{"title":"资本充足率规则的演变——瑞典和英国的对比案例","authors":"Åsa Malmström Rognes","doi":"10.1080/03585522.2020.1843528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The regulation of bank capital has evolved from minimum capital requirements for joint-stock banks to elaborate risk-based capital adequacy rules. How did these regulations come about? How and why have they changed over time in different coutnries? Sweden began to regulate minimum capital in the nineteenth century. In 1911 an early version of capital adequacy was introduced. In addition to stringent regulation a separate inspection agency was given wide-ranging powers to ensure compliance. Britain also had minimum capital rules in place but during the twentieth century these two countries followed different paths in regulation and supervision of capital rules. This paper examines the Swedish case in detail and contrasts that with the British case. It is suggested that their respective civil and common law traditions may explain the divergent approaches to defining and regulating capital adequacy.","PeriodicalId":43624,"journal":{"name":"SCANDINAVIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW","volume":"70 1","pages":"19 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03585522.2020.1843528","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The evolution of capital adequacy rules – the contrasting cases of Sweden and Britain\",\"authors\":\"Åsa Malmström Rognes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03585522.2020.1843528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The regulation of bank capital has evolved from minimum capital requirements for joint-stock banks to elaborate risk-based capital adequacy rules. How did these regulations come about? How and why have they changed over time in different coutnries? Sweden began to regulate minimum capital in the nineteenth century. In 1911 an early version of capital adequacy was introduced. In addition to stringent regulation a separate inspection agency was given wide-ranging powers to ensure compliance. Britain also had minimum capital rules in place but during the twentieth century these two countries followed different paths in regulation and supervision of capital rules. This paper examines the Swedish case in detail and contrasts that with the British case. It is suggested that their respective civil and common law traditions may explain the divergent approaches to defining and regulating capital adequacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SCANDINAVIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"19 - 32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03585522.2020.1843528\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SCANDINAVIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03585522.2020.1843528\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SCANDINAVIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03585522.2020.1843528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The evolution of capital adequacy rules – the contrasting cases of Sweden and Britain
ABSTRACT The regulation of bank capital has evolved from minimum capital requirements for joint-stock banks to elaborate risk-based capital adequacy rules. How did these regulations come about? How and why have they changed over time in different coutnries? Sweden began to regulate minimum capital in the nineteenth century. In 1911 an early version of capital adequacy was introduced. In addition to stringent regulation a separate inspection agency was given wide-ranging powers to ensure compliance. Britain also had minimum capital rules in place but during the twentieth century these two countries followed different paths in regulation and supervision of capital rules. This paper examines the Swedish case in detail and contrasts that with the British case. It is suggested that their respective civil and common law traditions may explain the divergent approaches to defining and regulating capital adequacy.
期刊介绍:
Scandinavian Economic History Review publishes articles and reviews in the broad field of Nordic economic, business and social history. The journal also publishes contributions from closely related fields, such as history of technology, maritime history and history of economic thought. Articles dealing with theoretical and methodological issues are also included. The editors aim to reflect contemporary research, thinking and debate in these fields, both within Scandinavia and more widely. The journal comprises a broad variety of aspects and approaches to economic and social history, ranging from macro economic history to business history, from quantitative to qualitative studies.