Abstract
Even more than transport, EU financial integration is often regarded as one of the pioneer flagship areas for strengthening the EU’s future growth and jobs. Financial integration is understood as a means to enhance the performance of EU economy by facilitating improved capital allocation and lower cost of capital, an improved intermediation of savings to investment, less exposure to external real and financial disturbances, enhanced economic cohesion, and capital inflows to the EU.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Under construction since 1973, it varies depending on the market segment (for excellent overviews of the history of European financial sector reform see Gottwald 2005; Puetter 2007). With the creation of the European Monetary Union and the introduction of the euro (two of the key drivers of European financial market integration) the integration of the wholesale financial markets has mainly been accelerated. The unsecured money markets are fully integrated, government bond yields and retail loan rates have converged, the corporate bond market has expanded, equity investment strategies have moved from country to sector based allocation, cross border bank deposits have increased, and the infrastructure is consolidating (e.g. Euronext). Retail markets, on the other hand, have not integrated to any great extent. Few cross-border mergers have occurred and national regulators are very protective of their local markets, secured money market have not been integrated, consolidation and restructuring in the banking sector is mainly at the domestic level, we find almost no European-wide retail products and direct cross-border provision of financial services to firms and individuals remain small.
- 2.
Hardacre and Kaeding (2011a) take a thorough look at the ‘old’ comitology system to situate the post- Lisbon regime with Articles 290 and 291 TFEU and to understand the scale of the changes that have taken place as from 1.12.2009, and 1.3.2011 respectively.
- 3.
Fragmentation in supervision has shown to be the source of major dangers. The case of AIG in the US is noteworthy. Nobody denies that the collapse was a result of a weak state by sate insurance regulatory system and of the absence of a single responsible supervisory body at the Federal level (de Larosière report 2009). Furthermore, the Iceland and Fortis cases show that the supervisory arrangements have not been optimal to contribute to a high degree of financial stability in the Single Market. Host Member States, in particular, largely have depended on the effectiveness of supervision carried out in the home Member State. In addition, single mistakes can have major consequences throughout the Single Market (de Larosière report 2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaeding, M. (2013). Implementing Flexible Directives across Member States. In: Towards an Effective European Single Market. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19684-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19684-8_3
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-19683-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-531-19684-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)