日韓両国の金融システムとその比較
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
1. Japan Until the 1970s, the Japanese financial system was highly regulated and there were many restrictions such as those on the scope of activities, entrance into the banking business, interest on deposits and so on. Since the 1980s, various measures have been taken to liberalize the financial system. As the culmination of such measures, the Japanese Big Bang started in November 1996. Non-performing loan (NPL) problem burdened the Japanese banks for more than a decade since the collapse of the bubble economy. However, NPL problem has eased recent years due to the efforts by banks and helped by the recovery of the macroeconomic situations and the rise of the equity prices. The bank-based financial system is still dominant in Japan, and the role of the market-based system should be enhanced so that the financial system becomes more balanced and sound one. Almost in the same context, the Japanese financial system needs to shift from industry-oriented system toward more market-oriented one. 2. Korea The military Park government took the office in 1961 and nationalized commercial banks and established various specialized banks. The banks were controlled by the government and had little autonomy. Since the early 1980s, the government began to liberalize the financial system . However the government continued to control the banks by maintaining the power to appoint the top managers. Since the 1980s, many nonbanking financial institutions (NBFIs) such as Investment Trust Companies and Merchant Bank Companies were set up and expanded their share in the financial sector. Liberalization of financial sector accelerated in the 1990s and chaebols used NBFIs to raise the fund. In late 1997, the financial crisis occurred . The fundamental reason was the structural problems in the financial and corporate sectors. Those were poor supervision of banks, the lack of skills of credit analysis and risk management of banks in the case of financial sector. The Kim government took the decisive structural reform measures to recover from the crisis. In the financial sector, those were the injection of the public fund, financial restructuring and strengthening of the regulatory standard. South Korea's financial system has not been market-based, but bank-based. Under the Government-led banking system, the lending policies of the commercial banks were heavily influenced by the government. Even though the financial sector, especially the banking sector, recovered from the financial crisis, there remain several fundamental problems to be tackled. Those are \・The financial system in which the private banks have the autonomous power should be firmly established. The private banks are also required to solve the current problems caused by consumer spending bubble burst. ・The management of NBFIs such as credit card companies and life insurance companies should be strengthened. ・The capital market should be more developed and enhance the role in the financial market. For this purpose, institutional investors need to be developed. 3. Comparison of the financial system of two countries. (1) Similarities ・The financial system has been bank-based, not market-based, and the banking sector has been providing the major portion of the fund necessary for economic development. \・The governmental financial institutions, together with the private ones, have been playing the important role in the financial system. This has weakened the competitiveness of private financial institutions. \・The capital market needs to be developed further. The share of security companies and insurance companies have been small in the financial market. ・In the 1990s, the government played the important role for the bank restructuring through the injection of the public fund. (2) Differences \・In Japan, corporations, together with their main banks, formed groups and banks held strong influences on group companies. There were strong cross holding of equities between banks and companies. \・In the case of South Korea, the banks had little autonomy and loans were made as policy loans. There have been virtually no cross holding of equities between banks and corporations. Compared with Japan, the chaebols have the NBFIs, and raise the fund through these institutions. As a result, the monitoring function of the banks has been extremely weak.
- 島根県立大学の論文
著者
関連論文
- 東アジアにおける為替相場制度のあり方を探る
- ロシアの銀行部門と東ロシア資源開発のための資金調達
- 日韓両国の金融システムとその比較
- 中国と韓国における金融制度改革について
- 中国と韓国における金融制度改革について
- 小川一夫編, 『政策危機の国際比較』, 日本評論社, 2002年刊
- アジア通貨・金融危機とアジア通貨制度のあり方(第II部 北東アジアの社会経済システム)
- 近年の制度環境の変化と邦銀経営