BISQUE (DEBT HOLIDAY) CLAUSES: POTENTIAL AND BENEFITS FOR TURKEY

Öz

Government debt defaults and crises have been among the main problems of many countries since the past. Debt defaults, which have been observed in developing countries as well as developed countries in recent years, imposed some fiscal and economic costs on countries. Because of these costs, countries avoid defaulting on their debts. For this reason, some mechanisms and innovations that prevent default or shorten the default period have come to the fore. One of these innovations is the provisions for deferment of debt, known as “bisque clauses”. From this point of view, this purpose of the study is to investigate the potentials and benefits of bisque clauses for Turkey. In the study, Turkey’s default risk and loan rates were analyzed by using descriptive method. According to the results of the study, since the external debt and loan rates are quite low in Turkey, the influence of bisque clauses is narrow. For this reason, Turkey should benefit from innovative methods applied in the world in external borrowing such as collective action clauses and since domestic borrowing is predominantly included, also should benefit from new domestic borrowing instruments such as index-based sukuk and environmental bonds.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Debt Management
• Bisque Clauses
• Innovations in Debt Management
• Turkey

BİSQUE (BORÇ TATİLİ) MADDELERİ: TÜRKİYE İÇİN POTANSİYELİ VE FAYDALARI

Öz

Kamu borç temerrütleri ve krizleri, geçmişten beri birçok ülkenin temel problemleri arasında yer almaktadır. Son yıllarda gelişmekte olan ülkeler yanında gelişmiş ülkelerde de görülen borç temerrütleri, ülkelere mali ve ekonomik bazı maliyetler yüklemiştir. Söz konusu bu maliyetler nedeniyle ülkeler borç kaynaklı temerrüde düşmekten kaçınmaktadırlar. Bu nedenle temerrüde girmeyi engelleyen ya da temerrüt süresini kısaltan bazı mekanizmalar ve yenilikler gündeme gelmiştir. Bu yeniliklerden bir tanesi de “bisque maddeleri” olarak anılan borç erteleme hükümleridir. Buradan hareketle bu çalışmanın amacı, bisque maddelerinin Türkiye için potansiyeli ve faydalarını araştırmaktır. Çalışmada Türkiye’nin temerrüt riski ve kredi kullanım oranları betimleyici yöntemle analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucuna göre Türkiye’de dış borçlanma ve kredi oranları oldukça düşük olduğundan bisque maddelerinin etki alanı dardır. Bu nedenle Türkiye kolektif eylem maddeleri gibi dış borçlanmada dünyada uygulanan inovatif yöntemlerden yararlanmalı ve ağırlıklı olan iç borçlanmaya yer verildiğinden iç borçlanmaya yönelik olarak endekse dayalı sukuk ve çevresel tahviller gibi yeni iç borçlanma enstrümanlarından yararlanmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu Borç Yönetimi
• Bisque Maddeleri
• Borç Yönetiminde Yenilikler
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Adaba, G. (2016). Financing social protection floors. FfDO Working Paper Series, No. II.A/1.
2. Airey, S. (2020). Auras of legality - The jurisdiction and governance signature of the international governance of official development assistance. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Ottawa, Canada.
3. Arteta, C. & Hale, G. (2008). Sovereign debt crises and credit to the private sector. Journal of International Economics, 74(1), 53-69.
4. Badia, M. M., Medas, P., Gupta, P. & Xiang, Y. (2020). Debt is not free. IMF Working Paper, No. 20/1.
5. Baldacci, E., Petrova, I. K., Belhocine, N., Dobrescu, G. & Mazraani, S. (2011). assessing fiscal stress. IMF Working Papers, No. WP/11/100.
6. Beers, D. ve Mavalwalla, J. (2015). Database of sovereign defaults. Bank of Canada Technical Report, No. 101.
7. Beers, D., Jones, E. & Walsh, J. (2022). BoC–BoE sovereign default database: methodology, assumptions and sources. Bank of Canada Technical Report, No. 17.
8. Belhocine, N. & Dell’Erba, M. S. (2013). The impact of debt sustainability and the level of debt on emerging markets spreads. IMF Working Papers, No. WP/13/93.

9. Bhalla, H. K. (1973). Debt problem in developing countries-II. Yojana Journal, XVII (19), 745-748.
10. Blommestein, H. (2004). Strategic trends and policies shaping government securities markets in the OECD area. 6th Tokyo Roundtable on Capital Market Reform in Asia. 28 and 29 September 2004 at the ADB Institute, Tokyo.
11. Boonman, T. M. (2013). Sovereign defaults, business cycles and economic growth in Latin America, 1870–2012. University of Groningen Research Institute SOM Research Report, No. 13010-EEF,
12. Borensztein E. & Panizza, U. (2008). The costs of sovereign default. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/08/238.
13. Borensztein E. & Panizza, U. (2010). Do sovereign defaults hurt exporters? Open Economies Review, 21(3), 393–412.
14. Caner, M., Grennes, T. & Koehler-Geib, F. (2010). Finding the tipping point--when sovereign debt turns bad. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 5391.
15. Cassimon, D., Essers, D. & Fauzi, A.2013). Indonesia’s debt for development swap experience: past, present and future. IOB Working Paper, No. 2013.10.
16. Civcir, İ. & Varoglu, D. E. (2019). International transmission of monetary and global commodity price shocks to Turkey. Journal of Policy Modeling, 41(4), 647-665.
17. Consiglio, A. & Zenios, S. A. (2016). The case for contingent convertible debt for sovereigns. University of Pennsylvania the Wharton Financial Institutions Center Working Paper, No. 15-13.
18. Consiglio, A. & Zenios, S.A. (2018). Contingent convertible bonds for sovereign debt risk management. Journal of Globalization and Development, 9(1), 1-24.
19. Correa, R. & Sapriza, H. (2014). Sovereign debt crises. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System International Finance Discussion Papers, No.1104.
20. Cosio-Pascal, E. (2007). Paris club: intergovernmental relations in debt restructuring. IPD Working Paper Series.
21. Das, U. S., Papaioannou, M. G. & Trebesch, C. (2012). Sovereign debt restructurings 1950-2010: literature survey, data, and stylized facts. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/12/203.
22. De Paoli, B., Hoggarth, G. & Saporta, V. (2009). Output costs of sovereign crises: some empirical estimates. BoE Working Paper, No. 362. Dell, S. (1972). External financing problems of LCDs. Intereconomics, 3, 209-213.
23. Devlin, R. (1984). The burden of debt and the crisis: is it time for a unilateral solution? CEPAL Review, 22, 107-120.
24. Ela, M. (2019) Devlet koşullu dönüştürülebilir tahvilleri (Cocos): Türkiye için potansiyeli. https://www.researchgate.net., Erişim: 09.10.2019.
25. Fastenrath, F., Schwan, M. & Trampusch, C. (2017). where states and markets meet: the financialisation of sovereign debt management. New Political Economy, 22(3), 273-293.
26. Fuentes, M. & Saravia, D. (2010). Sovereign defaulters: do international capital markets punish them? Journal of Development Economics, 91(2), 336-347.
27. Furceri, D. & Zdzienicka, A. (2012). How costly are debt crises?. Journal of International Money and Finance, 31, 726–742.
28. Gelos, R., Gaston, R.S. & Sandleris, G. (2011). Sovereign borrowing by developing countries: what determines market access?. Journal of International Economics, 83(2), 243-254.
29. Global Capital (2015). next generation collective action clauses roll out. https://www.globalcapital.com, Erişim: 10.10.2019.
30. Griffith-Jones, S. (2008). Proposals to manage the debt problem. Development Policy Review, 3, 153-92.
31. Griffith-Jones, S. & Sharma, K. (2006). GDP-indexed bonds: making it happen. DESA Working Paper, No. 21.
32. Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı (2022). Kamu finansmanı istatistikleri. https://www.hmb.gov.tr., Erişim: 05.09.2022.
33. Herman, B. (2011). How to resolve sovereign debt crises in the twenty-first century. Initiative for Policy Dialogue Working Paper Series, No. June 2011.
34. Herman, B. (2017). Social protection floors in the financing for development agenda. FfDO Working Paper Series, No. II. A/2.
35. IMF (2013). Staff guidance note for public debt sustainability analysis in market-access countries. https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/050913.pdf, Erişim: 22.12.2020.
36. IMF (2019). Turkey: staff concluding statement of the 2019 article iv mission. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/09/23/mcs092319-turkey-staff-concluding-statement-of-the-2019-article-iv-mission, Erişim: 22.12.2020.
37. IMF (2022). Commodity data portal. https://www.imf.org/en/Research/commodity-prices Erişim: 22.09.2022.
38. Jeanne, O. & Rancière, R. G. (2006). The optimal level of international reserves for emerging market countries: formulas and applications. IMF Working Papers, No. WP/06/229.
39. Levy-Yeyati, E. & Panizza,U. (2006). The elusive costs of sovereign defaults. Inter-American Development Bank Research Department Working Paper, No. #581
40. Livshits, I., Phan, T. & Trebesch, C. (2014). Sovereign default and political turnover. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org, Erişim:10.10.2019
41. Macrotrends (2022). WTI crude oil prices. https://www.macrotrends.net/2516/wti-crude-oil-prices-10-year-daily-chart Erişim: 20.109.2022.
42. Manasse, P. & Roubini, N. (2005). “Rules of thumb” for sovereign debt crises. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/05/42.
43. Manasse, P., Roubini, N. & Schimmelpfennig, A. (2003). Predicting sovereign debt crises. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/03/221.
44. MarketWatch (2022). 3 month london interbank interest rate in usd (libor). https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/InterestRate /LIBORUSD3M?countryCode=MR, Erişim: 19.09.2022.
45. Mendoza, E. G. & Ostry, J. D. (2008). international evidence on fiscal solvency: is fiscal policy “responsible”?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 55(6), 1081-1093.
46. Miller, M. & Zhang, L. (2013). Avoiding costly default with state-contingent contracts: issues of market power and moral hazard. https://www.bcu.gub.uy., Erişim: 02.08.2021.
47. Office of the Historian (1978). memorandum from guy erb of the national security council staff to the president’s assistant for national security affairs (brzezinski). https://history.state.gov., Erişim: 10.10.2019.
48. Reinhart, C. & Rogoff, K. (2010). Growth in a time of debt. NBER Working Paper, No. 15639.
49. Reinhart, C., Rogoff, K. S. & Savastano, M. A. (2003). Debt intolerance. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
50. Richmond, C. & Dias, D. A. (2007). Regaining market access: what determines the duration of exclusion?. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org., Erişim: 03.10.2019.
51. Rose, A. K. (2002). One reason countries pay their debts: renegotiation and international trade. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 8853.
52. Sandleris, G. (2012). The Costs of Sovereign Defaults: Theory and Empirical Evidence. Cif Documento de Trabajo, No. 02/2012.
53. Sandleris, G. (2014). Sovereign defaults, credit to the private sector, and domestic credit market institutions. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 46, 321-345.
54. Stumpf, M. H. (2019). Sovereign state-contingent debt instruments: risk taxonomy and case studies. Capital Markets Law Journal, 14(3), 320–334.
55. Sturzenegger, F. (2004). Toolkit for the analysis of debt problems. Journal of Restructuring Finance, 1, 201–203.
56. Sturzenegger, F. & Zettelmeyer, J. (2006). Debt defaults and lessons from a decade of crises. MIT Press: England.
57. Sy, A. N.R. (2004). Rating the rating agencies: anticipating currency crises or debt crises?. Journal of Banking & Finance, 28, 2845–2867.
58. Tomz, M. & Wright, M. L. J. (2007). Do countries default in ‘bad times?. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(2-3), 352-360.
59. Tran, N. (2018). Debt threshold for fiscal sustainability assessment in emerging economies. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(2), 375-394.
60. United Nations (1973). Proceedings of the united nations conference on trade and development. https://www.unog.ch, Erişim: 25.11.2020.
61. United Nations (1976). report of the trade and development board. https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/10015/REV.1(SUPP) Erişim: 25.11.2020.
62. Vu, Y.H., Nguyen N.T., Nguyen T.T.T., & Pham A.T.L. (2019) The threshold effect of government’s external debt on economic growth in emerging countries. Kreinovich V., Thach, N., Trung, N., Van Thanh, D. (Eds.). Beyond traditional probabilistic methods in economics. ECONVN 2019. Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol 809. Cham: Springer
63. World Bank (1980). Memorandum to the executive directors. http://documents.worldbank.org., Erişim: 01.10.2019.
64. World Bank (1996). English - spanish, spanish - english. Washington: World Bank Publishing.
65. World Bank (2018). Turkey economic monitor may 2018. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org., Erişim: 21.12.2020.
66. World Bank (2022a). J.P. morgan emerging markets bond spread. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=1179&series=EMBIG, Erişim: 25.09.2022.
67. World Bank (2022b). Short-term debt (% of total reserves). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.DOD.DSTC.IR.ZS, Erişim: 01.09.2022.
68. World Government Bonds (2022a). Turkey 5 years vs united states 5 years spread. http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/spread/turkey-5-years-vs-united-states-5-years/, Erişim: 20.09.2022.
69. World Government Bonds (2022b). Turkey 5 years cds - historical data. http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/turkey/5-years/, Erişim: 20.09.2022.
70. Yang, S. (2019). Essays on sovereign default and household portfolio choice. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Pittsburgh., USA.
71. Zymek, R. (2012). Sovereign default, international lending, and trade. IMF Economic Review, 60(3), 365-94.