Search Results

This chapter looks at the division of power and accountability structures in the European Banking Union, the principal emphasis being on political accountability. Other types of accountability are also examined where appropriate (e.g. budgetary, administrative, or legal accountability). The discussion begins with the division of competence between the national and EU authorities in the Banking Union. This is followed by examination of the role of the European and national parliaments, as well as the Council and Eurogroup, in holding the European Central Bank, the Single Resolution Board, and the national supervisory and resolution authorities to account for their actions in this area. The focus then shifts to the intra-institutional balance of power and the emerging patterns of geographical fragmentation. The penultimate section of the chapter focuses on access to information, which is crucial for all forms of accountability. The final section of this chapter offers a snapshot of some of the features of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) which may hamper the effectiveness of the Banking Union and place its output legitimacy in jeopardy. The chapter concludes with proposals on how to strengthen accountability and transparency in the Banking Union.

If post-communist countries realized marketized bank–state ties through transition and international pressure to privatize their banks with foreign capital, western Eurozone states have more recently come under pressure to follow suit. European Banking Union centralized bank supervision and introduced a single resolution board at the expense of national authority. Thus under banking union, national regulatory and supervisory forbearance was curbed; barriers to banking market entry were no longer the purview of national authorities; disproportionate bank lending to one’s own sovereign would be discouraged; and bank bondholders, creditors and depositors—i.e. market actors—paid the price for bank failures first, before governments and taxpayers. While European Banking Union put the euro on stronger foundations, it also curbed national economic policy discretion and limited tools for adjustment. Taking Italy, Portugal, Spain and Germany as examples, this chapter explains why and in what policy areas Eurozone states’ sovereignty clashed with banking union.

European states have a long history of banking sector nationalism. Control over credit allocation is believed to contribute to economic development and competitiveness, insulation from external economic shocks, and control over monetary policy. We demonstrate the dramatic loss in domestic control over banks created by European Banking Union and explain the sudden shift from national to supranational banking supervision as follows. In the background, ongoing economic liberalization has made banking sector protectionism more costly, and because many large banks have internationalized, they now prefer centralized European regulation and supervision. In the foreground, we find it is primarily the European Commission and the European Central Bank that have pushed European Banking Union (EBU) ahead. Contrary to accepted wisdom, Germany has not been able to limit EBU to a great extent. Moreover, the Commission and the ECB have managed at critical junctures to isolate Germany to secure that country’s assent to controversial measures.

The study’s findings from Europe have implications for other major powers, including that: (1) banking sector protectionism became increasingly costly given other liberalizing trends; (2) foreign-owned bank subsidiaries can provide more stable funding in crises than alternative foreign or even domestic bank activity; (3) foreign domination in finance limited catching up in the global economy, but in fact few states showed the capacity to exploit domestic banks for national goals; and (4) centralized bank governance through European Banking Union weakened bank–state ties in Europe, and elevated the role of markets there. This chapter analyzes the relevance of the findings for the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). China is perhaps the clearest case of a country struggling to both liberalize and retain the economic policy autonomy associated with a largely state-controlled financial system. The conclusion specifies the broader transformation in bank–state ties, but also its limits.

Creditor responses to sovereign debt crises suggest that they view such crises as problems of debt management on the part of the countries facing debt repayment difficulties. Thus, for example, debt relief and restructuring mechanisms coordinated by the international financial institutions place emphasis on correcting perceived imprudent debt management through a series of economic adjustment measures. Little attention, if any, is paid to addressing the underlying causes of the debt crises. This chapter examines the various causes of sovereign debt crises and the role that debt management plays in their eruption or in addressing them in a sustainable manner.