及由此导致的主权借款人无法承诺偿还外国债权人，视为主权的区别性属性。我们强调，基于豁免权的主权债务理论与经验证据之间存在持续差距：低收入和中等收入国家政府的借款，远多于理论所预测的水平。另一方面，在欧元区债务危机之前通常被认为不在该文献研究范围之内的发达经济体政府，也已表明其面临的承诺困境，远比此前设想的更为严重。我们得出结论认为，传统上将关注拒付债务的发展中经济体主权国家的文献，与关注不拒付债务的发达经济体主权国家的文献截然二分的做法，已不再适当（即便这种划分曾经适当过）。我们认为，将部分注意力从豁免权转向主权的另一种属性——权威（authority）——或有助于弥合这两类文献之间的差距。
Abstract
This article reviews recent economic and legal literature on sovereign debt in light of the COVID-19 shock. Most of the core theoretical contributions across the two disciplines hinge on immunity, and the sovereign borrower's consequent inability to commit to repay foreign creditors, as the distinguishing attribute of sovereignty. We highlight a persistent gap between sovereign debt theories grounded in immunity and empirical evidence that the governments of low- and middle-income countries borrow far more than theory would predict. On the other hand, the governments of advanced economies, generally viewed as outside the scope of this literature before the euro area debt crisis, have shown themselves to be far more commitment challenged than previously supposed. We conclude that the traditional split between a literature concerned with developing economy sovereigns that repudiate debt and one concerned with advanced economies that do not is no longer appropriate (if ever it was). We argue that shifting some attention away from immunity to a different attribute of sovereignty—authority—could help bridge the gap between the two literatures.