【英文】CEPR报告：乌克兰战后宏观经济框架（48页）

Reconstruction presents unusual challenges for macroeconomic stability.  Specifcally, rapid recovery may need a signifcant expansion of credit to fnance  investment (in new housing, infrastructure repair, etc.) and consumption (purchases  of cars and other durable goods). Because the war heavily dented (if not wiped out)  equity and private wealth, reliance on credit could be heavier than is usual during  the expansion phase of typical business cycles. A strong infow of reconstruction aid  can result in a stronger hryvnia, thus further amplifying borrowing. In short, there  is the danger of a pronounced boom-bust cycle in post-war Ukraine, which would  endanger macroeconomic stability and undermine popular support for reforms, EU  accession, and more generally market-based economy. It is imperative therefore to  utilise macroprudential tools to contain excessive credit growth.  

The National Bank of Ukraine should be the core supervisor in this arena. Having  a single regulator not only clarifes the responsibilities but also limits regulatory  arbitrage and leakages. For example, one may expect a rise of shadow banking  and it will be important to have one body to set the regulatory perimeter. Given  the high substitution between conventional and shadow banking, macroprudential  powers for the whole fnancial sector should be vested with the central bank that  already regulates conventional banks. Some responsibilities may be delegated to the  central bank directly (as was done with the insurance sector that had poor oversight  when supervised by the National Commission for State Regulation in the Field of  Financial Services, allowing the development of a host of problems). At the same  time, the National Bank of Ukraine should continue to use the Financial Stability  Council to coordinate policies and share information.