Published papers

会長講演本稿では, バーゼルの自己資本比率規制は, 国ごとに, その比率を変えることが望ましいことを説明する。その理由としては, 国によって, 銀行の金融市場に占めるシェアも異なり, 銀行行動も異なり, 株価や地価の動きも異なるからである。国を越えて銀行が行動する場合には, 貸出を行う相手国のバーゼル規制に従うことが望ましいことも示される。後半では, インフラ投資の経済効果の実証分析が説明される。インフラ投資には, 直接効果と間接効果が存在し, インフラの整備によって民間企業がその地域に入って来るかどうか, 民間企業の生産性がインフラ整備によって効率化されるかが, 重要な点である。インフラ整備の経済効果が低下しないためには, 資金面で, 民間資金を導入して, インフラの経済効果を高める必要がある。最後に, ふるさと投資ファンドのような民間資金による「ふるさとの投資」を進める方策について説明する。This study explains why it is desirable to change the ratio of the Basel capital adequacy for each country. Some reasons for this are that, depending on the country, the financial market share held by banks, bank behaviors, and share and land prices differ. When banks operate beyond national borders, this study shows that complying with Basel regulations in the country where lending is occurring is desirable. The second half of the study explains the empirical analysis of the economic effects of infrastructure investment. Infrastructure investments have direct and indirect effects, and an important point to note is that depending on the status of development of said infrastructure, it influences the decision of whether private enterprises enter the region and affect the efficiency of their productivity.From a funding aspect, it is necessary to increase the economic effects of infrastructure through the introduction of private funds to avoid a decrease in the economic effects of infrastructure development. Finally, this study discusses the measures for the promotion of Furusato Investments (microinvestments in local enterprises aiming at the development of local economies) by private funds such as the Furusato Investment Fund.

This paper discusses the Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) ability to maintain a majority of seats in the Diet after WWII by focusing on the role of public investment. The paper discusses three periods, namely, (i) the high-growth period (1950 to 1985), (ii) the asset bubble period (1986 to 1990), and (iii) the period of economic downturn after the bubble (post 1990). During the highgrowth period, government investment had a strong positive output effect and it increased the tax revenue in the medium and long run. The high rate of private capital formation boosted growth and tax revenue even further. During the asset bubble period of the late 1980s, Japanese tax revenue increased due to high asset and property prices, and growth stayed high because of strong aggregate demand. The Japanese economy experienced slower growth after the asset bubble burst. The LDP continued its high-spending policy by issuing Japanese government bonds (JGB) to finance the deficits but has not been able to revive growth to previous levels. Accumulated government debt now amounts to 180 percent of GDP and it will be difficult to issue any more JGB. Fiscal policy in post-bubble Japan no longer fulfilled the stability conditions that were identified by Blinder and Solow (1974). © 2010 The Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.