( such as greece ) are dealing with problems typical of developing countries, issues including incomplete land registries and an insufficient basic ability to collect taxes. this confusion in taxonomy complicates our discussion a great deal, especially in the years of the crisis and its aftermath. the question at the beginning of the crisis was : who in europe will prove to be most vulnerable to shocks? many believed it would be central and eastern european countries. but, in contrast to that prophecy, at the end of the day the countries that did not have to bail out any of their financial institutions were, with one exception ( malta ), located typically in the cee region. so it seems to me that gdp per capita, human development and industrial tradition are not the criteria driving the market ’ s classification of “ emerging ” economies. should euro membership automatically make a country “ developed ”? in other words, does giving up independent monetary policy make a country more “ stable ”? but why, then, isn ’ t bulgaria considered a developed country, when it holds a fixed exchange rate against the euro? why not kosovo and montenegro, which have adopted the euro unilaterally? much space has been devoted to the so - called decoupling debate, in which many experts 1 / 2 bis central bankers'speeches claimed that emerging countries were less affected by the global financial crisis. but with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that the gdp declines in emerging countries were, on average, just as steep as those experienced by developed countries. a part of the explanation, once again, lies in the confusing taxonomy : we see huge differences among individual emerging countries as well, even within brics. i suggest an analogy to the decoupling debate : we are now observing a “ brics decoupling ” to the power of two : only china and india have shown robust growth since the great recession. russia, brazil and south africa have been stagnating, each for its own specific reasons. but despite these differences, a common theme arises : emerging markets dependent on the production and export of raw materials ( russia, brazil and south africa serve as good examples ) are less resilient than countries dependent on vigorous labour force and innovations ( exemplified, within brics, by china and india ). there are also differences in resilience among the “ emerging ” countries of central europe. during the great recession, poland – a big country ( by central european standards ), less open and with greater potential

of developments such as bank consolidation, increased use of credit scoring and securitization, and the role of community development activities on the availability of credit to small businesses. moreover, underlying the congressional mandate to produce this report is a concern that small firms have more difficulty gaining access to credit than do large businesses. the source of this concern may be that lending to small businesses is generally considered riskier and more costly than lending to larger firms. for example, small businesses tend to be much more affected by swings in the economy and have a much higher failure rate than larger organizations. board of governors of the federal reserve system ( 2007 ), report to the congress on the availability of credit to small businesses ( 748 kb pdf ), submitted to the congress pursuant to section 2227 of the economic growth and regulatory paperwork reduction act of 1996 ( washington : board of governors, october ). in addition, lenders historically have had difficulty determining the creditworthiness of some applicants for small business loans. the high level of diversity across small firms, together with their widely varying uses of borrowed funds, has impeded the development of general standards for assessing applications for small business loans and has made evaluating such loans relatively expensive. lending to small businesses is further complicated by the fact that reliable information on the creditworthiness of a small business is often difficult to obtain because little, if any, public information exists about the performance of most small businesses. small businesses rarely issue publicly traded equity or debt securities, and many small businesses also lack the detailed balance sheets and other financial information used by lenders in making credit decisions. financial institutions, especially commercial banks, are thought to have an advantage in dealing with information problems. through interactions with a firm that uses its services, including the firm's owners and key employees, a financial institution can obtain information about the firm's activities, ownership, financial characteristics, and prospects that is important in deciding whether to extend credit and on what terms. employing what is often called " relationship finance, " banks and other financial intermediaries can use information gathered over time through long - term relationships with small businesses and other members of the local community to monitor the health of the small businesses to which they lend and to build appropriate terms into loan agreements. results from the board's 2003 survey of small business finances ( ssbf ) support the view that commercial banks have an advantage in lending to small businesses. the survey data show that, although small businesses obtain credit from a wide range of sources,