Explore the vast range of titles available.

The study investigates the role of market-based finance and public financial support in aiding scaling up by European SMEs. First, we analyse the impact of public loan guarantee schemes on firms’ access to market-based instruments. Second, we study whether firms’ access to market-based finance and the use of public grants boost a firm’s (ex post) growth. The analysis is based on a unique and original dataset of about 31,000 Eurozone firms in the 2009–2020 period. The study finds that firms’ access to market-based finance is (i) driven positively by the previous use of public financial support schemes and (ii) has a positive effect on subsequent growth. In particular, SMEs display relatively higher growth in fixed assets, while for large firms, growth is mainly driven by current assets. Moreover, SME issuers using public grants achieve significantly stronger growth than comparable firms.

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of small and medium enterprise (SME) access to capital markets across Eurozone countries. First, we determine which factors—at firm and country level—influence the likelihood of SME access to market-based finance. Second, we construct an index of market suitability to indicate the percentage of firms potentially fit for market-based finance. Our results suggest that while several Eurozone countries have realised SMEs’ ‘potential’ for capital market financing, a large number of firms fit for market-based finance remain unexploited. We also find that overall business conditions—measured by GDP growth, the development degree of domestic financial markets and the quality of the legal and judicial enforcement system—considerably influence a firm’s market suitability. In the studied period (2009–2014), macro-economic and institutional factors tended to reduce the likelihood of SMEs accessing market-based finance in most countries in our sample.

The paper analyses the specificities and drivers of the shadow banking (SB) system in eleven Central and Eastern European (CEE) EU member states for 2004-2019. It contributes to the understanding of the CEE SB in terms of how the structural features of the financial and banking system determine its development. The SB system of the region is much smaller, and its structure is less complex and significantly different from that of developed European countries: the role of capital market intermediaries is smaller, while the role of nonbank lenders is larger. Specific features of the CEE financial system include the dominance of banks, the relative underdevelopment of capital markets, the dominance of foreign ownership, and, until the mid-2010s, the reliance on foreign interbank funding in several countries. Indeed, as the results of our panel regression show, regional specificities in the structural characteristics of financial systems are key for the development of the SB.

The collapse of the global financial industry in 2008 and the subsequent decay of most Western economies into a period of prolonged economic stagnation have represented a springboard for the progressive growth of alternative channels of financial intermediation. The reluctance and inability of mainstream banks in the post-crisis years to provide credit facilities to the real economy, most critically to start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises, propelled the latest wave of financial innovation, this time under the guise of FinTech. Much has been written on the rise of FinTech in recent years, but there is still insufficient clarity about the benefits that this phenomenon is bringing to the real economy and the potential risks that can arise from its growth. This paper maps the development of FinTech lending platforms in the UK and reconceptualises the rationale for their growth. In doing that, this study focuses on the structure and operation of the main UK platforms, recognising that while some are effectively banks that adopt a technology-based business model, many platforms operate under the P2P business model. The question then is to assess the policy and regulatory approach that is relevant to UK P2P platforms. Interestingly, the emergence of P2P securitisation raises a number of regulatory and policy questions, because longer intermediation chains typical of securitisation may well defy the social and economic purposes under which the idea of P2P developed. Furthermore, questions of systemic risk inevitably resurface in these types of transactions. Ensuing problems related to the best way to regulate these new channels of financial intermediation lead to critically evaluate the initiatives launched by the UK FCA, initially under the Innovation Hub, and more recently under the consultation for a new regulatory framework.

This paper examines the performance of new online lending markets that rely on nonexpert individuals to screen their peers’ creditworthiness. We find that these peer lenders predict an individual’s likelihood of defaulting on a loan with 45% greater accuracy than the borrower’s exact credit score (unobserved by the lenders, who only see a credit category). Moreover, peer lenders achieve 87% of the predictive power of an econometrician who observes all standard financial information about borrowers. Screening through soft or nonstandard information is relatively more important when evaluating lower-quality borrowers. Our results highlight how aggregating over the views of peers and leveraging nonstandard information can enhance lending efficiency. This paper was accepted by Amit Seru, finance.

This article on public equity financing for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) complements earlier OECD work on market-based finance for SMEs. The development of this market segment could promote investment in SMEs and, together with securitisation and other non-bank debt financing instruments, encourage an enhanced allocation of risk and risk taking, and thus support growth. Despite the benefits of public SME equity, its share is small and an equity gap exists for risk financing more generally. A number of important impediments to the wider use of public equities for SMEs are identified, such as admission cost and listing requirements, lack of liquidity, educational gaps, limited ecosystems, and tax treatment, all of which require attention by regulators and policy makers alike.

There are major gaps in the measurement of the adoption and stringency of countries’ climate actions and policies, notably in a manner coherent across countries, time, sectors, and instrument types. The Climate Actions and Policies Measurement Framework (CAPMF) aims to fill this gap. It is the most extensive structured and internationally harmonised climate mitigation policy database available to date. Currently, it comprises 130 policy variables, grouped into 56 policy instruments and other climate actions, covering 50 countries and the EU-27 as a block for the period 1990–2022. Results indicate that countries strengthened their climate action between 1990 and 2022 in terms of policy adoption and policy stringency, although at different paces. Policy adoption, policy stringency and policy mixes changed over time and differ substantially across countries and country groups. Importantly, regression analysis suggests a significant relationship between stronger climate action and greater emission reductions. Mitigation policies helped reduce emissions by about 12% in the last 5 years; most of this effect is attributable to a reduction in the energy intensity of the economy, and only residually to other factors such as a reduction of GHG intensity.

With reference to the existing literature, this paper investigates the heterogenous effect on the attainment of circular economy by government policies in the form of government stringency and government financial support, environmentally related innovations, and human capital. The study was carried out in 26 countries of the OECD from 2010–2019 using the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood (PPML) model and data from Eurostat and OECD datasets. Indicators for the independent variables were non-market-based stringency, market-based subsidy, gross domestic expenditure on R&D by source of funds, R&D expenditure intramural, national expenditure on environmental protection environmental protection, environmentally related patents with co-inventors, and employees involved in education and training. The results revealed that a significant effect of government stringency in the form of non-market-based stringency, environmental innovation, government financing on R&D, and national expenditure on environmental protection have significant impact on the attainment of circular economy within OECD countries. Surprisingly, there was no significant effect of the market-based subsidy on domestic material consumption (dmc). We conclude that a blend of government policies is the effective means of achieving a circular economy.

This paper examines which factors determine the pricing of loans for LBOs, using a worldwide sample of 11,111 loans closed in the 2000–2016 period. Our findings are consistent with the hypotheses that loans for LBOs extended to borrowers in market- versus bank-based financial systems are differently priced, and that law and institutional characteristics are important determinants of spreads for deals closed in market-oriented countries. Despite LBO loan pricing differing significantly in normal versus crisis times, loans extended to borrowers in market-based financial systems have higher spreads than those where banks play a major role. Our results also support the hypothesis of tranching as a mechanism of reducing spreads by completing financial markets and mitigating informational asymmetries. Finally, a robust convex relationship between spread and maturity is found, suggesting higher market competition by banks and investors for standard, medium-term maturities.

The study re-examines the complementarity hypothesis of bank versus market-based financial structure in developing countries during periods of heightened systemic risks in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) context. The system Generalised Method of Moments (system GMM) was used to re-examine the hypothesis using annual data from 2000 to 2020. We find evidence of a negative relationship between bank-based financial structure and market-based financial structure during the period of heightened systemic risk. We argue that the result could be explained by the amplitude of systemic risk during financial crises and economic policy uncertainty that is higher in bank-based than in market-based financial structure. The finding of this study brings to the fore, the importance of mainstreaming policies that moderate the distortionary effect of systemic risks on the evolution of the financial structure.