A distinctive aspect of the recent financial crises is that they emerged primarily in the industrial world. Since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis emerging countries have been therefore confronted with financial shocks triggered at the core of the international financial system, affecting the volatility of capital flows worldwide. Emerging countries’ dependence on capital and trade flows, combined with a large presence of foreign-owned banks, has been identified as a central driver of the cross-border transmission of these crises (see IMF, 2009). While historical events such as the Latin American debt crisis or the 1997 Asian financial crisis highlighted the importance of sound balance of payments and inflation targeting policies at the macroeconomic level, the global financial crisis has revealed the importance of weighing the costs and benefits of banking globalization. This is foremost important from a policy perspective, since emerging countries faced for the first time in decades an external shock in a context free of large local macroeconomic imbalances, having to adapt their traditional policy framework to new challenges. This has been emphasized, among others, by the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke. In particular, this changing scenario implied that microeconomic aspects involved in the cross-border transmission of shocks gained increasing momentum in the international policy debate (see for instance Freixas et al., 2015).

Das Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle (IWH) befasst sich als unabhängiges Wirtschaftsinstitut seit seiner Gründung 1992 insbesondere mit dem Strukturwandel. Dieses weite Themenfeld ist für die Zukunft der Wirtschaft auf nationaler wie internationaler Ebene hoch relevant – von Fragen des Wachstums und der Angleichung zwischen Ost und West über die Rolle des Finanzsystems, den Umgang mit Krisen auf europäischer Ebene bis hin zu Arbeitsmarkt- und Bildungsfragen.

Policies that foster the expansion of regional banking services can be an effective tool to enhance financial inclusion by facilitating the access to deposit services. Financial inclusion, in turn, can expand banks’ deposit base with positive spillovers for financial stability, both at the bank and country levels. Governments’ support to unconventional branching via correspondent banking, to the proportionality of regulation, and to the harmonization of banking services can provide the conditions to stimulate banks to reach customers that remain outside the financial system, especially in emerging countries. By encouraging these conditions within its Financial Inclusion Action Plan, the G20 could effectively link its financial inclusion and financial stability objectives within a consistent policy framework.

In Europe, the financial stability mandate generally rests at the national level. But there is an important exception. Since the establishment of the Banking Union in 2014, the European Central Bank (ECB) can impose stricter regulations than the national regulator. The precondition is that the ECB identifies systemic risks which are not adequately addressed by the macroprudential regulator at the national level. In this paper, we ask whether the drivers of systemic risk differ when applying a national versus a European perspective. We use market data for 80 listed euro-area banks to measure each bank’s contribution to systemic risk (SRISK) at the national and the euro-area level. Our research delivers three main findings. First, on average, systemic risk increased during the financial crisis. The difference between systemic risk at the national and the euro-area level is not very large, but there is considerable heterogeneity across countries and banks. Second, an exploration of the drivers of systemic risk shows that a bank’s contribution to systemic risk is positively related to its size and profitability. It decreases in a bank’s share of loans to total assets. Third, the qualitative determinants of systemic risk are similar at the national and euro-area level, whereas the quantitative importance of some determinants differs.

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, significant regulatory actions have been taken aimed at limiting risks emanating from banks’ trading activities. The goal of this article is to look at the alternative reforms in the US, the UK and the EU, specifically with respect to the role of proprietary trading. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows: First, the focus on a prohibition of proprietary trading, as reflected in the Volcker Rule in the US and in the current proposal of the European Commission (Barnier proposal), is inadequate. It does not necessarily reduce risk-taking and it is likely to crowd out desired trading activities, thereby possibly affecting financial stability negatively. Second, trading separation into legally distinct or ring-fenced entities within the existing banking organizations, as suggested under the Vickers proposal for the UK and the Liikanen proposal for the EU, is a more effective solution. Separation limits cross-subsidies between banking and proprietary trading and diminishes contagion risk, while still allowing for synergies and risk management across banking, non-proprietary trading, and proprietary trading.

We analyze the impact of the French 2012 financial transaction tax (FTT) on trading volumes, stock prices, liquidity, and volatility. We extend the empirical research by identifying FTT announcement and short-run treatment effects, which can distort difference-in-differences estimates. In addition, we consider long-run volatility measures that better fit the French FTT’s legislative design. While we find strong evidence of a positive FTT announcement effect on trading volumes, there is almost no statistically significant evidence of a long-run treatment effect. Thus, evidence of a strong reduction of trading volumes resulting from the French FTT might be driven by announcement effects and short-term treatment effects. We find evidence of an increase of intraday volatilities in the announcement period and a significant reduction of weekly and monthly volatilities in the treatment period. Our findings support theoretical considerations suggesting a stabilizing impact of FTTs on financial markets.

Die deutsche Konjunktur bleibt aufgrund der starken Binnennachfrage recht kräftig. Im Jahr 2017 wird die Zuwachsrate des Bruttoinlandsprodukts nach der neuen IWH-Prognose 1,3% betragen. Sie fällt damit etwa einen halben Prozentpunkt geringer aus als im Jahr 2016, dies liegt an einer geringeren Anzahl an Arbeitstagen und an einem negativen Wachstumsbeitrag des Außenhandels. Die Verbraucherpreisinflation bleibt mit 1,3% mäßig. Die Arbeitslosigkeit nimmt wohl etwas zu, dazu trägt bei, dass die Integration Geflüchteter in den Arbeitsmarkt langwierig ist.