• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

17/1 Malaya Ordynka Str., Moscow, 119017
Phone: +7(495)772-95-90*22237
Email: wec@hse.ru

School Head Igor A. Makarov
Academic Supervisor Leonid M. Grigoryev
Natalia V. Supyan
Deputy Head Natalia V. Supyan
Manager Olga Mulenko
World Economy Section Petr Mozias
Section of Energy and Raw Material Market Valery A. Krukov
World Trade Section Alexey Portanskiy
Section of Global Economic Regulation Vladimir N. Zuev


Book chapter
The Eurasian Economic Union. Member States Benefits

Panteleev A., Anastasiia Khazhgerieva.

In bk.: Asia Central en el marco de la Union Economica Eurosiatica. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 2021. Ch. 8. P. 129-155.

Working paper
Why Do Japanese MNEs Enter and Exit Foreign Markets?

Deseatnicov I., Fujii D., Kucheryavyy K. et al.

RIETI Discussion Paper Series 20-E-055. RIETI DP. Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry, 2020. No. 20-E-055.

Macroprudential regulation: Criticality for global financial stability in the post-crisis period

Eduard Dzhagityan, Associate Professor of the School of World Economy, published an article titled: ‘Macroprudential policy in post-crisis banking regulation’ (World Economy and International Relations (Scopus database), 2017, No.11, Vol. 61).

The article looks into the specifics and perspectives of an optimal model of international banking regulation using the macroprudential policy mechanism. It is demonstrated that the contemporary macroprudentialism is closely linked with microprudential banking regulation, while its importance should be considered in the context of systemic risks mitigation, higher stress-resilience of the banking sector and financial stability.

At the same time, the broader conceptual framework of macroprudential regulation (MPR) has not yet been finalized. The period of its validation in the countries that joined Basel III mechanism has not proved to be sufficient in understanding the causes and sources of systemic risks. Besides, MPR still lacks the tools that would most objectively assess the its effectiveness, despite the recommendations of the G20 meetings and the actual integration of MPR into the post-crisis banking regulation system. International regulators are on their way of just approaching the understanding the effectiveness criteria of MPR in the context of the systemic risks duality: Their homogeneity and diversification that applies to the aspect of institutional linkages; and multiplication (contagion effect) and transmission (time series aspect). In his article, Dr Dzhagityan substantiates the criticality of the extended use of macroprudential policy tools, which in turn can expand the horizons of systemic risks forecasting and allow a better understanding of the specifics of SIFIs (systemically important financial institutions) through the prism of macro-level indicators and financial cycles. Today, MPR has become a unique regulatory instrument to reduce the stress level in the banking sector; however, it is still deficient in power to ensure financial stability. The article identifies the weaknesses of MPR and systematizes the issues that are to be considered in the framework of further integration of the MPR system into the post-crisis regulatory paradigm.