Category Archives: Blogpost

Call for Papers : COVID19 and the nonlinear dynamics of financial markets – Special Issue of Finance Research Letters

The financial market’s response to COVID19 has demonstrated very pronounced nonlinear behaviour, phase transitions and sharp changes. Traditional finance models and approaches typically struggle to model such phenomena, despite there being a welter of statistical, epidemiological and mathematical models that suit these phenomena. In this context, the editors of Finance Research Letters invite short focused papers that apply such models to the financial market reactions to COVID19. 

Note that papers submitted for this SI will have submission fees waived. Submit here from 30 March, selecting the article type COVID19 , https://www.evise.com/profile/#/FRL/login , before 21/June 2020


We are especially interested in papers that explore the issues below in the context of the pandemic

  • applications of catastrophe theory 
  • nonlinear dynamics of the response 
  • applications of dynamic systems 
  • modelling phase transitions
  • models of self organizing criticality 
  • non-perturbative models of fat tails
  • Fractal models of crashes and contagion
  • Nonlinear spatial econometrics 

Please however feel free to contact the special issue editors   blucey at tcd dot ie or maurice dot peat at sydney. edu dot au should you wish to run an idea past us. Please note that papers will have to adhere to the journal space and style requirements. 

Stay safe, wear a mask, wash your hands!

Call for Papers : COVID-19 and the Real-Financial Economy link : A special issue in International Review of Economics and Finance

COVID19 has thrown a very stark harsh light on the globally interconnected economy.  When this crisis passes there will be an opportunity for reflection on the financial and economic interconnectedness we have grown, its strengths and weaknesses. Economic and Finance academics can and should address this, from a basis of evidence and analysis, hence this call for papers. 
This special issue of International Review of Economics and Finance seeks papers that address this challenge, in particular the following issues, but please also contact us as Editors-in-Chief if you have another paper or idea and wish to check its suitability. Note that papers submitted for this SI will have submission fees waived. Submit here , from 29 March, selecting the article type COVID19:  https://www.editorialmanager.com/iref/default.aspx , before 21/June 2020

We are especially interested in papers that explore

  • Contagion loops between the real and the financial economy in the pandemic
  • Government-bank relationships in the pandemic 
  • The spatial dimensions and financial geography of banking and finance in a pandemic
  • The economic and financial geography of the pandemic 
  • Emergent paradigms in monetary economics, corporate funding and international trade
  • Resilience and strength in global trade and trade financing
  • Financing along the supply chain – strengths and weaknesses and its future
  • Economic and financial lessons from history for the post-pandemic world

Please however feel free to contact us at blucey at tcd dot ie or chen at udayton dot edu should you wish to run an idea past us . Please note: in line with the aims and objectives of the journal all papers should explicitly take an international perspective

Brian Lucey and Carl Chen, Editors in Chief, International Review of Economics and Finance

Call for Papers : Covid-19 and International Finance: a Special Issue of International Review of Financial Analysis

While we all grapple with the immediate crisis caused by the Covid-19 panic, at some stage the world will emerge from this. That new world will require a functioning, albeit perhaps different, international economic and financial system. As finance academics we can aid in this, analysing what went wrong, what right, what we need to build up and what to sideline in finance, post pandemic.

This special issue of International Review of Financial Analysis seeks papers that address this challenge, in particular the following issues, but please also contact me as Editor-in-Chief if you have another paper or idea and wish to check its suitability. Note that papers submitted for this SI will have submission fees waived. Submit here , selecting the article type COVID19 , https://www.editorialmanager.com/FINANA/default.aspx , before 21/June 2020

We are especially interested in papers that explore

  • The performance, interlinkages and spillovers of financial and financialised assets during the pandemic
  • The role, or lack of same, of safe havens, hedges and other assets in the pandemic
  • The spatial dimensions and financial geography of banking and finance in a pandemic
  • Alternative investments and new financial assets in the pandemic
  • Emergent paradigms towards new forms of insurance, portfolio protection and downside risk protection
  • Where might corporate financing evolve post pandemic?
  • Financial market incentives, financialisation and medicine.
  • Financing along the supply chain – strengths and weaknesses and its future
  • Financial lessons from history for the post pandemic world

Please however feel free to contact me at blucey at tcd dot ie should you wish to run an idea past me . Please note: in line with the aims and objecives of the journal all papers should explicitly take an international perspective.

a-Fisking we shall go – Captain Corelli’s Maudlin Rambling in the FT

So Louis Smart, or as he likes to call himself, Louis de Berniers, author of Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, has a rambling load of illconstructed reminisce as to why he voted to leave, in the FT. Its a doozy

Link here ; and a fisk below the line.

Continue reading

Irish Universities Rankings – a reality check

So the THES rankings are out and as has become the norm the fall in rankings of Irish universities has caused an outpouring of angst, breast beating, and general melancholia. It is described as a “Crisis” , a “disaster” and such other apocalyptic monikers. 


Continue reading

Thinking about hard borders post brexit

As we move closer and closer to the purported Brexit end game, although never quite getting there like the paradox of Zeno, the pressure mounts on Ireland to save the brexiteers blushes.  Not just the UK media but elements within the Irish media have begun to mutter and muse on whether we should not perhaps, just perhaps, consider dropping the backstop, limiting it somehow, do SOMETHING to get Brexit over the line.

This would be foolish in the extreme. The backstop, let us recall, is an insurance policy. It kicks in if and only if other arrangements cannot otherwise be found that would keep a seamless border. Initially conceived by the UK as an arrangement for Northern Ireland alone, that was shot down by the DUP/ERG, fatally undermining the already tattered control of T May . We should have some sympathy for that position,  as it did and will partition a country along internal customs lines. But then, it was the desire of the country to be so partitioned, and despite the occasional outburst, NI is already distinct in law custom and practice from the rest of the UK.

 With the scuppering of the NI only backstop it then, at the request of the UK,  moved to the notion of a backstop for the UK as a whole. While this preserved the integrity of the UK from a internal trade perspective it enraged more than the hard right DUP/ERG as it, if implemented, would result in BRINO – Brexit In Name Only. So it too is no longer acceptable, it seems.

But, the argument goes, if we Irish keep this insistence on the backstop as an insurance policy we run the risk of a crashout no deal. Despite the fantasies of the wilder shores of Tory right wingers, the UK cannot even under WTO rules simply ignore its border. Nor can we ignore our obligations as EU members to police and protect what will be a border with a third country. So the backstop, it is said, will bring about the very thing it is designed to prevent. Why not then drop it in whole or part?

Doing so would require one of two things. Either we give a timelimit – that it will last X years and no longer, or that we would in effect ourselves depart from the EU single market. Lets look at these.

The most charitable interpretation of the UK approach to the negotiations is that they are at sea. But the other interpretation, one that has been given additional weight by recent revelations, is that they were not recently, or perhaps ever, negotiating in good faith. One does not have to be a brit-basher to have deep and profound misgivings as to the faith in which the UK negotiates. With a time limited backstop we would be negotiating alone against a larger party. There would be every incentive and it would be quite sensible for them to simply run down the clock, to stall, and then when the backstop expired look us in the eye and say “and?”. We would have no EU backing and we would have in effect “bottled it” in giving in on the backstop. So that would result in enormous pressure for the second, for us to depart in whole or part, but in fact, from the EU single market. We would be flouting EU rules and leaving open the EU external border and that would not be tolerated.   

This would be folly on the most enormous, unforgivable, egregious scale. Every indicator of economic progress in Ireland shows two major recent breakpoints. The first is the accession the EEC as it then was, and the second, and arguably more profound, the advent of the Single Market. Any weakening of our membership such as would be required were we to allow a semi-permanent open border with a non-EU member would be massivly dislocative. FDI would in all likelihood slow – while we can query our reliance on same and its composition the reality is we benefit greatly from companies using us as a fiscal or product bridgehead into the EU. Irish exports to the EU would at best face additional checks, at worse be seen as potentially contaminated by non EU components and thus decline. A reversal of the last 27 years of economic growth would be put in place because of our desire to keep an open border.

The government know this. They know that in a no deal we will have to protect the economic best interests of the state which is served by EU and SM membership. Any Brexit makes our economy somewhat weaker than otherwise. To compound this to spare what are in aggregate terms relatively small, relatively  unproductive regions or sectors would be economic insanity. Yes, additional checks and rolling customs will be of huge impact on border communities. Yes, it will harden further attitudes in the North. Yes, it will fuel further a narrative In the gutter press of the UK and the less than a fringe movement that is Irexit that we are poodles of the EU. But cold hard economic reality dictates that even if we lose 50k jobs from a hard Brexit that is the price of defending 100’s of thousands more that would be at risk from any weakening of our SM membership. That’s the harsh political dilemma.