State Versus Market After the Asian Financial Crisis
By Paul Brothwood In 2004, I called my dissertation Crisis! State verses Market in the Asian Financial Crisis. I treated the title almost like a contest. If governments had distorted lending, protected favoured companies and defended unrealistic exchange rates, then freer markets appeared to offer the answer. My conclusion gave that side the victory. Rereading the work now, the evidence does not support such a clean division. Governments created serious risks, but private banks, companies and international lenders responded to the incentives in front of them. They borrowed, lent and invested on the assumption that currencies would remain stable, debts would be renewed and important institutions would receive support. These assumptions linked political choices to commercial decisions long before the first currency fell. The crisis developed in the relationship between public authority and private finance. States wrote the rules, managed exchange rates and supervised banks. Markets...