| Systemly,the level of a country‘s financial risk directly affects the country‘s potential financing capacity,financial stability,financial sustainability,even independent and integrated sovereignty.In the development of human society at any stage,how to prevent and defuse financial risk is not only the focus of this age,but also the hot and difficult problem in the realm of theory and industry.We should contextualize financial risk in a given historical era and look back the nature of financial risk‘s origin and development,which have real value to prevent and mitigate fiscal risks and promote financial activity.“Household Finance” has the same connotation and denotation as “National Finance” In the era of “Family Finance”,the outputs of Royal land and property is limited determines that financial revenue always outpaces expenditure in the long term,which depicted the picture that financial risk is not easy to appear in that era.With the main European capitalism have stepped into public finance age from household finance age sequentially,there is a high coincidence of the national finance to the public finance.In order to meet the needs of developing the world market of the bourgeoisie(Expansivity of public finance),furnishing public goods and services for free markets(public of public finance),dealing with periodic crises(periodic of public finance),usage patterns of financial resources have stepped into “living without its means” from “living within means” gradually.Correspondingly,the finiteness of finance revenue has an increasingly weak influence on fiscal expenditure.It is normal that fiscal expenditure always outpace fiscal revenue in the long term.The finiteness of finance revenue is broken though,and the frequency and intensity of fiscal distress that finance expenditure outpaces finance revenue is obviously increased.The revenue of government bonds is the main source of funds for the excess part of finance expenditure outpaces finance revenue.With the increasing scale of public debt and the rising proportion of debt interest in fiscal expenditure,financial risk is centralized reflected by the debt of deficit and expansion substantially in modern society.Both traditional fiscal measures and traditional financial measures have their own defects and limitations on resolving financial risk.The principle of the former to resolve financial risk is to narrow the gap between fiscal expenditure and fiscal revenue,and the latter is to dilute the quality of financial resources the government owned or controlled such as currency and so on,which could increase the actual purchasing power of national finance and result in a new social situation of distribution of wealth between the public and national finance.The former is likely to fail because of the resistance and opposition from markets,while the latter often make the whole society fall apart because of aggression and abuse.These defects and limitations also make us to seek a third way to resolve financial risk other than fiscal measures and financial measures.In this context,the fiscal risk mitigation which is the pattern of “living without its means” comes into being in the era of public finance.The fiscal risk mitigation is not a river without headwaters,a tree without roots,it can be found in history.The consolidated annuities of Castile Kingdom in the 17 th century,the interest reduction measures of five-cent bond from the council of the Netherlands Kingdom,and the three-cent consolidated bonds English Government issued all reflect the efforts of modern government to resolve fiscal risk in the face of financial difficulties.In China,local debt-substitution is a Chinese proposed solution to defuse financial risk.The underlying logic of defusing financial risk is the same as the historical rules in history.But the relationship between this debt-substitution and the fiscal risk mitigation corresponds to the relationship between general and special.The legal connotation of fiscal risk mitigation is more different than the concept of debt-substitution,and its effect is also different from debt-substitution which unilaterally emphasizes the promotion of fiscal interests but ignores the protection of financial interests.In addition,the legal connotation of fiscal risk mitigation also includes three other implications: first,fiscal risk mitigation is not financial substitution;Secondly,financial risk mitigation is positioned to solve the potential financial risk in the future.Third,financial risk mitigation also implies risk sharing.Making the fiscal risk mitigation research from the direction of historical experience is one of the aspects in defusing financial risk.From a broader perspective,we should also put the inevitability of financial risk in a bigger perspective financial interaction with banking.Financial risk can only be moderately mitigated,but cannot be completely eliminated,which is the first basic point of the fiscal risk mitigation.The theory of government‘s economic behavior and the public choice theory explain the internal motivations for the continuous expansion of fiscal expenditure and the inevitability of fiscal deficit and the irremovability of fiscal risk.At the same time,the hysteresis of traditional fiscal measures in defusing financial risk is the second basic point of the fiscal risk mitigation.The directness and continuity of fiscal risk mitigation is one of its incomparable advantages over the short-term fiscal measures.After discussing how finance can intervene in the defusion of financial risk,it is necessary to examine this issue in detail in the theoretical debate so as to verify the authenticity of the theory.Behind the issue that whether finance should intervene in the defusion of financial risk is the debate and discussion on the dialectical relationship between finance and banking.The positive argued that the theory of the last payer of public risk,the reverse thinking of finance is responsible for financial crisis,the theory of macroeconomic stability and financial resources all provide strong evidence for the view that banking should intervene in the defusion of financial risk.But the negative argued that the intervention of banking to defuse financial risk is closely related to the financialization of financial risk,and the confusion of fiscal and financial function also provides evidence for the view.Whether from theory or from practice,the intervention of banking in defusing financial risk has its legitimacy and rationality.With the intervention of banking in defusing financial risk,the financial activities can be improved significantly,and the value of fairness and efficiency can be balanced reasonably.However,we should not only emphasize the role of banking unilaterally when using financial measures to defuse financial risk.Instead,we should uphold the view that the intervention of banking is limited and abide by the boundaries of the intervention of banking in defusing financial risk.In the meantime,prevent the abuse of banking measures and the debasement of financial efficiency.Limited theory of fiscal risk mitigation reveals that the application of banking mitigation is not unlimited,but has to abide by the legal boundaries.The function of fiscal risk mitigation should be distilled,and in key terms form which is the basic principle of fiscal risk mitigation.The principle of prohibiting monetization of fiscal deficits reflects the legal controls of the power to issue money,and also shows legal doctrine principle of prohibiting monetization of fiscal deficits.And the principle of prohibiting minimum disclosure of information is another core provision in line with the principle of prohibiting monetization of fiscal deficits,which constitutes another legal boundary of fiscal risk mitigation.At the same time,the fiscal risk mitigation inevitably has effects and potential disadvantages to finance.The process of capturing tradeoffs of fiscal risk mitigation is also the process of clarifying its legal boundary.That is to say,the fiscal risk mitigation can guarantee the continuous supply of public goods and services,relieving the governmental short-term fiscal pressures and making us to rethink the positive effects of the relationship between governments and markets in defusing fiscal risk.At the same time,it also brings the potential negative drawbacks of increasing difficulty in maintaining the independence of monetary,deepen the financial dependence on banking aid,and induce the increasing moral hazard of fiscal behavior.And this will require that we should follow the logic of punishing guilty and support goodness when we build the path of fiscal risk mitigation,highlight and promote the positive effects of fiscal risk mitigation,and control their negative drawbacks.In addition,it is also the best way to clarify the division of function and the area of responsibility of finance and banking in defusing fiscal risk,which also can strengthen the ability of finance and banking to defuse risks.The path of financial law to mitigate the fiscal risk should be built upon macro-control of financial law.Based on the dualistic structure hypothesis of economic law,macro-control is a kind of public goods provided by governments,and the fiscal risk mitigation is also one of the important contents of macro-control provided by governments.Starting from the theory of macro-control power,the main structure of subjects of fiscal risk mitigation is becoming clear: applicable subject,practice subject and supervising subject constitute the basis of the theory of fiscal risk mitigation.The fiscal risk mitigation is not only a process in which the government implements the power of macro-control to regulate and control fiscal risk,but also a process in which the government comprehensively exercises various regulatory measures to correct market failures and government failures.From the perspective of the fundamental basis of regulatory measures,there are two types of regulatory behaviors based on policies(tools)and laws(tools)to mitigate fiscal risk.Both policy tools and legal tools are institutionalized arrangements,and the guiding significance of the interest subject hypothesis and the game behavior hypothesis in the legislative theory should not be ignored.Only in this way,the behavior pattern we opt and set up will not lose its legitimacy because it deviates far from common sense.In responsibility disposition,it presents as the financial responsibility of applicable subjects,the macro-stability responsibility of decision-making subjects,and the social responsibility of practice subjects.As far as the fiscal responsibility is concerned,it cannot be simply understood as the spending behavior that the government must supply the public goods and services.The core connotation of fiscal responsibility is to control the fiscal power of the government through the mechanism of fiscal responsibility to prevent the unbridled expansion of financial power.State-owned companies are the controlling subject because their controlling measures.Their participation in defusion of fiscal risk reflects the non-power regulatory orientation of the regulation of markets.The legal nature of the power of fiscal risk mitigation determines that the subject of the power should bear the corresponding responsibility of macro stability.And the basic content of the power of fiscal risk mitigation outlines the causal relationship between the subject of the power and the improper regulation.In the implementation of responsibility of macro-stability,the life-long responsibility of decision-making mechanism,the executive accountability and the accountability mechanism are the three pillars of the responsibility of macro-stability.The legal structure of “subject-behavior-responsibility” provides the construction of the constructive form of laws.And how to reflect the logic of punishing guilty and support goodness and the principle of incentive compatibility are the key points when we make up the corresponding system.And the launching mechanism,regulation mechanism and finance mechanism have enriched the institutional contents of fiscal risk mitigation.The former two focus on the short-term needs of defusing the current fiscal risk,while the latter is positioned as the long-term goal of preventing and digesting the fiscal risk in future.In other words,the launching mechanism focuses on the problems of who has the application rights and why they initiate the application of financial intervention,while the regulation mechanism focuses on solving the problems of who has the decision-making power and how to take action of fiscal risk mitigation.The key system of financing mechanism is to construct the corresponding financing legal system which adapt to the cyclical fluctuation.This mechanism can realize the goal when finance is in difficulty we draw less money from finance and when finance is good we draw more money from finance.Starting from the hypothesis of economic cycle,it can be found that modern countries usually take the “counter-cycle” measures to implement the reverse regulation so as to make the regulation results show a reverse change relationship with the state of economic cycle.If the economic cycle can be simply divided into the boom cycle and the recession cycle by dichotomy,then the fiscal cycle can also be divided into the expansion cycle and the contraction cycle.But the fiscal cycle tends to be inversely related to the economic cycle,that is to say,the recession cycle is usually a expansion cycle of finance,and vice versa.Therefore,the purpose of setting up the “fiscal cycle” financing legal system is to smooth the fluctuation of economic cycle by imposing different obligation to pay their debts.Avoiding the consequence that we sow the seeds of destruction in future. |
PDF Full Text Request