I am a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of the West of England. My research focuses on financial macroeconomics, climate change and finance, ecological macroeconomics and inequality. I have co-developed a novel ecological macroeconomic model that analyses the interactions between the ecosystem, the financial system and the macroeconomy. My work has appeared in various academic journals, such as the Cambridge Journal of Economics, Ecological Economics, Nature Climate Change, the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and the Review of Political Economy.
Climate change, financial stability and monetary policy, Ecological Economics, 2018, 152, pp. 219-234 (with M. Nikolaidi and G. Galanis)
Using a stock-flow-fund ecological macroeconomic model, we analyse (i) the effects of climate change on financial stability and (ii) the financial and global warming implications of a green quantitative easing (QE) programme. Emphasis is placed on the impact of climate change damages on the price of financial assets and the financial position of firms and banks. The model is estimated and calibrated using global data and simulations are conducted for the period 2016–2120. Four key results arise. First, by destroying the capital of firms and reducing their profitability, climate change is likely to gradually deteriorate the liquidity of firms, leading to a higher rate of default that could harm both the financial and the non-financial corporate sector. Second, climate change damages can lead to a portfolio reallocation that can cause a gradual decline in the price of corporate bonds. Third, climate-induced financial instability might adversely affect credit expansion, exacerbating the negative impact of climate change on economic activity. Fourth, the implementation of a green corporate QE programme can reduce climate-induced financial instability and restrict global warming. The effectiveness of this programme depends positively on the responsiveness of green investment to changes in bond yields.
Climate change challenges for central banks and financial regulators, Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8 (6), pp. 462-468 (with E. Campiglio, P. Monnin, J. Ryan-Collins, G. Schotten and M. Tanaka)
The academic and policy debate regarding the role of central banks and financial regulators in addressing climate-related financial risks has rapidly expanded in recent years. This Perspective presents the key controversies and discusses potential research and policy avenues for the future. Developing a comprehensive analytical framework to assess the potential impact of climate change and the low-carbon transition on financial stability seems to be the first crucial challenge. These enhanced risk measures could then be incorporated in setting financial regulations and implementing the policies of central banks.
Debt cycles, instability and fiscal rules: a Godley-Minsky synthesis, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2018, 42 (5), pp. 1277-1313
Wynne Godley and Hyman Minsky were two macroeconomists who ‘saw the crisis coming’. This paper develops a simple macrodynamic model that synthesises some key perspectives of their analytical frameworks. The model incorporates Godley’s financial balances approach and postulates that private sector’s propensity to spend is driven by a stock-flow norm (the target net private debt-to-income ratio) that changes endogenously via a Minsky mechanism. It also includes two fiscal rules: a Maastricht-type fiscal rule, according to which the fiscal authorities adjust the government expenditures based on a target net government debt ratio; and a Godley–Minsky fiscal rule, which links government expenditures with private indebtedness following a counter-cyclical logic. The analysis shows that (i) the interaction between the propensity to spend and net private indebtedness can generate cycles and instability; (ii) instability is more likely when the propensity to spend responds strongly to deviations from the stock-flow norm and when the expectations that determine the stock-flow norm are highly sensitive to the economic cycle; (iii) the Maastricht-type fiscal rule is destabilising while the Godley–Minsky fiscal rule is stabilising; and (iv) the paradox of debt can apply both to the private sector and the government sector.