The Law and Economics of Hedge Fund Regulation: A Comparison between the U.S. and the EU

This doctoral dissertation seeks to assess and address the potential contribution of the hedge fund industry to financial instability. In so doing, the dissertation investigates three main questions. What are the contributions of hedge funds to financial instability? What is the optimal regulatory strategy to address the potential contribution of hedge funds to financial instability? And do new regulations in the U.S. and the EU address the contribution of hedge funds to financial instability? With respect to financial stability concerns, it is argued that despite their benefits, hedge funds can contribute to financial instability. Hedge funds’ size and leverage, their interconnectedness with Large Complex Financial Institutions (LCFIs), and the likelihood of herding behavior in the industry can potentially undermine financial stability. Nonetheless, the data on hedge funds’ size and leverage suggest that these features are far from being systemically important. In contrast, the empirical evidence on the interconnectedness of hedge funds with LCFIs and their herding behavior is mixed. Based on these findings, the thesis focuses on one particular aspect of hedge fund regulation: direct vs. indirect regulation. In this respect, a major contribution of the thesis to the literature consists in the explicit discussion of the relationships between hedge funds and other market participants. Specifically, the thesis locates the domain of the indirect regulation in the inter-linkages between hedge funds and prime brokers. Accordingly, the thesis argues that the indirect regulation is likely to address the contribution of hedge funds to systemic risk without compromising their benefits to financial markets. The thesis further conducts a comparative study of the regulatory responses to the potential contribution of hedge funds to financial instability through studying the EU Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD) and the hedge fund-related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

Who can (not) be Greek? Citizenship, Identity and Belonging among youth of sub-Saharan African background in Athens

‘Who can be Greek?’ This was the question posed to the Greek society for the first time before the implementation of the Act 3838 in March 2010 which gave the right to access the Greek citizenship -under specific preconditions- to all children of legal migrants born or schooled in Greece. This change of the Nationality Code in order to include all those children was coincided by the economic crisis resulting into the rise of xenophobia, racism and extreme-right rhetoric. The outcome was the cancellation of the Act 3838 by the State Council in February 2013. Under this particular framework, the notions of identity and belonging formed among the youth of African background in Athens are explored. The ways those youngsters perceive not only themselves but also their peers, their countries of origin and the country they live in, are crucial elements of their self-identification. Researches have shown that the integration of the second generation is highly connected to their legal and social status. However, integration is a rather complex process, influenced and shaped by many variables and multiple factors. It is not linear; therefore, its outcomes are difficult to be predicted. Yet, I argue that citizenship acquisition facilitates the process as it transforms those children from ‘aliens’ to ‘citizens’. How these youngsters are perceived by the majority society and the State is one of the core questions of the research, focusing on the imposed dual ‘otherness’ they are subject to. On the one hand, they have to deal with the ‘otherness’ originating from the migrant status inherited to them by their parents, and on the other with the ‘otherness’ deriving from their different phenotypic characteristics. Race matters and becomes a means of discrimination against youth of African background who are perceived as inassimilable and ‘forever others’.