TOWARDS NEW MEANINGS OF SOVEREIGN DEBT

In recent years, due in part to the sovereign debt crisis, the public (and scientific) interest towards indebtedness increased significantly. Regardless of the level at which we analyze it - micro or macro - it is clear from the outset that this is often unavoidable, for various reasons, and that the indebtedness state is often one of normality (necessary to cover current needs or to ensure growth targets). Of course, when the debtor is the state itself, things seem, at least apparently, more simple. States have borrowed since their beginnings, and continue to do so today. Nothing more natural ... For a long time, being a creditor of a state, especially of a developed country, meant, above all, a very safe situation - not being exposed to any risk. Recent years have shown, however, that such an approach is flawed, and that sovereign risk is omnipresent in the contemporary globalized world. For about seven years, the word "crisis" seems to have become one that is commonly used in the economic analysis. Undoubtedly, in this period there was not only a "common" financial crisis that occured, but a series of crises: finance - economic crisis - sovereign debt issues. In mid-2008, the global financial system crisis (especially in Western countries) asked for a sustained intervention from the state. It came sooner or later, with more or less pro-cyclical effects. Among the taken measures, we can evoke a massive support to banks and economic activity in general, in the context of the drastic reduction in global demand. Recovery policies required their toll, however, and in this case we can talk about a significant increase in budget deficits. If the evolution of private borrowing has taken the path of stagnation, public debt, already growing, became more and more significant. In this context, we intend to highlight some new facets of sovereign risk, and to provide some remarks about how this risk should be viewed and approached.