Chapter 2 analyzes bailout plans that were implemented by major developed countries during financial crisis and attempts to assess them. It is true that the bailout programs carried out for financial institutions in the midst of financial crisis played a positive role in coping with the crisis by preventing its dispersal and intensification. On the other hand, however, side effect of such bailouts is predicted to become a burden on the economy of developed countries. This is because there is a concern that ‘too big to fail’ controversy will be led to a moral hazard, which may bring about the repetition of financial industry’s risk seeking behaviour. Another reason can be pointed to the possibility of prolonging the poor performance of financial system by regenerating the institutions that deserve restructuring according to the market principles. Therefore, in order to have instability among financial field under control, which may arise from the bailout plans, it is considered that advanced countries need to supplement financial regulations through reinforcing management and supervision over financial market and put in a great deal of effort for reforming financial system.
In Chapter 3, major economies’ monetary policy as a countermeasure for crisis is analyzed. The United States and the United Kingdom have been implementing the most aggressive monetary policy in history whereas Euro Area seems to be mobilizing the monetary policy that is more faithful to its target of stabilizing inflation. It can be criticized that such policies of European Central Bank bear some responsibility for prolonging the recession and intensifying a few member countries' financial crisis. U.S. non-traditional monetary policy, which lowered various interest rates, was very effective on moderating tight-money market in the beginning, but it can be said that its effect is gradually reducing over time. According to our Event Study, we found that the impact of first quantitative easing (QE1) was the largest, QE2’s effect was about one third of QE1, and impact of operation twist was even less than that of QE2. Hence, continuing quantitative easing after escaping from the serious stage of crisis may not have satisfying benefit. Moreover, financial market participants' disappointment with the impact of such policies that fall short of their expectation may cause crisis of a larger scale.
Chapter 4 compares pre- and post-global financial crisis fiscal multiplier of developed countries through empirical analysis. According to the result of Dynamic Panel VAR Estimation, major advanced countries' fiscal multiplier during the global financial crisis was higher than that of pre-crisis. This reflects the fact that major advanced nations’ policy to increase government spending was effective. If the fiscal multiplier is to be analyzed based on each country’s government debt, it is assumed that in case of a country with higher government debt, short-term multiplier is near zero and long-term multiplier is in negative range. Thus, it may be said that the aggressive expansionary fiscal policies of developed countries during global financial crisis had a notable impact, but it seems that in case of advanced nation whose government debt surged, it is hard to expect additional effect of expansionary fiscal policy and is thought that they need to accompany fiscal consolidation policy.
Based on the previously mentioned results of our analysis, this paper projects future world economy as follows: First, there is a high possibility for financial industry in advanced countries that are avoiding crisis through bailouts and quantitative easing to experience prolonged risk due to moral hazard and delay in liquidating insolvent institutions. Second, expanded global liquidity, a by-product of major advanced countries’ quantitative easing process, may cause instability of developing countries’ foreign exchange market and capital market. Third, the effect of major nations’ macroeconomic policy is expected to remain unobserved for several years from now on and hence when a new shock that causes economic downturn takes place, there is possibility for the economy of advanced countries to show larger fluctuation.

서언 

국문요약 

제1장 서 론 

제2장 주요국의 금융기관 구제 정책과 시사점 
1. 미국의 구제금융 지원 
가. 정부지원기관(GSEs)에 대한 긴급구제조치 
나. 부실자산 구제 프로그램(TARP) 
다. 금융안정 대책 
2. 미국 구제금융 정책의 경과와 평가 
가. 시행현황 
나. 평가 
3. 영국 및 유럽의 구제금융 정책 
가. 영국 
나. 유럽 
4. 소결 

제3장 금융위기 기간 중 통화정책 유효성 분석 
1. 글로벌 금융위기 이후 주요국 통화정책 
가. 금리정책 
나. 비전통적 통화정책 
2. 미국 비전통적 통화정책의 효과 분석: 이벤트 스터디 
가. 양적완화 정책의 효과 
나. 단기금리정책공약의 효과 
다. 오퍼레이션 트위스트의 효과 
라. 미국 비전통적 통화정책의 효과에 대한 평가 
3. 소결 

제4장 금융위기 전후의 정부지출 승수 비교 
1. 글로벌 금융위기와 각국의 재정상황 
2. 실증분석 모형 
가. 패널 VAR 모형과 데이터 
나. 정부지출 승수의 정의 
3. 위기 전후 재정정책의 효과 
가. 재정정책의 효과: 글로벌 금융위기 이전 
나. 재정정책의 효과: 글로벌 금융위기 기간 
4. 위기기간 정부부채 정도에 따른 재정정책의 효과 
5. 확장된 4변수 모형: 정부지출 승수, 소비와 투자 
가. 4변수 패널 VAR 모형과 소비, 투자 승수 
나. 재정정책의 소비, 투자에 미치는 효과: 글로벌 금융위기 이전 
다. 재정정책의 소비, 투자에 미치는 효과: 글로벌 금융위기 기간 
6. 소결 

제5장 정책적 시사점 및 결론 
1. 정책적 시사점 
가. 선진국 금융기관 부실의 장기화 가능성 
나. 글로벌 유동성 확대로 인한 외환시장 및 상품시장 불안정 가능성 
다. 세계 경기 변동성 증가 가능성 
2. 결론 

참고문헌 

Executive Summary