Working Paper
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (15) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutschland (5)
- Corporate Governance (4)
- Frankreich (3)
- Großbritannien (3)
- financial system (3)
- pension system (3)
- risk allocation (3)
- Bank (2)
- Finanzierung (2)
- Interbankenabkommen (2)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (15) (remove)
Joseph E. Stiglitz (1943 - )
(2000)
Am 24.11.1999 gibt Joseph E. Stiglitz seinen vorzeitigen Rücktritt als Chief Economist und Senior Vice President der Weltbank zum Jahresende bekannt. Er will sich wieder ausschließlich der Forschung und Lehre widmen und kehrt auf seinen Lehrstuhl am Economics Department der Stanford University zurück. Stiglitzs Rückzug aus der aktiven Entwicklungspolitik erfolgt nicht ganz freiwillig. Er selbst kommentiert seinen Entschluß: „It has become obvious to me that it would be difficult to continue to speak out as forcefully and publicly as I have on a variety of issues and still remain as chief economist. Rather than muzzle myself, or be muzzled, I decided to leave.“ (New York Times, 1.12.1999). Seit geraumer Zeit galt seine öffentliche Kritik am Washington Consensus, dem ökonomischen Glaubensbekenntnis, auf das sich die politische Linie des US Treasury genauso stützt wie die Stabilisierungs- und Reformpolitik des IWF, als Dorn im Auge der Vertreter dieser Institutionen. Für sie war Stiglitz - so die Metapher der Financial Times vom 26.11.99 - „a veritable gadfly“, eine wahre Viehbremse, deren lästiges Summen aufgrund von Position und Intellekt nicht einfach ignoriert werden konnte. ...
We investigate the connection between corporate governance system configurations and the role of intermediaries in the respective systems from a informational perspective. Building on the economics of information we show that it is meaningful to distinguish between internalisation and externalisation as two fundamentally different ways of dealing with information in corporate governance systems. This lays the groundwork for a description of two types of corporate governance systems, i.e. insider control system and outsider control system, in which we focus on the distinctive role of intermediaries in the production and use of information. It will be argued that internalisation is the prevailing mode of information processing in insider control system while externalisation dominates in outsider control system. We also discuss shortly the interrelations between the prevailing corporate governance system and types of activities or industry structures supported.
The paper presents an empirical analysis of the alledged transformation of the financial systems in the three major European economies, France, Germany and the UK. Based on a unified data set developed on the basis of national accounts statistics, and employing a new and consistent method of measurement, the following questions are addressed: Is there a common pattern of structural change; do banks lose importance in the process of change; and are the three financial systems becoming more similar? We find that there is neither a general trend towards disintermediation, nor towards a transformation from bank-based to capital market-based financial systems, nor for a loss of importance of banks. Only in the case of France strong signs of transformation as well as signs of a general decline in the role of banks could be found. Thus the three financial systems also do not seem to become more similar. However, there is also a common pattern of change: the intermediation chains are lengthening in all three countries. Nonbank financial intermediaries are taking over a more important role as mobilizers of capital from the non-financial sectors. In combination with the trend towards securitization of bank liabilites, this change increases the funding costs of banks and may put banks under pressure. In the case of France, this change is so pronounced that it might even threaten the stability of the financial system.
Individual financial systems can be understood as very specific configurations of certain key elements. Often these configurations remain unchanged for decades. We hypothesize that there is a specific relationship between key elements, namely that of complementarity. Thus, complementarity seems to be an essential feature of financial systems. Intuitively speaking, complementarity exists if the elements of a (financial) system reinforce each other in terms of contributing to the functioning of the system. It is the purpose of this paper to provide an analytical clarification of the concept of complementarity. This is done by modeling financial systems as combinations of four elements: firm-specific human capital of an entrepreneur, the ability of a bank to restructure the borrower's firm in the case of distress, the possibility to appropriate private benefits from running the firm, and the bankruptcy law. A specific configuration of these elements constitutes one financial system. The bankruptcy law and the potential private benefits are treated as exogenous. They determine the bargaining power of the contracting parties in the case that recontracting occurs. In a two-stage game, the optimal values for the other elements are determined by the agents individually - by investing in human capital and restructuring skills, respectively - and jointly by writing, executing and possibly renegotiating a financing contract for the firm. The paper discusses the equilibria for different types of bankruptcy law and demonstrates that equilibria exhibit the sought-after feature of complementarity. Three particularly significant equilibria correspond to stylized accounts of the British, German and the US-American financial system, respectively.
The German corporate governance system has long been cited as the standard example of an insider-controlled and stakeholder-oriented system. We argue that despite important reforms and substantial changes of individual elements of the German corporate governance system the main characteristics of the traditional German system as a whole are still in place. However, in our opinion the changing role of the big universal banks in the governance undermines the stability of the corporate governance system in Germany. Therefore a breakdown of the traditional system leading to a control vacuum or a fundamental change to a capital market-based system could be in the offing.