De jure: Difference between revisions
From ACT Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
imported>Doug Williamson (Create page. Sources: Linked pages.) |
imported>Doug Williamson (Mend link.) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [[Asian capital market integration: theory and evidence]] | * [[Asian capital market integration: theory and evidence]] | ||
* [[Capital | * [[Capital control]] | ||
* [[De facto ]] | * [[De facto ]] | ||
[[Category:Accounting,_tax_and_regulation]] | [[Category:Accounting,_tax_and_regulation]] | ||
[[Category:The_business_context]] | [[Category:The_business_context]] |
Latest revision as of 23:39, 26 June 2021
Law - company law - regulation.
Existing as a legal right or restriction, whether or not borne out as a matter of practical reality.
The opposite of de facto.
- De facto capital market integration exceeds de jure
- "[There is a] substantial gap between de facto and de jure measures of financial openness and integration.
- In short, the fact that numerous developing countries impose significant legal controls on the international movement of capital does not mean that such controls are particularly effective in curbing international capital flows.
- Actual financial integration – as measured by capital flows and cross-border financial asset holdings – may significantly exceed the level implied by corresponding legal controls."
- Asian capital market integration - the Treasurer's Wiki