Review In Brazil Research Articles

Regulation of Financial Services in Brazil

This study evaluated present levels of access to financial services in Brazil and government policies that have had an impact on access. Based on these findings, the study explored options for increasing future access to financial services in Brazil. The first section of this summary highlights the core conclusions to emerge from the study and their implications for government policy. The next section describes the findings and recommendations of each chapter, and is followed by an in-depth look at specific areas examined by the study.Financial markets constitute a significant part of a broad group of factor markets, including land and labour markets, which are the basic institutions underlying the effective functioning of an economy and the production and sale of its goods. Financial exclusion reduces the potential welfare of individuals and the productivity of enterprises in an economy.Effective participation in financial markets and other factor markets, which are different from normal (product) markets, is a precondition for effective participation in the economy. Access of disadvantaged groups to financial markets is thus of strategic importance for social and economic development and social inclusion.Market failures in these markets have particularly detrimental effects on economic productivity and social benefit. Therefore, these markets are typically closely regulated. But regulation, in turn, generates risk of regulatory failure, and many regulations may hinder access to the poor. These are the reasons for analysing financial access and for reviewing the role of public policies to promote access.The overarching message to emerge from this study is that increased financial access would be promoted by sound overall macroeconomic and financial sector policy. Beyond that, the government could and should undertake regulatory reforms to enable financial markets to function more smoothly, and undertake targeted policies to improve access. However, care should be taken to ensure that such targeted policies let the excluded groups participate efficiently in financial markets. This would direct the focus toward a review of incentives rather than public financing of special programs.Sound macroeconomic policy implies, first, the reduction of the government’s borrowing requirement, which will enable more borrowing by individuals and enterprises in the economy, and, second, the reduction and harmonization of taxes on the financial sector that will reduce the burden on overall intermediation and also reduce current opportunities for regulatory arbitrage across different segments of the financial system. Beyond that, efforts should be made to ensure that competition is maintained in financial markets.Regulatory reforms, which would stimulate outreach and affect disadvantaged groups, require a move away from expensive special public financing that often fails to meet target groups, toward improved regulatory regimes that stimulate access. Present subsidies on some costly special programs, such as those for the rural sector, could be reduced in a phased program. Subsidies, mandatory lending targets, and measures that seek to curb market prices could perversely lead to reduced access over time. Examples of desirable regulatory reforms include a review of Brazil’s extensive regulatory and reporting requirements for microfinance, compared to what may be merited by its present non-deposit taking nature. Reliance on relatively low-cost credit could be gradually weaned, although alternative sources of funds may be needed and deposit-taking could be considered once the industry adopts mature microcredit practices.In microfinance, a series of new regulatory initiatives have been adopted, many positive. However, many other recent programs that rely on subsidies, lending limits, and mandated lending could limit the development of some credit markets. Care should be taken not to overburden financial institutions with the task of intermediation of special government assistance programs, which could detract from the establishment of orthodox credit practices. In the banking sector, several new regulations have been adopted recently that are moves in the right direction, including the simplification of processes for opening accounts, expanding the scope for correspondents to financial institutions, and establishing basic accounts. Bank branch opening could also be simplified. However, micro lending by microfinance institutions (MFIs) such as Civil Society Organizations with a Public Interest (OSCIPs) and Microcredit Companies (SCMs) could find their activities restricted by controls on lending interest rates. New policies in this area should be monitored in terms of cost and impact.For nonbanks there is a fragmentation of regulation in some areas such as factoring, which is outside the defined scope of financial sector activities, and which otherwise might help to contribute to the sector’s development. Such policies could extend beyond financial institutions themselves to the overall infrastructure for financial intermediation. A first concern in this area relates to creditor rights; regulatory reform can focus on attention to procedural delays in reaching judgments in credit disputes and examining the rationale of tax write-offs on uncollected small claims. To enhance credit reporting, regulations limiting information to five years, restricting the sharing of information, and limiting the use of positive information should be revaluated.

Judicial Review in Brazil. Nominal and Real

In this article, the Author discusses the system of judicial review in Brazil from a comparative viewpoint. One of the most distinctive features of the Brazilian legal system is the coexistence of decentralized and centralized models. Brazil has followed the decentralized American model in the sense that private parties bring constitutional issues before ordinary courts in regular judicial proceedings. At the same time, Brazil has another type of judicial review; that is, certain authorities have competence to bring actions in relation to constitutional issues directly to a special decision-making organ.

Ketamine as an Analgesic

Ketamine is a parenteral anesthetic agent that provides analgesic activity at sub-anesthetic doses. It is an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist with opioid receptor activity. Controlled studies and case reports on ketamine demonstrate efficacy in neuropathic and nociceptive pain. Because ketamine is a phencyclidine analogue, it has some of the psychological adverse effects found with that hallucinogen, especially in adults. Therefore, ketamine is not routinely used as an anesthetic in adult patients. It is a frequently used veterinary anesthetic, and is used more frequently in children than in adults. The psychotomimetic effects have prompted the DEA to classify ketamine as a Schedule III Controlled Substance. A review of the literature documents the analgesic use of ketamine by anesthesiologists and pain specialists in patients who have been refractory to standard analgesic medication regimens. Most reports demonstrate no or mild psychotomimetic effects when ketamine is dosed at sub-anesthetic doses. Patients who respond to ketamine tend to demonstrate dramatic pain relief that obviates the desire to stop treatment due to psychotomimetic effects (including hallucinations and extracorporeal experiences). Ketamine is approved by the FDA for intravenous and intramuscular administration. Use of this drug by the oral, intranasal, transdermal, rectal, and subcutaneous routes has been reported with analgesic efficacy in treating nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Ketamine also has been reported to produce opioid dose sparing and good patient acceptance. A transdermal formulation is currently under patent review in Brazil and an intranasal formulation is currently undergoing phase I/II clinical trials.