The Role of Macroprudential Policies in the Institutional Transformation Process: A Conceptual Assessment on Emerging Market Economies

Abstract

This study investigates the role of macroprudential policies in the institutional transformation of emerging market economies through a comparative analysis of Turkey, Brazil, and Indonesia. Drawing on the conceptual foundation that macroprudential policy is not merely a technical instrument but also a component of governance and institutional reform, the paper examines how these policies have reshaped regulatory responsibilities, coordination mechanisms, and accountability structures. The research builds upon the typology of institutional models defined by Nier et al. (2011), classifying countries into centralized, independent, and coordination-based frameworks. Case analyses reveal that while Brazil’s centralized structure enabled rapid decision-making, it generated accountability risks; Indonesia’s dual model offered institutional clarity and transparency, albeit with occasional delays; and Turkey’s coordination-based system lacked legal enforceability, limiting long-term policy sustainability. The findings emphasize that macroprudential effectiveness is closely tied to governance quality, legal mandates, and the degree of institutional integration. Based on these observations, the study provides policy recommendations for enhancing coordination, strengthening legal foundations, and fostering public legitimacy. It concludes that macroprudential governance is not only essential for financial stability but also a strategic tool for rebuilding state capacity and ensuring long-term economic resilience. This contribution adds value to the literature by integrating macroprudential regulation into a broader institutional context and offering actionable insights for policy design in emerging markets.

Keywords

• Macroprudential Policy
• Institutional Transformation
• Emerging Market Economies.

References

1. References
2. Acharya, V. V., Pedersen, L. H., Philippon, T., & Richardson, M. (2010). Measuring systemic risk. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper No. 10-02. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1595075
3. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2017). Financial stability and macroprudential policy in Asia. ADB Publications. https://www.adb.org
4. Bank Indonesia. (2013). Annual report 2013. https://www.bi.go.id
5. Bank for International Settlements (BIS). (2011). Macroprudential instruments and frameworks: A stocktaking of issues and experiences. CGFS Papers No. 38.
6. Borio, C. (2011). Implementing a macroprudential framework: Blending boldness and realism. Capitalism and Society, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.2202/1932-0213.1087
7. Borio, C., & Drehmann, M. (2009). Assessing the risk of banking crises–Revisited. BIS Quarterly Review, March 2009.
8. Claessens, S., Ghosh, S. R., & Mihet, R. (2013). Macro-prudential policies to mitigate financial system vulnerabilities. Journal of International Money and Finance, 39, 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2013.06.023

9. Crockett, A. (2000). Marrying the micro- and macroprudential dimensions of financial stability. Bank for International Settlements, BIS Speeches, September 2000.
10. De Bandt, O., & Hartmann, P. (2002). Systemic risk: A survey. In C. A. E. Goodhart & G. Illing (Eds.), Financial crises, contagion, and the lender of last resort: A reader (pp. 249–298). Oxford University Press.
11. European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). (2014). ESRB handbook on operationalising macro-prudential policy in the banking sector. https://www.esrb.europa.eu
12. Galati, G., & Moessner, R. (2013). Macroprudential policy – A literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(5), 846–878. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00729.x
13. Hanson, S. G., Kashyap, A. K., & Stein, J. C. (2011). A macroprudential approach to financial regulation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.1.3
14. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2013). Key aspects of macroprudential policy. IMF Policy Paper. https://www.imf.org
15. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2014). Brazil: Financial system stability assessment. IMF Country Report No. 14/52.
16. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2020). Türkiye: Financial sector assessment program—Technical note on macroprudential policy framework. IMF Country Report No. 20/110.
17. IMF, Financial Stability Board (FSB), & Bank for International Settlements (BIS). (2016). Elements of effective macroprudential policies: Lessons from international experience. https://www.imf.org
18. Lim, C. H., Columba, F., Costa, A., Kongsamut, P., Otani, A., Saiyid, M., Wezel, T., & Wu, X. (2011). Macroprudential policy: What instruments and how to use them? Lessons from country experiences. IMF Working Paper No. 11/238. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781463922612.001
19. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806414
20. Nier, E., Osinski, J., Jácome, L. I., & Madrid, P. (2011). Institutional models for macroprudential policy. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/18. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781463922612.006
21. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023). OECD economic surveys: Country reports – Türkiye, Brazil, Indonesia. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
23. The Banks Association of Türkiye (TBB). (2018). Makro ihtiyati politika çerçevesi ve Türkiye uygulamaları. https://www.tbb.org.tr
24. World Bank. (2016). Financial sector assessment: Brazil. https://www.worldbank.org