Medienanfragen richten Sie bitte an:
Telefon: +49 345 7753-720
Email: presse@iwh-halle.de
Team Kommunikation
„Reicht nicht“: Ökonomen nehmen Klingbeils Booster auseinanderOliver HoltemöllerBerliner Morgenpost, 5. Juni 2025
In this article, I review the theoretical and empirical literature on the effects of public and private equity markets on firm behavior, emphasizing the consequences that emerge from disclosure requirements, ownership concentration, and degree of firm standardization. While publicly listed firms benefit from a lower cost of capital, enabling increased focus on commercialization and profitability, they are less suited to pursue long-term risky investments. Privately held firms are better equipped to pursue innovative projects but face a higher cost of capital, which limits their growth. Complementarities between public and private equity markets can mitigate their respective limitations. Innovation in private equity markets supplements commercialization efforts of public firms, and demand for innovation by public firms accelerates entrepreneurial activity in private equity markets. I conclude by discussing directions for future research.
We use project-level information for the largest regional economic development program in German history to study how government subsidies to firms affect credit markets. We identify credit market responses by considering both, bank lending and firm borrowing during 1998-2019. We find that subsidies lead to larger lending volumes without crowding out credit to non-subsidized firms. Banks that are more exposed to subsidized firms exhibit moderately higher credit risk though. Firm subsidies support lending especially when credit constraints are elevated during the years of the financial crisis.
We give an overview of the "German model" of industrial relations. We organize our review by focusing on the two pillars of the model: sectoral collective bargaining and firm-level codetermination. Relative to the United States, Germany outsources collective bargaining to the sectoral level, resulting in higher coverage and the avoidance of firm-level distributional conflict. Relative to other European countries, Germany makes it easy for employers to avoid coverage or use flexibility provisions to deviate downwards from collective agreements. The greater flexibility of the German system may reduce unemployment, but may also erode bargaining coverage and increase inequality. Meanwhile, firm-level codetermination through worker board representation and works councils creates cooperative dialogue between employers and workers. Board representation has few direct impacts owing to worker representatives' minority vote share, but works councils, which hold a range of substantive powers, may be more impactful. Overall, the German model highlights tensions between efficiency-enhancing flexibility and equity-enhancing collective action.
We examine how banks manage carbon transition risk by selling loans given to polluting borrowers to less regulated shadow banks in securitization markets. Exploiting the election of Donald Trump as an exogenous shock that reduces carbon risk, we find that banks’ securitization decisions are sensitive to borrowers’ carbon footprints. Banks are more likely to securitize brown loans when carbon risk is high but swiftly change to keep these loans on their balance sheets when carbon risk is reduced after Trump’s election. Importantly, securitization enables banks to offer lower interest rates to polluting borrowers but does not affect the supply of green loans. Our findings are more pronounced among domestic banks and banks that do not display green lending preferences. We discuss how securitization can weaken the effectiveness of bank climate policies through reducing banks’ incentives to price carbon risk.
