Les professeurs Macey et Miller analysent la relation entre l’assurance des dépôts et l’ inadé quation dans la structure des échéances des actifs et passifs des banques commerciales. Après avoir critiqué l’hypothèse traditionnelle concernant la réglementation, d’après laquelle les banques sont incitées à financer les actifs à long terme par des passifs à court terme parce que l’assurance des dépôts garantie par l’Etat stimule le crédit des banques et subventionne les passifs à court terme, ils utilisent l’analyse économique des décisions (...) publiques pour soutenir qu’une version modifiée de l’hypothèse de la réglementation est la meilleure explication de la déstructuration des échéances des actifs et passifs bancaires.Finalement, ils considèrent que soutenir l’hypothèse de la réglementation n’entraîne pas l’ acceptation du modèle d’assurance des dépôts garantie par l’Etat tel qu’il existe aux Etats-Unis aujourd’hui.Professors Macey and Miller explore the relationship between deposit insurance and the mismatch in the term structure of commercial banks’ assets and liabilities. After criticizing the traditional regulatory hypothesis, which posits that banks have incentives to fund long-term assets with short-term liabilities because government-sponsored deposit insurance enhances bank credit and subsidizes short-term liabilities, they use public choice theory to argue that a modified version of the regulatory hypothesis is the best explanation for the mismatch in the term structure of banks’ assets and liabilities. Finally, they argue that embracing the regulatory hypothesis does not imply acceptance of the government-sponsored deposit insurance scheme as it exists in the U.S. today. (shrink)

Ever since the constitutional revolution of the 1930s, constitutional law and theory have been dominated by questions of civil rights. The expansion of rights under the Warren Court constituted a deep-seated shift in judicial attitudes that has proved remarkably stable over time. Despite protests in some quarters that the Burger Court and the current Rehnquist Court have undermined civil rights recognized during the Warren Court era, the fact is that the changes have been surprisingly marginal. Even precedents that were widely (...) believed to be endangered species a decade ago – such as Miranda and Roe v. Wade – continue in force, although they have indeed been pruned back. Despite their importance, however, these high-profile cases do not go to the core of the Supreme Court's agenda. The core is epitomized by Brown v. Board of Education on the one hand, representing an aggressive and interventionist attitude toward government discrimination against discrete minorities, and footnote four of the Carotene Products case, on the other hand, representing an extraordinarily deference to the political process with respect to economic regulation. The Rehnquist Court's commitment to this core agenda is not dramatically different than that of its predecessors, at least not when the broad sweep of constitutional law is taken into account. (shrink)