Paradiplomacia financeira: determinantes da concessão de crédito externo aos estados brasileiros

Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: 2018
Autor(a) principal: Andrade, Regis Travassos Lopes de
Orientador(a): Não Informado pela instituição
Banca de defesa: Não Informado pela instituição
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
Idioma: por
Instituição de defesa: Não Informado pela instituição
Programa de Pós-Graduação: Não Informado pela instituição
Departamento: Não Informado pela instituição
País: Não Informado pela instituição
Palavras-chave em Português:
Link de acesso: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/33369
Resumo: In a contemporary scenario of globalization of assets, services and capital, followed by a notable fiscal decentralization and loss of nation-state hegemony, a considerable international participation of the subnational governments of countless countries has been clearly observed, developing the phenomenon of Paradiplomacy. Based on the analysis of the Brazilian paradiplomatic context, it can be observed that the increasing participation of the Federative Units (States and Municipalities) in international economic relations in search of financing for their investments is significant. The objective of this study is to model the credit disbursement of R$ 52 billion from international agencies to Brazilian state governments from 2009 to 2014. The model proposed by Matos and de Jesus Filho (2018) was designed to take into account the role of substitution variables of Paradiplomacy - export and import, both as a ratio of GDP - as causal causers useful to explain the credit heterogeneity in both cross state data and time series. The findings, based on a dynamic balanced panel, suggest that the need for state financing by these financial institutions does not exhibit inertial or explosive behavior. This model allows us to identify the role played by the Gini coefficient and the impact of a positive change in the subsequent state tax rating, which leads to a 1.25% increase in its debt capacity. A positive import elasticity of 0.5 was also measured, while the export elasticity was -0.3.