Reflecting the predominance of private-to-private flows since 1990, today sovereign foreign debt often represents only a relatively small part of maturing debt in crisis cases. Most maturing debt is owed by private borrowers and/or is locally issued. G  Third, the context has been fundamentally altered by broad institutional change. Accounting, regulatory, technological, communications, and structural market changes have fostered an environment characterized by mark-to-market accounting and much more liquid and actively managed balance sheets. Investors are focused on financial performance, and on their fiduciary responsibilities to their largely private clients and shareholders, rather than on long-term strategic relationships with sovereigns. Today this is as true for banks, which remain important providers of credit, as it is for other providers of capital. G  Last, the new environment entails new and complex linkages - - between domestic and international markets, and within and across countries - - reflecting the internationalization of local banking, equity, debt, and currency markets, and the greater complexity of funding structures. G  This new environment has important implications for policymakers and market participants alike. Let me comment on just a few:  G  On the negative side, crises are more complex and unfold much more quickly and with surprising dimensions. Variable and often highly interdependent cross-market developments are often critical in the evolution of a given case and its implications for others. Indeed, many of the more recent crises were triggered by problems in domestic banking, currency, and debt markets that then spread to the capital account.
Research is highlighting possible key determinants of economic opportunity and income mobility. More research is necessary to inform future policy choices in this critical area. 13  See Baum-Snow (2007) and Jackson (1987). BIS central bankers’ speeches  5  References Angrist, Joshua, Sarah Cohodes, Susan Dynarski, Parag Pathak and Christopher Walters. 2016. “Stand and Deliver: Effects of Boston’s Charter High Schools on College Preparation, Entry, and Choice,” Journal of Labor Economics, 34(2): 275–318. Aslund, Olof, Per-Anders Edin, Peter Fredriksson and Hans Gronqvist. 2011. “Peers, Neighborhoods, and Student Achievement: Evidence From a Placement Policy,” American Economic Journal Applied Economics, 3(2): 67–95. Baum-Snow, Nathaniel. 2007. “Did Highways Cause Suburbanization?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2): 775–805. Bayer, Patrick, Steven L. Ross and Giorgio Topa. 2008. “Place of Work and Place of Residence: Informal Hiring Networks and Labor Market Outcomes,” Journal of Political Economy, 116(6): 1150–1196. Chakrabarti, Rajashri and Joydeep Roy. 2015. “Housing Markets and Residential Segregation: Impacts of the Michigan School Finance Reform on Inter- and Intra-district Sorting,” Journal of Public Economics, 122: 110–132. Chakrabarti, Rajashri. 2008. “Can Increasing Private School Participation and Monetary Loss in a Voucher Program Affect Public School Performance? Evidence from Milwaukee,” Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1371–1393. Chakrabarti, Rajashri. 2013. “Impact of Voucher Design on Public School Performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee Voucher Programs,” B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy: Contributions, 14(1): 349–394. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez and Nicholas Turner. 2014. “Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity?