金融自由化与资本外流监管:对南非资本流动限制的反思——基于南非储备银行和另一个v Shuttleworth和另一个2015 (5)SA 146 (CC)

Q4 Social Sciences
H. Kawadza
{"title":"金融自由化与资本外流监管:对南非资本流动限制的反思——基于南非储备银行和另一个v Shuttleworth和另一个2015 (5)SA 146 (CC)","authors":"H. Kawadza","doi":"10.1504/IJPL.2018.10018452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the constraints to economic development in emerging economies has to do with unavailability of capital to fund economic activities. It is not surprising therefore that most jurisdictions have come up with mechanisms that are aimed at arresting capital leakages out of their borders. Such strategies include stringent regulation of capital mobility. Much as that approach is economically laudable, it nonetheless conflicts with the financial liberalisation agenda that most of these countries have subscribed to. In South Africa, the recent case of South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another rekindled this debate. This article is an attempt to ride on the waves that this judgment has created so as to add to the conversation about the necessity or otherwise, of regulation capital outflows within the South African context in particular and in emerging economies in general. As such, this is a discussion about a conflict. A conflict between two contrasting scholarships; one advocating for the preservation of capital controls, and the other intensely agitating for capital account liberalisation.","PeriodicalId":39023,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Private Law","volume":"82 1","pages":"95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Financial liberalisation versus the regulation of capital outflows: reflections on capital movement restrictions in South Africa on the backdrop of South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another 2015 (5) SA 146 (CC)\",\"authors\":\"H. Kawadza\",\"doi\":\"10.1504/IJPL.2018.10018452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the constraints to economic development in emerging economies has to do with unavailability of capital to fund economic activities. It is not surprising therefore that most jurisdictions have come up with mechanisms that are aimed at arresting capital leakages out of their borders. Such strategies include stringent regulation of capital mobility. Much as that approach is economically laudable, it nonetheless conflicts with the financial liberalisation agenda that most of these countries have subscribed to. In South Africa, the recent case of South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another rekindled this debate. This article is an attempt to ride on the waves that this judgment has created so as to add to the conversation about the necessity or otherwise, of regulation capital outflows within the South African context in particular and in emerging economies in general. As such, this is a discussion about a conflict. A conflict between two contrasting scholarships; one advocating for the preservation of capital controls, and the other intensely agitating for capital account liberalisation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Private Law\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Private Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2018.10018452\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2018.10018452","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新兴经济体经济发展的制约因素之一与缺乏资金为经济活动提供资金有关。因此,大多数司法管辖区都提出了旨在阻止资本外流的机制,这并不奇怪。这些策略包括严格监管资本流动。尽管这种做法在经济上值得称赞,但它与大多数这些国家都赞同的金融自由化议程存在冲突。在南非,最近的南非储备银行和另一个诉沙特尔沃思和另一个案重新点燃了这一辩论。本文试图利用这一判断所产生的浪潮,从而增加关于在南非特别是新兴经济体背景下监管资本外流的必要性或其他必要性的讨论。因此,这是一个关于冲突的讨论。两个截然不同的奖学金之间的冲突;一个主张保留资本管制,另一个则强烈鼓动资本账户自由化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Financial liberalisation versus the regulation of capital outflows: reflections on capital movement restrictions in South Africa on the backdrop of South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another 2015 (5) SA 146 (CC)
One of the constraints to economic development in emerging economies has to do with unavailability of capital to fund economic activities. It is not surprising therefore that most jurisdictions have come up with mechanisms that are aimed at arresting capital leakages out of their borders. Such strategies include stringent regulation of capital mobility. Much as that approach is economically laudable, it nonetheless conflicts with the financial liberalisation agenda that most of these countries have subscribed to. In South Africa, the recent case of South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another rekindled this debate. This article is an attempt to ride on the waves that this judgment has created so as to add to the conversation about the necessity or otherwise, of regulation capital outflows within the South African context in particular and in emerging economies in general. As such, this is a discussion about a conflict. A conflict between two contrasting scholarships; one advocating for the preservation of capital controls, and the other intensely agitating for capital account liberalisation.
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
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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