过度特权的获得与丧失:财政含义
Exorbitant Privilege Gained and Lost: Fiscal Implications
Journal of Political Economy · 2025 · [{"name": "Zefeng Chen", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Zhengyang Jiang", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Hanno Lustig", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Mindy Z. Xiaolan", "affiliation": []}]
中文摘要
我们研究了三个世纪的财政史。占主导地位的安全资产供应国发行的债务,超过了未来基本盈余所能证明合理的水平,即使计入便利收益带来的铸币税收入之后依然如此。这一模式适用于荷兰共和国(17至18世纪)、英国(18至19世纪)和美国(20至21世纪)。当荷兰和英国的财政基本面恶化时,它们失去了作为安全资产供应国的主导地位,其债务变得完全由基本盈余支持。过度特权源于早期阶段发行定价过高的债务,随后在后期阶段出现债券持有人损失与金融抑制。
Abstract
We study three centuries of fiscal history. Dominant safe asset suppliers issue more debt than future primary surpluses can justify, even after accounting for seigniorage revenue from convenience yields. This pattern holds for the Dutch Republic (seventeenth to eighteenth centuries), the United Kingdom (eighteenth to nineteenth centuries), and the United States (twentieth to twenty-first centuries). When Dutch and UK fiscal fundamentals deteriorated, they lost their dominant position as the safe asset supplier, and their debt became fully backed by primary surpluses. Exorbitant privilege stems from issuing overpriced debt in the early stage, followed by bondholder losses and financial repression in the later stage.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →