Search results

This paper aims to investigate the scale and drivers of cross-border real estate development in Western Europe and Central and Eastern Europe.

Placing cross-border real estate development within the framework of foreign direct investment (FDI), conceptual complexities in characterizing the notional real estate developer are emphasized. Drawing upon a transaction database, this paper proxies cross-border real estate development flows with asset sales by developers.

Much higher levels of market penetration by international real estate developers are found in the less mature markets of Central and Eastern Europe. Analysis suggests a complex range of determinants with physical distance remaining a consistent barrier to cross-border development flows.

This analysis adds significant value in terms of understanding cross-border real estate development flows. In this study, a detailed examination of the issues based on a rigorous empirical analysis through gravity modelling is offered. The gravity framework is one of the most confirmed empirical regularities in international economics and commonly applied to trade, FDI, migration, foreign portfolio investment inter alia. This paper assesses the extent to which it provides useful insights into the pattern of cross-border real estate development flows.

This paper aims to investigate the association between country-level sustainability scores and cross-border bank-to-non-bank flows within countries.

The authors analyze cross-border banking flows into the real sector firms of 26 developed countries from 2006 to 2017. The authors use a dynamic panel ordinary least square along with an instrumental variable and a generalized method of moments regressions to test the relationship between country-level sustainability scores and cross-border banking flows. Additionally, the authors apply Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regression and non-parametric portfolio tests to obtain robust results.

The impact of country-level sustainability scores on cross-border banking flows is positive and significant. This finding is consistent with the signaling theory, which states that a country’s sustainability score is a signal to attract more international fund flows. Notably, the authors deduce that environmental sustainability is more important than the social and governance pillars.

The findings indicate that the real sector firms located in countries having higher sustainability scores can receive more international bank flows. Consequently, policymakers should focus more on country-level sustainability investments to improve the financing of resident firms.

Policymakers should focus more on country-level sustainability investments to improve the financing of resident firms.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no existing study has investigated the signaling function of country-level sustainability scores in the cross-border banking flow conjecture. By investigating this relationship for real sector firms, this study portrays how the non-banking sector can benefit from such a policy that promotes sustainable practices at the country level.

Companies, governments and individuals are using data to create new services such as apps, artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT). These data-driven services rely on large pools of data and a relatively unhindered flow of data across borders (few market access or governance barriers). The current approach to governing cross-border data flows through trade agreements and has not led to binding, universal or interoperable rules governing the use of data. The purpose of this article is to explain the new role of data in trade and to explain why data in trade is different from trade in other goods and services. We then suggest a new approach at the national and international levels.

The author uses a mixed methods approach to examine what the literature says about data as a traded good and or service, examines metaphors regarding the role of data in the economy, and then examines whether or not data is really “traded.”

Many countries do not know how to regulate data driven services. There is no consensus on what the appropriate regulatory environment looks like, nor is there a consensus on what are the barriers to cross-border data flows and what constitutes legitimate domestic regulation.

This is the first article to explain both the unique nature of data and the ineffectiveness of the trade system to address that distinctiveness.

This paper aims to focus on capital-related macroprudential policies in the context of recent policy discussions on the removal of barriers to the mobility of capital and liquidity of cross-border banks in the European Union (EU).

This study first discusses the link between financial stability and internal resource mobility of cross-border banks. Then, it examines past heterogeneity in structural capital buffers as key macroprudential capital instruments applied in the EU and relate them to costs of policy action, degree of foreign penetration and membership in the Banking Union.

Observed phase-in patterns of structural capital buffers in the EU are broadly consistent with costs of policy action, degree of foreign penetration and membership in the Banking Union as potential factors. The process of financial integration could be further enhanced through reduced uncertainty in the application of macroprudential policies that constrain capital mobility of cross-border banks.

This paper anchors macroprudential policies into a wider discussion on the mechanism and implications of ring-fencing in the EU over time. It discusses two policy areas, macroprudential policies and proposals for deeper financial integration, that share the same financial stability objective but tend to emphasize different implications of the mobility of capital and liquidity of cross-border banks in the EU. The study provides a discussion of potential implications of the recent adoption of the CRRII/CRDV legislation for future heterogeneity of macroprudential policies in the EU.

This study aims to test the impact of different institutional quality indicators on two modes of foreign direct investment (FDI)-greenfield investment and cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) for a sample of 110 countries over the period 2003–2017.

The authors develop a model of well-known FDI determinants, such as market size and potential, openness, the value of the national currency and the quality of institutions. The authors examine one-by-one five different institutional factors: law and order, investment profile of the host country, control of corruption (anti-corruption); democratic accountability, and government stability, applying a generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator that assures no endogeneity and reverse causality of the key explanatory variables.

The results point out the fact that fertile institutional conditions for attracting greenfield FDI to developing countries require law and order, good investment conditions and a state of democracy, but not necessarily tight control of corruption and a stable government. On the other hand, the appropriate institutional environment for attracting cross-border M&A sales flows to developing countries includes strong law and order, good investment conditions, strict control of corruption and strong democratic accountability. The results for developed countries show overall smaller importance of institutions as a determinant of both types of FDI.

This is the first study to analyze the differentiated determinants of the two modes of investment. The study holds implications for crafting two different policies for attracting greenfield FDI and M&A sales.

We compare the aggregated international assets and liabilities of banks that report to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) to establish their gross and net international exposures during recent episodes of financial crisis. Initially we consider these positions worldwide and then focus on the cross-border flows within Europe, considered in terms of core and peripheral countries. These gross and net asset–liability positions are both time-varying and respond to crisis periods, through better matching of international assets and liabilities as well as the realignment of asset positions to reduce balance sheet risks. These conclusions are consistent with other studies that utilise international banking flow data, while the European experience highlights the diversity of international position taking. This is due to the complexity of managing risks within the eurozone (EZ) and peripheral countries, and those emerging European countries that retain legacy currencies.

The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the major issues relating to the conceptualization and operationalization of industry globalization.

Globalized industries have four important characteristics: cross-border product flows, cross-border capital flows, dispersal of global value chains and global competition. However, lack of availability of data limits our ability to develop an operationalization that encompasses all these four aspects of globalization.

The authors identify some of the most important factors driving industry globalization as well as the major impediments to globalization.

Although the term “globalization” has attained a nearly “taken for granted” status, its meaning is rather vaguely specified and is often context dependent. This paper delineates the domain of the construct and identifies many of the practical issues in operationalizing the construct.

Current events have led academics and practitioners to rethink cross‐border M&A challenges in a tumultuous global business environment and the role of advisors in supporting the deals. The article aims to discuss current trend in M&A and presents some cases to evidence the relevance of advisors’ role in cross‐border M&A.

Exploratory field interviews were conducted with M&A advisors, as well as a diligent scanning of local and international articles to evidence advisors’ roles in cross‐border M&A

This article evidences new direction in cross‐border M&A research for reinterpreting advisors’ role in facing them.

The economic and financial crisis, especially the sovereign debt crisis, discovered many deficiencies and weaknesses in the banking sector in the European Union (EU). The need for special surveillance and supervision of cross-border banking cooperation and termination of the toxic link between sovereign debt and banking sector have accelerated the process of forming and establishing a Banking Union (BU). An integrated financial framework has been established in which the European Central Bank (ECB) through the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) has a key role and the responsibility for the overall supervision of the banking sector of the euro zone. The Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and schemes of the Single Deposit Guarantee Mechanism (SDGM) are under the national supervisory authorities while the European Banking Authority (EBA) is responsible for developing the Single Rules. From the new architecture is expected the preservation of the single market and a common currency, breaking “toxic connections” between sovereign debt and banks, mitigation and removal of financial instability and economic growth. The research shows that the BU together with the ECB in a certain sense, also contributes to the normalization of credit and financial conditions in the single mark. Estimates through SSM, conducted by the ECB and the EBA, during, 2014 and 2015 on 107 banks in 21 countries indicate progress toward solvency and resilience of the banking system of the euro area. Despite some initial success the entire project BU seems to have missed on opportunities, resulted in late reactions, and was too complex to be feasible. The political will of national governments to give up sovereignty over its banking sector and transfer competencies to the supranational institutions is a key factor in the success or failure of a BU. It seems so but past experience indicates that there is no political willingness to solve problems. Mainly most of the government avoids cleaning a hidden “skeleton in closets” due to lack of means for recapitalization while some are trying for loans from the ECB to help their banks. The ECB plays a key oversight role at the EU level and has too much power, which can cause risks caused by conflicting goals. The ECB is losing the role of the final refuge of liquidity, which is the main disadvantage of a BU. The SSM is susceptible to criticism due to difficulty in operation because of slow incorporation of European legislation into national law. Slow implementation carries risks of fragmentation of the market, regardless of the responsibility of the ECB. The financial capacity of the temporary agreement with the SRM is insufficient in solving the crisis of more banks while procedural application is complex and time-consuming. Planned backstop with a centralized resource is a resolution that is insufficient for solving the failure of big systemic banks, which are too big to bail. The heterogeneity of the existing Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) and the banking systems of the member states of the euro zone caused controversy in terms of setting of common insurance schemes. The procedures for the recovery and resolution of critical banks are problematic.