Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"Empirical studies on project finance are limited to pricing (Ivashina 2009, Dailami and Hauswald 2007, Sorge and Gadanecz 2004, Kleimeier and Megginson 1998, 2000) or syndicate structure (Esty and Megginson 2003) analyses. Despite the fact that the focus of these studies is quite different from our own, these studies provide clear evidence for the relevance of political risk. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: How should loan contracts to finance projects in countries with high political risk be designed? We develop a double moral hazard model in which the bank’s incentive to mitigate political risk is highest with a non-recourse project finance loan, while for the firm’s incentive to manage operational risk it is best to have a full-recourse loan. We predict that the use of project finance increases with both the political risk of the country in which the project is located and the lender’s influence over this political risk exposure. Furthermore, the use of project finance should decrease as the economic health and corporate governance provisions of the borrower’s home country improve. We test these predictions with a sample of 4,549 loans made to borrowers in 90 countries. We find overall support for our model and provide evidence that multi-lateral development banks indeed represent a “political umbrella”.