Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Little Data Book on Financial Development 2014 is a pocket edition of the Global Financial Development Database, published as part of the work on the Global Financial Development Report 2014: Financial Inclusion. It contains 38 indicators of financial development in 205 economies, including measures of (1) financial depth, (2) access, (3) efficiency, and (4) stability of financial institutions and markets. Additional variables, historical observations, and links to underlying research are available at www.worldbank.org/financialdevelopment.

The data and analysis presented in this edition of global development finance are based on actual flows and debt related transactions for 2010 reported to the World Bank Debtor Reporting System (DRS) by 129 developing countries. The reports confirm that in 2010 international capital flows to developing countries surpassed preliminary estimates and returned to their pre-crisis level of $1.1 trillion, an increase of 68 percent over the comparable figure for 2009. Private capital flows surged in 2010 driven by a massive jump in short-term debt, a strong rebound in bonds and more moderate rise in equity flows. Debt related inflows jumped almost 200 percent compared to a 25 percent increase in net equity flows. The rebound in capital flows was concentrated in a small group of 10 middle income countries where net capital inflows rose by an average of nearly 80 percent in 2010, almost double the rate of increase (44 percent) recorded by other developing countries. These 10 countries accounted for 73 percent of developing countries gross national income (GNI), and received 73 percent of total net capital flows to developing countries in 2010. The 2010 increase in net capital flows was accompanied by marked change in composition between equity and debt related flows. Over the past decade net equity flows to developing countries have consistently surpassed the level of debt related flows, reaching as high as 97 percent of aggregate net capital flows in 2002 and accounting for 75 percent of them ($509 billion) in 2009. However, periods of rapid increase in capital flows have often been marked by a reversal from equity to debt.

The World Bank's Debtor Reporting System (DRS), from which the aggregates and country tables presented in this report are drawn, was established in 1951. The debt crisis of the 1980s brought increased attention to debt statistics and to the World debt tables, the predecessor to Global development finance. Now the global financial crisis has once again heightened awareness in developing countries of the importance of managing their external obligations. International capital flows to the 128 developing countries reporting to the World Bank Debtor Reporting System (DRS) fell by 20 percent in 2009 to $598 billion (3.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI), compared with $744 billion in 2008 (4.5 percent of GNI) and a little over half the peak level of $1,111 billion realized in 2007. Private flows (debt and equity) declined by 27 percent despite a rebound in bond issuance, portfolio equity flows, and short-term debt flows. Both foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and bank lending fell precipitously. By contrast, the net inflow of debt-related financing from official creditors (excluding grants) rose 175 percent as support was stepped up to low- and middle-income countries severely affected by the global financial crisis.

The little data book on financial development 2013 is a pocket edition of the global financial development database published as part of the work on the global financial development report 2013: rethinking the role of the state in finance. The global financial development database is an extensive dataset of financial system characteristics for 203 economies. The database includes measures of (1) size of financial institutions and markets (financial depth), (2) degree to which individuals can and do use financial services (access), (3) efficiency of financial intermediaries and markets in intermediating resources and facilitating financial transactions (efficiency), and (4) stability of financial institutions and markets (stability). There is ample evidence on the role financial sector development plays in economic development, poverty alleviation and economic stability. However there are serious shortcomings associated with measuring the concept of the 'functioning of the financial system.' Recognizing the need for good data to better understand the concept of financial development, the World Bank's financial and private sector Vice Presidency and development economics Vice Presidency have recently launched a global financial development database, an extensive worldwide database that combines and updates several financial data sets. The data highlight the multi-dimensional nature of financial systems. Deep financial systems do not necessarily provide high degrees of financial access; highly efficient financial systems are not necessarily more stable than the less efficient ones, and so on. Each of these characteristics has an association with aspects of the broader socio-economic development, and each is, in turn, strongly associated with financial sector policies and other parts of the enabling environment for finance. The data also demonstrate the effects of the global financial crisis. The crisis not only increased financial instability but also translated into difficulties along other dimensions, such as increasing problems of access to financial services.

This report is comprised of two volumes. Global Development Finance (GDF) 2008 volume one provides analysis of key trends and prospects, including coverage of the role of international banking in developing countries. Volume two provides summary and country tables contain statistical tables on the external debt of the 134 countries that report public and publicly guaranteed debt under the Debtor Reporting System (DRS). It also includes tables of selected debt and resource flow statistics for individual reporting countries as well as summary tables for regional and income groups. It is the culmination of a year-long process that requires extensive cooperation from people and organizations around the globe-national central banks, ministries of finance, major multilateral organizations, and many departments of the World Bank.

The objective of the Review of Risk Mitigation Instruments for Infrastructure Financing and Recent Trends and Developments is to provide a concise yet comprehensive guide as well as reference information for practitioners of infrastructure financing, including private sector financiers and developing country officials. The work is also intended as a reference for institutions offering (or developing) risk mitigation instruments, allowing them to learn from each other's recent practices. The book is organized into five chapters with the following objectives: Chapter 1 Type of Risk Mitigation Instruments: increases awareness of the different types and nature of risk mitigation instruments currently available for private financiers. Chapter 2 Recent Trends in Risk Mitigation: highlights areas in risk mitigation for developing country infrastructure financing receiving recent attention. Chapter 3 Characteristics of Providers and Compatibility: summarizes the characteristics of multilateral, bilateral, and private providers of risk mitigation instruments and the compatibility of those instruments. Chapter 4 Innovative Application of Risk Mitigation Instruments: presents recent developments and innovative applications of risk mitigation instruments through case transactions. Chapter 5 Challenges Ahead: summarizes areas that pose challenges to the use of risk mitigation instruments as catalysts of infrastructure development. The focus of this book is on the multilateral development banks and agencies (that is, The World Bank Group and regional development banks and affiliates) and bilateral development agencies and export credit and investment agencies of major developed countries that have supported the compilation of this information.

Micro credit programs provide institutional arrangements for low‐income people to transit from nonmarket to market‐oriented settings. This article develops a data set of payment records to determine micro credit participants' behavior on repayment performance. The findings shed new light strongly supporting micro credit as a feasible alternative to successfully provide financial resources to the poor, when controlling for asymmetric information. The empirical evidence indicates that learning by association through peer mentoring is a significant determinant in explaining high repayment rates, whereas peer monitoring is not. (JEL O1, O17, L31, J15)

An acceptable coherent framework of fundamental accounting principles is essential for preparing financial statements. The major reasons for providing the framework are to: 1) identify the essential concepts underlying the preparation and presentation of financial statements; 2) guide standard setters in developing new accounting standards and reviewing existing standards; 3) assist preparers in preparing financial statements and dealing with topics that are not covered by a specific International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS); 4) assist auditors in forming an opinion as to whether a set of financial statements conforms with IFRS; and 5) assist users in interpreting the financial information contained in a set of financial statements that comply with IFRS. The framework sets guidelines and should not be seen as a constitution; nothing in the framework overrides any specific standard. The objective of financial statements is to provide information about the financial position (statement of financial position), performance (statement of comprehensive income), and changes in financial position (statement of cash flows) of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users in making economic decisions. Users of financial information include present and potential capital providers, employees, lenders, suppliers, customers, and the government. Financial statements also show the results of management's stewardship of the resources entrusted to it.

I dug a little deeper. It appears that the Supreme Court has also ruled repeatedly that, in a takings case, the owner gets interest because of-what? \"Fairness!\" This was a real puzzler to me. Since when have fairness and economic reality prevailed over sovereign immunity? But here is an oft-repeated quote from the Supreme Court used in takings cases: \"The word 'just' in the Fifth Amendment evokes ideas of'fairness' and 'equity.'\"11 \"Evokes?\" Isn't that just an admission that the text does not expressly say something? The Supreme Court continues its instruction in takings cases by holding that, to attain this fairness and equity, an owner deprived of his property \"is entitled to be put in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property had not been taken.\"12 According to the Supreme Court, this necessarily means that, when the government takes the property but pays for it later, it must pay interest for the intervening period.1 ' Ah, you may retort, but hasn't Congress in Section 2516 of title 28 specified no interest on contract claims?1' And isn't the difference between takings and contract cases at least obvious, despite the differences in the way interest is treated? In response, I must ask, didn't the Supreme Court note their similarity in Phelps v. United States, in which it said that, while a \"takings\" claim is founded on the Constitution, it is also true that \"the owner's claim is one arising out of implied contract\" under the Tucker Act?16 And isn't it also true that Section 2516 on its face applies to all judgments of the Court of Federal Claims (and its predecessor courts under prior iterations of the statute)?1' So how did the Supreme Court get around the \"no interest\" statute in Phelps? It simply stated that compensation would not be \"just\" without interest being paid, and so the \"additional amount for interest\" is \"not a claim for interest within the purpose or intention of the [?no interest'] section [2516].\"18 From this, it seems very unlikely that, even if Congress had explicitly attempted to apply the \"no interest\" rule to takings cases, the Supreme Court would have allowed it. Following its rationale in Phelps and similar cases, the Supreme Court has also held that a dispossessed owner is not limited by a rate of interest specified in a condemnation statute if that rate would not be \"just,\" i.e., a fair market rate at the time of the taking,19 and so doesn't it follow directly that, if Congress were to try to eliminate any interest payment in takings cases, the Court would disallow it? As it has held, the Constitution's requirement that compensation be \"just\" is \"comprehensive and includes all elements and no specific command to include interest is necessary when interest or its equivalent is a part of such compensation.\"20