English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This comment presents three arguments. First, that while  The Power of Inaction  focuses on the role of banks within bailout negotiations, this framework can be gainfully expanded by considering the government side of the bailout negotiations: evidence from the U.S. and German cases suggests that the government, as well as banks, can wield the threat of inaction in a bailout negotiation. Second, that coordinated interventions were implemented in countries where the largest leading banks were weak, and vice versa. As this singularly determines the type of intervention, it leaves little room for making strong inferences on other factors. Third, that Woll’s study indicated that coordinated interventions are more cost-efficient than uncoordinated interventions. An unexplored implication is that government negotiators can gainfully persuade banks to take part in a coordinated intervention.

Comment on The Power of Inaction by Cornelia Woll