对冲策略的可变有效性

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
J. Ciorciari
{"title":"对冲策略的可变有效性","authors":"J. Ciorciari","doi":"10.1093/IRAP/LCZ007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Governments often adopt hedging strategies to mitigate risks they face in international affairs. They hedge in the conventional, financial sense of the term by seeking to offset risks in global markets. They also adopt strategies to hedge against international security hazards by preserving strategic ambiguity, forging limited security alignments, and cultivating modest self-protection in case potential threats materialize. Both types of hedging typically are seen as prudent behavior. However, hedging strategies sometimes fail. Risks can be difficult to calculate, and the measures needed to hedge against them can be costly. Hedging international security risks can be particularly challenging, as governments sometimes lack access to adequate protective options at any price. This article illustrates the argument with two contrasting cases: relatively successful Southeast Asian hedging against the risk of financial calamity after the 1997 crisis and less effective efforts by some of the same states to hedge against the security risk of Chinese encroachment in the South China Sea.","PeriodicalId":51799,"journal":{"name":"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/IRAP/LCZ007","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The variable effectiveness of hedging strategies\",\"authors\":\"J. Ciorciari\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/IRAP/LCZ007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Governments often adopt hedging strategies to mitigate risks they face in international affairs. They hedge in the conventional, financial sense of the term by seeking to offset risks in global markets. They also adopt strategies to hedge against international security hazards by preserving strategic ambiguity, forging limited security alignments, and cultivating modest self-protection in case potential threats materialize. Both types of hedging typically are seen as prudent behavior. However, hedging strategies sometimes fail. Risks can be difficult to calculate, and the measures needed to hedge against them can be costly. Hedging international security risks can be particularly challenging, as governments sometimes lack access to adequate protective options at any price. This article illustrates the argument with two contrasting cases: relatively successful Southeast Asian hedging against the risk of financial calamity after the 1997 crisis and less effective efforts by some of the same states to hedge against the security risk of Chinese encroachment in the South China Sea.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/IRAP/LCZ007\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/IRAP/LCZ007\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IRAP/LCZ007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

各国政府经常采取对冲策略来减轻它们在国际事务中面临的风险。他们通过寻求抵消全球市场的风险,在传统的金融意义上进行对冲。他们还采取战略,通过保持战略模糊性,建立有限的安全联盟,并在潜在威胁出现时培养适度的自我保护,来对冲国际安全隐患。这两种类型的套期保值通常都被视为谨慎行为。然而,对冲策略有时会失败。风险可能很难计算,对冲风险所需的措施可能代价高昂。对冲国际安全风险可能特别具有挑战性,因为政府有时无法以任何代价获得足够的保护选择。这篇文章用两个截然不同的案例来说明这一论点:1997年危机后,东南亚对金融灾难风险的对冲相对成功,而一些国家对中国侵占南中国海的安全风险的对冲效果较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The variable effectiveness of hedging strategies
Governments often adopt hedging strategies to mitigate risks they face in international affairs. They hedge in the conventional, financial sense of the term by seeking to offset risks in global markets. They also adopt strategies to hedge against international security hazards by preserving strategic ambiguity, forging limited security alignments, and cultivating modest self-protection in case potential threats materialize. Both types of hedging typically are seen as prudent behavior. However, hedging strategies sometimes fail. Risks can be difficult to calculate, and the measures needed to hedge against them can be costly. Hedging international security risks can be particularly challenging, as governments sometimes lack access to adequate protective options at any price. This article illustrates the argument with two contrasting cases: relatively successful Southeast Asian hedging against the risk of financial calamity after the 1997 crisis and less effective efforts by some of the same states to hedge against the security risk of Chinese encroachment in the South China Sea.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.10%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: International Relations of the Asia-Pacific is an exciting journal that addresses the major issues and developments taking place in the Asia-Pacific. It provides frontier knowledge of and fresh insights into the Asia-Pacific. The journal is a meeting place where various issues are debated from refreshingly diverging angles, backed up by rigorous scholarship. The journal is open to all methodological approaches and schools of thought, and to ideas that are expressed in plain and clear language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信