Monetáris hatásosság közösségi szinten (The community level efficiency of monetary policy)

A monetáris integráció központi szereplője a Közösség jegybankja. A közös valuta értékállóságának közvetlenül fő meghatározója a jegybank. Mozgásterét azonban több tényező alakítja. E tanulmány az intézményi és stratégiai, a tagállami (decentralizált fiskális) és a pénzpiaci környezet függvényében vizsgálja az Európai Központi Bank (ECB) lehetőségeit és monetáris politikájának hatásosságát. / === / The efficiency of the European Economic and Monetary Union is a big dilemma of European applied economics. The first part introduces the monetary policy made by ECB. Rates and objectives are the framework of efficiency analysis. The second part details the common pool resource problem in the community of EMU countries, and describes the prisoner's dilemma of indebting in a currency community. The EMU practice shows free riding behavior of many member states what generally causes higher default risks. The increasing indebtedness shows dysfunction too, as the ECB must adjust the interest rate to the higher default risk which means cost premiums for fiscally disciplined countries as well. The third part analyses the efficiency of the ECB through the standards of monetary transmission. The updated criteria can explain any success or failure of the ECB in a not perfectly homogeneous community. The measures of transmission used in the study are the way of financing (banks vs. market), terms of financing, structure of the banking sector, private sector indebtedness, structure of savings and wealth, price elasticity, interest rate elasticity, wage elasticity. They show that the single monetary policy can create tension in the community not only because of the fiscal differences but also due to money market discrepancies.

Debt Restructuring in the Euro Area: a Necessary but Manageable Evil?

There are two possible responses to the Greek debt crisis: ‘Plan A’, continued official lending, for as long as needed, with possible voluntary private sector involvement, and ‘Plan B’, coercive preemptive or post-default restructuring with significant face value reduction in privately-held debt. Both options have risks, but it is necessary to move to Plan B sooner or later. The impact on Greece could be mitigated by foreign bank ownership and proper liquidity support measures. The direct spillover impact on the rest of the euro area seems small. But there is the risk of contagion, which is a serious concern. There is a cautious case for delaying somewhat Plan B in order to prepare for it.

Europe’s Growth Emergency

Highlights: • The European Union growth agenda has become even more pressing because growth is needed to support public and private sector deleveraging, reduce the fragility of the banking sector, counter the falling behind of southern European countries and prove that Europe is still a worthwhile place to invest. • The crisis has had a similar impact on most European countries and the US: a persistent drop in output level and a growth slowdown. This contrasts sharply with the experience of the emerging countries of Asia and Latin America. • Productivity improvement was immediate in the US, but Europe hoarded labour and productivity improvements were in general delayed. Southern European countries have hardly adjusted so far. • There is a negative feedback loop between the crisis and growth, and without effective solutions to deal with the crisis, growth is unlikely to resume. National and EU-level policies should aim to foster reforms and adjustment and should not risk medium-term objectives under the pressure of events. A more hands-on approach, including industrial policies, should be considered.

Cost of illness in benign prostatic hyperplasia: A review

The paper provides a systematic review on the cost-of-illness studies in an age-associated condition with high prevalence, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), published in Medline between 2005 and 2015. Overall 11 studies were included, which were conducted in 8 countries. In the US, the annual direct medical costs per patient ranged from $255 to $5,729, while in Europe from €253 to €1,251. In 2008, in the UK total annual direct medical costs of BPH were £180.8 million at national level. In the US, overall costs of BPH management in the private sector were estimated at $3.9 billion annually, of which $500 million was attributable to productivity loss (year 1999). Due to demographic factors and possible surgical innovations in the field of urology, the costs of BPH are likely to increase in the future. Over the next decade the age of retirement is projected to rise, consequently, the indirect costs related to aging-associated conditions such as BPH are expected to soar. To promote the transparent and cost-effective management of BPH, development of rational clinical guidelines would be essential that may lead to significant improvement in quality of care as well as reduction in healthcare expenditure.