Endnotes
1The Group of Thirty (2008) studied financial supervisory structures in 17 countries. Current structures for financial supervision are classified into four categories: Institutional, Functional, Integrated, and Twin Peaks.
2On the issue of choosing an appropriate financial supervision architecture, two main questions are often addressed. One is whether an integrated supervisor is better than a fragmented one. This is the main issue in this paper. The other is the role of central banks in the financial stability framework. This is not covered in this paper. Please refer to Herring and Carmassi (2008), Masciandaro and Quintyn (2009), and Nier (2009).
3Available at http://oldwww.fsc.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=508411&ctNode=2217&mp=5
4According to the Financial Supervision Unification Index in Masciandaro (2009), Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore have integrated financial supervisory systems, while PRC; Hong Kong, China; India; Malaysia; New Zealand; Pakistan; Philippines; Sri Lanka; and Thailand have fragmented structures.
5A discussion on the Lamfalussy Process can be found in Kudrna (2009).
Download this Paper [ PDF 785.2KB| 54 pages ].
Post a Comment | We welcome your feedback on this publication. Post a comment. ADBI is not obliged to acknowledge or publish comments and may abridge or edit them before web posting. |
Comment(s)
There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.
|
The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.
|
|
About ADBINews & EventsSpecial ProgramsPartnerships
Publications
Back to Top
