中国市政债券市场监管制度研究
|
摘要
在规模空前的城镇化进程中,市政债券是地方政府筹集基础设施建设资金的重要手段,也是实现中央和地方政府规范化财政分权的基本内容之一。本文从构建完善的市政债券市场监管制度这一命题出发,以市政债券市场发行交易、信息披露和兑付退出等监管机制为主要研究内容,尝试提出中国市政债券市场监管理论和实践的基础框架。本文主要进行了以下研究：
首先,本文分析了当前建设市政债券市场的基本背景,界定了市政债券市场、债券市场监管等相关概念,对财政分权理论、公共利益理论、监管体制理论等国内外研究进行了综述,基本梳理了市政债券市场监管的相关理论和文献。国外成熟市场以规范财政分权制度和独立监管执法为基础,以充分信息披露作为市政债券市场监管的核心。由于分税制改革尚不完善,我国学者认为需要首先确立中央地方的清晰分权和地方政府发债的正式制度,并防范软预算约束下的地方政府负债失控的问题。本文认为从基础设施的生命周期和中央地方分权结构来看,地方政府举债权是施政必须的工具。市政债券市场监管不仅代表了政府部门对市场失灵的干预,也代表了中央政府对地方政府的约束,是建设市政债券市场的必需条件。
其次,本文分析了美日市政债券市场的产生背景、市场结构、监管法律、监管体制和执法工具等制度要点,并对其监管制度的导向和优劣进行了研究。美国的市政债券市场监管体现了美国地方财政分权和自律的特征,发行监管为各州政府保留权限。联邦政府建立了以SEC集中监管为主、MSRB自律监管补充的监管体系,强调完整真实的信息披露是保护投资人的最好方式,有效确保了市场资源配置机制的正常运转。日本的地方公债制度则代表了日本中央集权和地方自治并行期间的过渡性财政安排,正经历由中央统一控制向地方自主决策的变革期。过去日本中央政府通过地方债许可制度,实现了对地方公共团体财政的有效控制。但由于日本地方公债在认购资金、偿付安排和发行审核方面都得到了中央政府的隐性担保,没能建立市场自主风险定价的激励机制,形成了地方公共团体的软预算约束,进而加重了中央政府的财政负担。日本近年在建立地方公共团体财政重组制度的同时,启动了协商制度为核心的发行监管制度变革。本文认为相比美日市政债券市场监管制度,中国市政债券市场和监管制度都还处于发展初期,有必要根据分税制和市场化改革方向,确立市政债券市场监管的法律和制度。
再次,本文研究了中国地方政府债券和城投债券的发展背景、市场现状、监管制度和存在问题等,并分析了市场监管中的典型案例。本文认为分税制改革和城镇化建设隐含了地方政府举债的合理性,地方政府债券和城投债的快速发展也显示了市政债券具有良好的市场需求。但由于预算法目前禁止除国务院特别批准外的地方政府发债,实际上市政债券市场在发行环节存在财政监管漏洞。城投债具备地方政府的隐性担保,却通过企业类债券发行通道融资,实际形成了地方政府的软预算约束。市场监管机构则受金融维稳目标驱动,重视债权的刚性兑付,却没有建立地方政府及公共项目的信息披露、信用评级和反欺诈交易的监管机制,不利于确立市场成员自担风险意识,也不利于保护投资人利益。
最后,从建设透明有效的市政债券市场角度出发,本文提出了增强信息披露、切断软预算约束和防范系统性风险的市场监管目标,强调通过立法重塑市场参与方的委托代理关系,建立市政债券市场监管的财政监督基础和综合监管体制。在立法方面,需建立以预算法和公共债务法为核心的市政债券监管法律体系,确立地方政府及其授权机构发行债券的基本原则。市政债券发行环节由财政部门统一监管,下设地方债务管理委员会统筹管理各地债务融资计划和一般责任债券授权,并根据专业性考虑将收益债券发行注册审核权转授给发改委、人民银行和证监会。地方债务管理委员会下设市政债券规则专家委员会,根据自律组织规则制定市政债券财务报告、信息披露和债券分类的基本准则。债券存续期内需加强对资金运用的管理,并据此动态调整地方政府债务融资计划。在信用评级方面,本文认为应由财政统一采购第三方地方政府评级以保证信用评级的独立性。在反内幕交易、反利益输送和反欺诈机制方面,本文认为应在财政部门建立地方政府债务融资审计条线,同时由审计署和公安部联合成立债券交易监管工作组,以克服目前债券市场多头分散监管的劣势。除了发行和交易监管,还需要建立地方政府债务重组和投融资平台破产的统一机制,综合采用司法和行政方法,建立公平有效的重组程序,打破刚性兑付预期并保护核心公共资源。
就发展市政债券市场的原因而言,不同国家建立监管框架的背景并不完全相同,但保护投资人和维持市场信心是市场健康成长的必须条件。作为转型中的国家,需要根据政治、经济、法律和历史背景,形成具有财政自律特色的市政债券市场监管制度。
During China's large-scale urbanization process, municipal bond is not only an important funding source of infrastructure construction for local governments, but also a fundamental part of fiscal decentralization. This paper researches on municipal bond market and tries to establish a regulation framework which covers both theory and practice, such as regulation institution of bond issuance, trading, information disclosure, maturity and default. This paper includes contents as follows:
First this paper analyzes current situation and background of municipal bond market, defines key terms such as municipal bond market and bond market regulation, and reviews previous research on municipal bond market regulation by foreign and domestic scholars, which relate to fiscal federalization, public interest and regulation institution theories. Developed countries regard complete information disclosure as core of municipal bond market regulation based on their mature fiscal federalization institution and independent regulation status. Due to China's uncompleted fiscal decentralization reform, domestic scholars call for a clear division of power between central and local governments and formal institution for municipal bond, while emphasis on prevention of over borrowing of local governments with soft budget constraint. Under current context of power division between central and local governments, the right to issue municipal bond is necessary for local governments because there is need to match cost and benefit of infrastructure construction projects. Municipal bond regulation, which represents not only government intervention to market failure but also constraint of central government over local governments, is precondition of municipal bond market development.
Second, this paper analyzes fundamental factors of municipal bond market and strength-weakness of regulation institution in U.S and Japan, including historical background, market structure, regulation law, and practice tools. U.S municipal bond regulation market reflects its fiscal federalization feature, which municipal bond issuance is right reserved by states. Federal government establishes a centralized market regulation system in which SEC plays the major role with supplement of self-regulation by MSRB. This system regards complete and sincere information disclosure as the best way to protect investors, which ensures well-functioning of market mechanism. Japanese municipal bond, which is undergoing a changing phase from centralized-control to market-based mechanism, represents a mixture of centralization and federalization in Japanese public finance system. In the past central government of Japan utilized approval system to maintain its effective control over local governments. However, as municipal bonds are silently guaranteed by central government through arrangement of public funding, financial support and approval process, such system sets a soft budget constraint for local governments, which increases fiscal burden of central government. In recent years Japan changes its municipal bond system from approval-based to consultation-based, and establishes fiscal reconstruction system of local governments. Compared to U.S and Japanese municipal bond market regulation, both market and regulation in China are in an early stage of development. It is necessary to establish both law and institution of municipal bond market according to trend of fiscal decentralization and market reform.
Third, this paper researches on institutional background, market condition, regulation institution and existing problems of local government bond and city construction platform bond in China, which include typical case study of bond market regulation. This paper assumes that fiscal decentralization and urbanization imply rationality of municipal bond issuance, while the fast growth of local government bond and city construction platform bond indicates potential needs for municipal bond. However, budget law in China forbid local government from borrowing unless with the permission of State Council, which in fact creates a fiscal regulatory lacunae in municipal bond issuance. City construction platform bonds, implicitly guaranteed by local governments, are issued as corporate bonds, which create soft budget constrain for local governments. Market regulation institutions in China, which concern about stabilization of financial market, highly emphasis on principle payment while neglect regulation practice of information disclosure, credit rating and anti-fraud in municipal bond market. Such regulation policy goes against buyer-beware rule and will eventually harm interests of investors.
Finally, based on the target of building a transparent and efficient municipal bond market, this paper proposes market regulation goals including complete information disclosure, hard budget constraint and systematic risk prevention, emphasis on rebuilding of principle-agent relationship by legislation and establishing fiscal regulation foundation and synchronized regulation institution for municipal bond market regulation. In legislation area, it is necessary to build a municipal bond market regulation legal system with budget law and public debt law as core, which define basic principles for local governments and their authorized institutions to issue bond. This paper suggests the Ministry of Finance to be in charge of municipal bond issuance regulation. Local Public Debt Management Council, which is a subsidiary of Ministry of Finance, manages local government debt financing plans and approves general obligation bonds. Ministry of Finance authorizes National Development and Reform Commission, People's Bank of China, and Securities Regulation Commission to regulate issuance transaction of revenue bond based on consideration of profession. Municipal Bond Rules Expert Council, which operates under guidance of Local Public Debt Management Council, is a self-regulation institution that makes fundamental principles of financial reports, information disclosure and type classification for municipal bond. It is necessary to include funds supervision in debt management process and adjust local government debt financing plan according to supervision report. In credit rating industry, this paper suggests Ministry of Finance to purchase credit rating of local governments to ensure independence of credit rating agencies. In anti-insider trading, anti-tunneling and anti-fraud area, this paper proposes an internal audit department in Ministry of Finance to monitor local government borrowing and a joint transaction regulation team with Audit Administration and Ministry of Public Security to make up for the fragmented regulation framework of bond market regulation. Besides regulation of issuance and trading activities, there is need to establish an integrated debt restructuring and bankruptcy mechanism for local governments and government financing platforms. A fair and effective debt restructuring procedure with legislative and administrative tools would be necessary to break the non-default expectation and protect essential public resource.
Motivation for building regulation framework of municipal bond regulation differs among different countries, yet investor protection and confidence maintenance are precondition for market development. In China's transformation process, a municipal bond market regulation institution with fiscal self-constraint feature is an optimized solution with its political, economic, legislative and historical background.
首先,本文分析了当前建设市政债券市场的基本背景,界定了市政债券市场、债券市场监管等相关概念,对财政分权理论、公共利益理论、监管体制理论等国内外研究进行了综述,基本梳理了市政债券市场监管的相关理论和文献。国外成熟市场以规范财政分权制度和独立监管执法为基础,以充分信息披露作为市政债券市场监管的核心。由于分税制改革尚不完善,我国学者认为需要首先确立中央地方的清晰分权和地方政府发债的正式制度,并防范软预算约束下的地方政府负债失控的问题。本文认为从基础设施的生命周期和中央地方分权结构来看,地方政府举债权是施政必须的工具。市政债券市场监管不仅代表了政府部门对市场失灵的干预,也代表了中央政府对地方政府的约束,是建设市政债券市场的必需条件。
其次,本文分析了美日市政债券市场的产生背景、市场结构、监管法律、监管体制和执法工具等制度要点,并对其监管制度的导向和优劣进行了研究。美国的市政债券市场监管体现了美国地方财政分权和自律的特征,发行监管为各州政府保留权限。联邦政府建立了以SEC集中监管为主、MSRB自律监管补充的监管体系,强调完整真实的信息披露是保护投资人的最好方式,有效确保了市场资源配置机制的正常运转。日本的地方公债制度则代表了日本中央集权和地方自治并行期间的过渡性财政安排,正经历由中央统一控制向地方自主决策的变革期。过去日本中央政府通过地方债许可制度,实现了对地方公共团体财政的有效控制。但由于日本地方公债在认购资金、偿付安排和发行审核方面都得到了中央政府的隐性担保,没能建立市场自主风险定价的激励机制,形成了地方公共团体的软预算约束,进而加重了中央政府的财政负担。日本近年在建立地方公共团体财政重组制度的同时,启动了协商制度为核心的发行监管制度变革。本文认为相比美日市政债券市场监管制度,中国市政债券市场和监管制度都还处于发展初期,有必要根据分税制和市场化改革方向,确立市政债券市场监管的法律和制度。
再次,本文研究了中国地方政府债券和城投债券的发展背景、市场现状、监管制度和存在问题等,并分析了市场监管中的典型案例。本文认为分税制改革和城镇化建设隐含了地方政府举债的合理性,地方政府债券和城投债的快速发展也显示了市政债券具有良好的市场需求。但由于预算法目前禁止除国务院特别批准外的地方政府发债,实际上市政债券市场在发行环节存在财政监管漏洞。城投债具备地方政府的隐性担保,却通过企业类债券发行通道融资,实际形成了地方政府的软预算约束。市场监管机构则受金融维稳目标驱动,重视债权的刚性兑付,却没有建立地方政府及公共项目的信息披露、信用评级和反欺诈交易的监管机制,不利于确立市场成员自担风险意识,也不利于保护投资人利益。
最后,从建设透明有效的市政债券市场角度出发,本文提出了增强信息披露、切断软预算约束和防范系统性风险的市场监管目标,强调通过立法重塑市场参与方的委托代理关系,建立市政债券市场监管的财政监督基础和综合监管体制。在立法方面,需建立以预算法和公共债务法为核心的市政债券监管法律体系,确立地方政府及其授权机构发行债券的基本原则。市政债券发行环节由财政部门统一监管,下设地方债务管理委员会统筹管理各地债务融资计划和一般责任债券授权,并根据专业性考虑将收益债券发行注册审核权转授给发改委、人民银行和证监会。地方债务管理委员会下设市政债券规则专家委员会,根据自律组织规则制定市政债券财务报告、信息披露和债券分类的基本准则。债券存续期内需加强对资金运用的管理,并据此动态调整地方政府债务融资计划。在信用评级方面,本文认为应由财政统一采购第三方地方政府评级以保证信用评级的独立性。在反内幕交易、反利益输送和反欺诈机制方面,本文认为应在财政部门建立地方政府债务融资审计条线,同时由审计署和公安部联合成立债券交易监管工作组,以克服目前债券市场多头分散监管的劣势。除了发行和交易监管,还需要建立地方政府债务重组和投融资平台破产的统一机制,综合采用司法和行政方法,建立公平有效的重组程序,打破刚性兑付预期并保护核心公共资源。
就发展市政债券市场的原因而言,不同国家建立监管框架的背景并不完全相同,但保护投资人和维持市场信心是市场健康成长的必须条件。作为转型中的国家,需要根据政治、经济、法律和历史背景,形成具有财政自律特色的市政债券市场监管制度。
During China's large-scale urbanization process, municipal bond is not only an important funding source of infrastructure construction for local governments, but also a fundamental part of fiscal decentralization. This paper researches on municipal bond market and tries to establish a regulation framework which covers both theory and practice, such as regulation institution of bond issuance, trading, information disclosure, maturity and default. This paper includes contents as follows:
First this paper analyzes current situation and background of municipal bond market, defines key terms such as municipal bond market and bond market regulation, and reviews previous research on municipal bond market regulation by foreign and domestic scholars, which relate to fiscal federalization, public interest and regulation institution theories. Developed countries regard complete information disclosure as core of municipal bond market regulation based on their mature fiscal federalization institution and independent regulation status. Due to China's uncompleted fiscal decentralization reform, domestic scholars call for a clear division of power between central and local governments and formal institution for municipal bond, while emphasis on prevention of over borrowing of local governments with soft budget constraint. Under current context of power division between central and local governments, the right to issue municipal bond is necessary for local governments because there is need to match cost and benefit of infrastructure construction projects. Municipal bond regulation, which represents not only government intervention to market failure but also constraint of central government over local governments, is precondition of municipal bond market development.
Second, this paper analyzes fundamental factors of municipal bond market and strength-weakness of regulation institution in U.S and Japan, including historical background, market structure, regulation law, and practice tools. U.S municipal bond regulation market reflects its fiscal federalization feature, which municipal bond issuance is right reserved by states. Federal government establishes a centralized market regulation system in which SEC plays the major role with supplement of self-regulation by MSRB. This system regards complete and sincere information disclosure as the best way to protect investors, which ensures well-functioning of market mechanism. Japanese municipal bond, which is undergoing a changing phase from centralized-control to market-based mechanism, represents a mixture of centralization and federalization in Japanese public finance system. In the past central government of Japan utilized approval system to maintain its effective control over local governments. However, as municipal bonds are silently guaranteed by central government through arrangement of public funding, financial support and approval process, such system sets a soft budget constraint for local governments, which increases fiscal burden of central government. In recent years Japan changes its municipal bond system from approval-based to consultation-based, and establishes fiscal reconstruction system of local governments. Compared to U.S and Japanese municipal bond market regulation, both market and regulation in China are in an early stage of development. It is necessary to establish both law and institution of municipal bond market according to trend of fiscal decentralization and market reform.
Third, this paper researches on institutional background, market condition, regulation institution and existing problems of local government bond and city construction platform bond in China, which include typical case study of bond market regulation. This paper assumes that fiscal decentralization and urbanization imply rationality of municipal bond issuance, while the fast growth of local government bond and city construction platform bond indicates potential needs for municipal bond. However, budget law in China forbid local government from borrowing unless with the permission of State Council, which in fact creates a fiscal regulatory lacunae in municipal bond issuance. City construction platform bonds, implicitly guaranteed by local governments, are issued as corporate bonds, which create soft budget constrain for local governments. Market regulation institutions in China, which concern about stabilization of financial market, highly emphasis on principle payment while neglect regulation practice of information disclosure, credit rating and anti-fraud in municipal bond market. Such regulation policy goes against buyer-beware rule and will eventually harm interests of investors.
Finally, based on the target of building a transparent and efficient municipal bond market, this paper proposes market regulation goals including complete information disclosure, hard budget constraint and systematic risk prevention, emphasis on rebuilding of principle-agent relationship by legislation and establishing fiscal regulation foundation and synchronized regulation institution for municipal bond market regulation. In legislation area, it is necessary to build a municipal bond market regulation legal system with budget law and public debt law as core, which define basic principles for local governments and their authorized institutions to issue bond. This paper suggests the Ministry of Finance to be in charge of municipal bond issuance regulation. Local Public Debt Management Council, which is a subsidiary of Ministry of Finance, manages local government debt financing plans and approves general obligation bonds. Ministry of Finance authorizes National Development and Reform Commission, People's Bank of China, and Securities Regulation Commission to regulate issuance transaction of revenue bond based on consideration of profession. Municipal Bond Rules Expert Council, which operates under guidance of Local Public Debt Management Council, is a self-regulation institution that makes fundamental principles of financial reports, information disclosure and type classification for municipal bond. It is necessary to include funds supervision in debt management process and adjust local government debt financing plan according to supervision report. In credit rating industry, this paper suggests Ministry of Finance to purchase credit rating of local governments to ensure independence of credit rating agencies. In anti-insider trading, anti-tunneling and anti-fraud area, this paper proposes an internal audit department in Ministry of Finance to monitor local government borrowing and a joint transaction regulation team with Audit Administration and Ministry of Public Security to make up for the fragmented regulation framework of bond market regulation. Besides regulation of issuance and trading activities, there is need to establish an integrated debt restructuring and bankruptcy mechanism for local governments and government financing platforms. A fair and effective debt restructuring procedure with legislative and administrative tools would be necessary to break the non-default expectation and protect essential public resource.
Motivation for building regulation framework of municipal bond regulation differs among different countries, yet investor protection and confidence maintenance are precondition for market development. In China's transformation process, a municipal bond market regulation institution with fiscal self-constraint feature is an optimized solution with its political, economic, legislative and historical background.
引文
[1]安德烈·施莱弗.理解监管.比较.北京,中信出版社,2002(2)
[2]巴特罗.监管国家：英德金融监管体制比较.比较.北京,中信出版社,2004(10)
[3]布坎南.自由、市场和国家：80年代的政治经济学.上海,三联书店上海分店,1989
[4]布莱克.自律监管在支持韩国市场中的作用.比较.北京,中信出版社,2003(7)
[5]岑雅衍.我国债券市场投资者保护的法律制度及完善.公司法律评论.2009年卷
[6]陈晖、岑雅衍.我国债券市场监管中的利益冲突分析.湖南师范大学社会科学学报.2009年,第4期
[7]范瑞星.国际债券二级市场监管框架比较研究.中国货币市场.2010年,第1期
[8]傅智辉.地方债发行制度分析及改革建议.新金融.2014年,第4期
[9]高培勇,宋永明.公共债务管理.经济科学出版社,2004
[10]戈登·塔洛克.寻租：对寻租活动的经济分析.成都,西南财经大学出版社,1999
[11]何德旭,王卉彤.论债券市场的有效监管.财政研究.2004年,第9期
[12]贺大兴,姚洋.社会平等、中性政府与中国经济增长.经济研究.2011年,第1期：4-17
[13]贾康,李炜光,刘军民.关于发展中国地方政府公债融资的研究.经济社会体制比较.2002年,第5期
[14]贾康,刘微,张立承,石英华,孙洁.我国地方政府债务风险和对策.经济研究参考.2010年,第14期：2-28
[15]贾康.我国地方债务成因与化解对策研究.债券.2013年9月：8-17
[16]蒋大兴.被忽略的债券制度史——中国(公司)债券市场的法律瓶颈.河南财经政法大学学报.2012年,第4期
[17]类承曜,吕蒙.关于“准市政债券”的现实和理论思考.财政研究.2009年,第9期：33-38
[18]李扬,张晓晶,常欣,汤铎铎,李成.中国主权资产负债表及其风险评估(上).经济研究.2012年,第6期：4-19
[19]廖凡.金融市场机构监管与功能监管的基本定位与相互关系.金融市场研究.2012年,第1期
[20]廖凡.竞争、冲突与协调——金融混业监管模式的选择.北京大学学报(哲学社会科 学版).2008年,第03期
[21]刘春长.中国证券市场监管制度及其变迁研究.北京：中国金融出版社,2010
[22]刘俐俐.地方政府债务融资及其风险管理：国际经验.经济科学出版社,2011
[23]联合资信评估有限公司日本地方政府债券课题组.日本地方政府债券运行机制简析.http://www.lianheratings.com.cn/.2013
[24]楼继伟.包容性增长中的财税改革.新世纪周刊.2013年,第14期
[25]罗平,尚静.企业债券市场的发展与评级机构的监管.新金融.2009年3月,总第241期
[26]马骏,白重恩.关于财税体制改革的思路.中国金融四十人论坛,2013
[27]尼斯卡南.官僚制与公共经济学.王浦劬译.北京,中国青年出版社,2004.
[28]彭润中,赵敏.发展中国家地方债务市场监管经验借鉴及启示.财政研究.2009年,第10期：74-77
[29]沈炳熙.关于债券市场监管体制改革的若干思考.金融纵横.2010年,第3期
[30]审计署.全国政府性债务审计结果.www.audit.gov.cn2013年12月30日
[31]宋逢明,金鹏辉.企业类债券市场解构及其监管理念创新.改革.2010年,第6期
[32]宋立.地方公共机构债券融资制度的国际比较及启示：以美国市政债券与日本地方债券为例.经济社会体制比较.2005年,第3期
[33]泰米尔.蔡靖,乔嘉译.美国市政债券.现代出版社.2010年7月
[34]王劲松.对我国发行市政债券若干问题的思考.财政研究.2009年,第5期：31-34
[35]谢平,黄显林.关于中国地方政府债券发行审核制度演进的博弈分析.财政研究.2012年,第5期：25-28
[36]约瑟夫·诺顿.全球金融改革视角下的单一监管者模式：对英国FSA经验的批判性重估(译文).北大法律评论,第7卷第2辑(2006年6月).2006
[37]约瑟夫·诺顿.全球金融改革视角下的单一监管者模式：对英国FSA经验的批判性重估(译文).北大法律评论.2006年6月,第7卷第2辑,
[38]张丹红.欧元是德国统一的代价.财新网http://opinion.caixin.com201 3年3月25日
[39]张晓朴,卢钊.金融监管体制选择：国际比较、良好原则与借鉴.国际金融研究.2012年9月：79-87
[40]植草益.微观规制经济学.北京,中国展望出版社,1992
[41]中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定.2013年11月12日中国共产党第十八届中央委员会第三次全体会议通过http://www.xinhuanet.com/
[42]中央国债登记结算公司.2013年度债券市场统计分析报告.www.chinabond.com.cn,2013
[43]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究.经济研究.2007年,07期：36-50
[44]周其仁.竞争、垄断和管制—“反垄断”政策的背景报告.国家体制改革办公室产业司委托研究项目内部研究报告.北京大学中国经济研究中心：No.C2002013.2001年12月
[45]周沅帆.城投债：中国式市政债券.北京,中信出版社,2010
[46]朱太辉,魏加宁.我国地方债发行的金融学理论基础财政研究.2012年,第5期
[47]A E. Kaln. "The Economics of Regulation:Principles and Institution". John Wiley & Sons,1970
[48]Bailey, Robert W. The Crisis Regime:The Mac, The EFCB, and the Political Impact of the New York City Financial Crisis. Albany:State University of New York Press,1984
[49]Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Global systemically important banks: Assessment methodology and the additional loss absorbency requirement [EB/OL]. ww.bis.org/publ,2011-11
[50]Benston, G.J., Kaufman, G.G.. Risks and Failures in Banking:Overview, History, and Evaluation in:Kormendi, G.G., Kormendi, R.C.. (Eds.), Deregulating Financial Services: Public Policy in Flux. Ballinger, Massachusetts, Cambridge,1986
[51]Bernstein, M.H.. Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton University Press, Princeton,1955
[52]BIS. Bank of International Settlements,62nd Annual Report.1st April 1991-31st March Basle, (June).1992
[53]Buchanan. Freedom in Constitutional Contract:Perspectives of a Political Economist. Texas A & M University Press. June 1,2000
[54]Campbell Committee. Australian Financial System:Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry. Australian Government Published Service, Canberra,1981
[55]Carolyn V. Currie. Towards a General Theory of Financial Regulation:predicting, measuring and preventing financial crisis.2003
[56]Chatov,R.. Government Regulation:Process and Substantive Impacts in Research In Corporate Social Performance and Policy. Volume1. JAI Press INC.,1978
[57]David T. Llewellyn. Institutional Structure of Financial Regulation and Supervision:The Basic Issues. World Bank Institute,2004:17-85
[58]Davis, K., Harper, I., (Ed.). Risk Management in Financial Institutions. Allen and Unwin, Melbourne,1991
[59]Elisse B. Walter. Regulation of the Municipal Securities Market:Investors Are Not Second-Class Citizens. Speech by USA SEC Commissioner.10th Annual A. A. Sommer, Jr. Corporate, Securities and Financial Law Lecture. New York, New York. October 28, 2009
[60]Fama, E.F.. Efficient Capital Markets:a Review of Theory and Empirical Work. Journal of Finance,1970:25,1383-1417
[61]George J. Stigler. Public Regulation of the Securities Market. Journal of Business.1964: 37,117-142
[62]George Joseph Stigler. The Citizen and the State:Essays on Regulation. University of Chicago Press,1975
[63]Goodhart, Charles, H. Philipp, T. Llewellyn David etc. Financial Regulation:Why, How and Where Now?. [M]. London, New York, Routledge,1998
[64]Hehui Jin, Yingyi Qian, Barry R. Weingast. Regional Decentralization and Fiscal Incentives:Federalism, Chinese Style. September 2005, Journal of Public Economics, 89(9-10):1719-1742
[65]Howard, J.. Securities Regulation:Structured Process in Proposals for a Securities Market in Canada. Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Canada,1978:3
[66]Ianchovichina, Elena, Lili Liu, and Mohan Nagarajan. Subnational Fiscal Sustainability Analysis:What can We Learn from Tamil Nadu?. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (52), 2007:111-119
[67]IMF. Guidelines for Public Debt Management.2002
[68]Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.C.. Theory of the firm:Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics.3 (4),1976:305-360
[69]Kenneth Kaoma Mwenda. Legal Aspects Of Financial Services Regulation And The Concept Of A Unified Regulator. World Bank:Law, Justice, And Development Series, 2006
[70]Leland, H.E., Pyle, D.H.. Information Asymmetries, Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation. May. Journal of Finance,1977:371-387
[71]Liu, Lili and Michael Waibel. Subnational Borrowing, Insolvency, and Regulation. In Anwar Shah, ed., Macro Federalism and Local Finance. World Bank, Washington, DC, 2008:215-212
[72]Llewellyn, D.T.. Banking in the 21st Century:The Transformation of an Industry, in: Edey, M. (Ed.), The Future of the Financial System, Proceedings of a Conference. Economic Group, Reserve Bank of Australia, Alken Press, Australia,1996
[73]Louis D. Brandeis. Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It. New York: Cosimo Classics (First-published in 1914 and Re-published in December 1,2009)
[74]Louis Loss, Joel Seligman. Fundamentals of Securities Regulation. Fifth Edition. Aspen Publishers,1998
[75]Maco, Paul S. Building a Strong Subnational Capital Market. Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business.2(1),2001:1-31
[76]Mark Brown, Alex Chambers. How Europe's governments have enronized their debts. Euromoney. http://www.euromoney.com,2005
[77]Masciandaro Donato. Financial Supervision Architectures:Economics, Politics, Instituctions and Law. Economia politica, Societa editrice il Mulino, issue 1,2005: 101-130.
[78]Mayes, David G. and Geoffrey E. Wood. The Structure of Financial Regulation [M]. Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking,2007
[79]Michael Taylor, Alex Fleming. Integrated Financial Supervision:Lessons of Northern European Experience. Working paper prepared for IMF and World Bank,1999
[80]Pigou, A.. The Economics of Welfare. London:Macmillan,1920
[81]Redford, E.. Administration of National Economic Control. MacMillan,1952
[82]Richard A. Musgrave. The Theory of Public Finance:A Study in Public Economy. New York:McGraw-Hill,1959
[83]S. Peltzman. Toward a More General Theory of Regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 19,1976
[84]Sinkey Jr, J.F.. Commercial Bank Financial Management. Maxwell MacMillan,1992
[85]Stigler, G.. The Tenable Range of Functions of Local Government in US Congress Joint Economic Committee. (ed.) Federal Expenditure Policy for Economic Growth and Stability (Government Printing Office:Washington, DC),1957
[86]Stiglitz, J. Weiss, A.. Credit Rationing in Markets with Incomplete Information. American Economic Review,7,1981:393-410
[87]Stiglitz, J.. Financial Markets and Development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,5, 1989:55-68
[88]Stiglitz, J.. Towards a New Paradigm for Development:Strategies, Policies, and processes. Prebisch Lecture, UNCTAD, Geneva,1998
[89]The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report-Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States. Official Government Edition,2011.01
[90]Van Doren, P. M.. Politics, Markets, and Congressional Policy Choices. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1991
[91]W. Kip Viscusi, Joseph Emmett Harrington, John Mitcham Vernon. Economics of Regulation and Antitrust. MIT Press,2005
[92]Watts, R.L., Zimmerman, J.L.. Towards a Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standards. The Accounting Review, January,1978
[93]Webb, Stephen. Fiscal Responsibility Laws of Subnational Discipline:The Latin American Experiences. Policy Research Working Paper 3309. World Bank, Washington, DC,2004
[94]Weingast, Barry. Second Generation Fiscal Federalism:Implications for Development. Stanford Univesity, Palo Alto, CA.,2007
[95]Weingast, Barry.. Second Generation Fiscal Federalism:Political Aspects of Decentralization and Economic Development. World Development Vol.53,2014:14-25
[2]巴特罗.监管国家：英德金融监管体制比较.比较.北京,中信出版社,2004(10)
[3]布坎南.自由、市场和国家：80年代的政治经济学.上海,三联书店上海分店,1989
[4]布莱克.自律监管在支持韩国市场中的作用.比较.北京,中信出版社,2003(7)
[5]岑雅衍.我国债券市场投资者保护的法律制度及完善.公司法律评论.2009年卷
[6]陈晖、岑雅衍.我国债券市场监管中的利益冲突分析.湖南师范大学社会科学学报.2009年,第4期
[7]范瑞星.国际债券二级市场监管框架比较研究.中国货币市场.2010年,第1期
[8]傅智辉.地方债发行制度分析及改革建议.新金融.2014年,第4期
[9]高培勇,宋永明.公共债务管理.经济科学出版社,2004
[10]戈登·塔洛克.寻租：对寻租活动的经济分析.成都,西南财经大学出版社,1999
[11]何德旭,王卉彤.论债券市场的有效监管.财政研究.2004年,第9期
[12]贺大兴,姚洋.社会平等、中性政府与中国经济增长.经济研究.2011年,第1期：4-17
[13]贾康,李炜光,刘军民.关于发展中国地方政府公债融资的研究.经济社会体制比较.2002年,第5期
[14]贾康,刘微,张立承,石英华,孙洁.我国地方政府债务风险和对策.经济研究参考.2010年,第14期：2-28
[15]贾康.我国地方债务成因与化解对策研究.债券.2013年9月：8-17
[16]蒋大兴.被忽略的债券制度史——中国(公司)债券市场的法律瓶颈.河南财经政法大学学报.2012年,第4期
[17]类承曜,吕蒙.关于“准市政债券”的现实和理论思考.财政研究.2009年,第9期：33-38
[18]李扬,张晓晶,常欣,汤铎铎,李成.中国主权资产负债表及其风险评估(上).经济研究.2012年,第6期：4-19
[19]廖凡.金融市场机构监管与功能监管的基本定位与相互关系.金融市场研究.2012年,第1期
[20]廖凡.竞争、冲突与协调——金融混业监管模式的选择.北京大学学报(哲学社会科 学版).2008年,第03期
[21]刘春长.中国证券市场监管制度及其变迁研究.北京：中国金融出版社,2010
[22]刘俐俐.地方政府债务融资及其风险管理：国际经验.经济科学出版社,2011
[23]联合资信评估有限公司日本地方政府债券课题组.日本地方政府债券运行机制简析.http://www.lianheratings.com.cn/.2013
[24]楼继伟.包容性增长中的财税改革.新世纪周刊.2013年,第14期
[25]罗平,尚静.企业债券市场的发展与评级机构的监管.新金融.2009年3月,总第241期
[26]马骏,白重恩.关于财税体制改革的思路.中国金融四十人论坛,2013
[27]尼斯卡南.官僚制与公共经济学.王浦劬译.北京,中国青年出版社,2004.
[28]彭润中,赵敏.发展中国家地方债务市场监管经验借鉴及启示.财政研究.2009年,第10期：74-77
[29]沈炳熙.关于债券市场监管体制改革的若干思考.金融纵横.2010年,第3期
[30]审计署.全国政府性债务审计结果.www.audit.gov.cn2013年12月30日
[31]宋逢明,金鹏辉.企业类债券市场解构及其监管理念创新.改革.2010年,第6期
[32]宋立.地方公共机构债券融资制度的国际比较及启示：以美国市政债券与日本地方债券为例.经济社会体制比较.2005年,第3期
[33]泰米尔.蔡靖,乔嘉译.美国市政债券.现代出版社.2010年7月
[34]王劲松.对我国发行市政债券若干问题的思考.财政研究.2009年,第5期：31-34
[35]谢平,黄显林.关于中国地方政府债券发行审核制度演进的博弈分析.财政研究.2012年,第5期：25-28
[36]约瑟夫·诺顿.全球金融改革视角下的单一监管者模式：对英国FSA经验的批判性重估(译文).北大法律评论,第7卷第2辑(2006年6月).2006
[37]约瑟夫·诺顿.全球金融改革视角下的单一监管者模式：对英国FSA经验的批判性重估(译文).北大法律评论.2006年6月,第7卷第2辑,
[38]张丹红.欧元是德国统一的代价.财新网http://opinion.caixin.com201 3年3月25日
[39]张晓朴,卢钊.金融监管体制选择：国际比较、良好原则与借鉴.国际金融研究.2012年9月：79-87
[40]植草益.微观规制经济学.北京,中国展望出版社,1992
[41]中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定.2013年11月12日中国共产党第十八届中央委员会第三次全体会议通过http://www.xinhuanet.com/
[42]中央国债登记结算公司.2013年度债券市场统计分析报告.www.chinabond.com.cn,2013
[43]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究.经济研究.2007年,07期：36-50
[44]周其仁.竞争、垄断和管制—“反垄断”政策的背景报告.国家体制改革办公室产业司委托研究项目内部研究报告.北京大学中国经济研究中心：No.C2002013.2001年12月
[45]周沅帆.城投债：中国式市政债券.北京,中信出版社,2010
[46]朱太辉,魏加宁.我国地方债发行的金融学理论基础财政研究.2012年,第5期
[47]A E. Kaln. "The Economics of Regulation:Principles and Institution". John Wiley & Sons,1970
[48]Bailey, Robert W. The Crisis Regime:The Mac, The EFCB, and the Political Impact of the New York City Financial Crisis. Albany:State University of New York Press,1984
[49]Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Global systemically important banks: Assessment methodology and the additional loss absorbency requirement [EB/OL]. ww.bis.org/publ,2011-11
[50]Benston, G.J., Kaufman, G.G.. Risks and Failures in Banking:Overview, History, and Evaluation in:Kormendi, G.G., Kormendi, R.C.. (Eds.), Deregulating Financial Services: Public Policy in Flux. Ballinger, Massachusetts, Cambridge,1986
[51]Bernstein, M.H.. Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton University Press, Princeton,1955
[52]BIS. Bank of International Settlements,62nd Annual Report.1st April 1991-31st March Basle, (June).1992
[53]Buchanan. Freedom in Constitutional Contract:Perspectives of a Political Economist. Texas A & M University Press. June 1,2000
[54]Campbell Committee. Australian Financial System:Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry. Australian Government Published Service, Canberra,1981
[55]Carolyn V. Currie. Towards a General Theory of Financial Regulation:predicting, measuring and preventing financial crisis.2003
[56]Chatov,R.. Government Regulation:Process and Substantive Impacts in Research In Corporate Social Performance and Policy. Volume1. JAI Press INC.,1978
[57]David T. Llewellyn. Institutional Structure of Financial Regulation and Supervision:The Basic Issues. World Bank Institute,2004:17-85
[58]Davis, K., Harper, I., (Ed.). Risk Management in Financial Institutions. Allen and Unwin, Melbourne,1991
[59]Elisse B. Walter. Regulation of the Municipal Securities Market:Investors Are Not Second-Class Citizens. Speech by USA SEC Commissioner.10th Annual A. A. Sommer, Jr. Corporate, Securities and Financial Law Lecture. New York, New York. October 28, 2009
[60]Fama, E.F.. Efficient Capital Markets:a Review of Theory and Empirical Work. Journal of Finance,1970:25,1383-1417
[61]George J. Stigler. Public Regulation of the Securities Market. Journal of Business.1964: 37,117-142
[62]George Joseph Stigler. The Citizen and the State:Essays on Regulation. University of Chicago Press,1975
[63]Goodhart, Charles, H. Philipp, T. Llewellyn David etc. Financial Regulation:Why, How and Where Now?. [M]. London, New York, Routledge,1998
[64]Hehui Jin, Yingyi Qian, Barry R. Weingast. Regional Decentralization and Fiscal Incentives:Federalism, Chinese Style. September 2005, Journal of Public Economics, 89(9-10):1719-1742
[65]Howard, J.. Securities Regulation:Structured Process in Proposals for a Securities Market in Canada. Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Canada,1978:3
[66]Ianchovichina, Elena, Lili Liu, and Mohan Nagarajan. Subnational Fiscal Sustainability Analysis:What can We Learn from Tamil Nadu?. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (52), 2007:111-119
[67]IMF. Guidelines for Public Debt Management.2002
[68]Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.C.. Theory of the firm:Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics.3 (4),1976:305-360
[69]Kenneth Kaoma Mwenda. Legal Aspects Of Financial Services Regulation And The Concept Of A Unified Regulator. World Bank:Law, Justice, And Development Series, 2006
[70]Leland, H.E., Pyle, D.H.. Information Asymmetries, Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation. May. Journal of Finance,1977:371-387
[71]Liu, Lili and Michael Waibel. Subnational Borrowing, Insolvency, and Regulation. In Anwar Shah, ed., Macro Federalism and Local Finance. World Bank, Washington, DC, 2008:215-212
[72]Llewellyn, D.T.. Banking in the 21st Century:The Transformation of an Industry, in: Edey, M. (Ed.), The Future of the Financial System, Proceedings of a Conference. Economic Group, Reserve Bank of Australia, Alken Press, Australia,1996
[73]Louis D. Brandeis. Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It. New York: Cosimo Classics (First-published in 1914 and Re-published in December 1,2009)
[74]Louis Loss, Joel Seligman. Fundamentals of Securities Regulation. Fifth Edition. Aspen Publishers,1998
[75]Maco, Paul S. Building a Strong Subnational Capital Market. Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business.2(1),2001:1-31
[76]Mark Brown, Alex Chambers. How Europe's governments have enronized their debts. Euromoney. http://www.euromoney.com,2005
[77]Masciandaro Donato. Financial Supervision Architectures:Economics, Politics, Instituctions and Law. Economia politica, Societa editrice il Mulino, issue 1,2005: 101-130.
[78]Mayes, David G. and Geoffrey E. Wood. The Structure of Financial Regulation [M]. Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking,2007
[79]Michael Taylor, Alex Fleming. Integrated Financial Supervision:Lessons of Northern European Experience. Working paper prepared for IMF and World Bank,1999
[80]Pigou, A.. The Economics of Welfare. London:Macmillan,1920
[81]Redford, E.. Administration of National Economic Control. MacMillan,1952
[82]Richard A. Musgrave. The Theory of Public Finance:A Study in Public Economy. New York:McGraw-Hill,1959
[83]S. Peltzman. Toward a More General Theory of Regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 19,1976
[84]Sinkey Jr, J.F.. Commercial Bank Financial Management. Maxwell MacMillan,1992
[85]Stigler, G.. The Tenable Range of Functions of Local Government in US Congress Joint Economic Committee. (ed.) Federal Expenditure Policy for Economic Growth and Stability (Government Printing Office:Washington, DC),1957
[86]Stiglitz, J. Weiss, A.. Credit Rationing in Markets with Incomplete Information. American Economic Review,7,1981:393-410
[87]Stiglitz, J.. Financial Markets and Development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,5, 1989:55-68
[88]Stiglitz, J.. Towards a New Paradigm for Development:Strategies, Policies, and processes. Prebisch Lecture, UNCTAD, Geneva,1998
[89]The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report-Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States. Official Government Edition,2011.01
[90]Van Doren, P. M.. Politics, Markets, and Congressional Policy Choices. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1991
[91]W. Kip Viscusi, Joseph Emmett Harrington, John Mitcham Vernon. Economics of Regulation and Antitrust. MIT Press,2005
[92]Watts, R.L., Zimmerman, J.L.. Towards a Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standards. The Accounting Review, January,1978
[93]Webb, Stephen. Fiscal Responsibility Laws of Subnational Discipline:The Latin American Experiences. Policy Research Working Paper 3309. World Bank, Washington, DC,2004
[94]Weingast, Barry. Second Generation Fiscal Federalism:Implications for Development. Stanford Univesity, Palo Alto, CA.,2007
[95]Weingast, Barry.. Second Generation Fiscal Federalism:Political Aspects of Decentralization and Economic Development. World Development Vol.53,2014:14-25