Does Economic Theory Matter in Shaping Banking Regulation? A Case-study of Italy (1861-1936)
We provide an assessment of the role of economic theory in orienting Italy’s banking legislation over eight decades. From the unification of the country (1861) to the introduction of the 1936 Banking Act, five regulatory regimes are mapped out. Whilst market discipline and self-regulation arguments characterized the first sub-period (1861-1892), the first biting issuing-bank regulation, which inaugurated the second regime (1893-1906), was a political compromise that ignored economists’ requests of a return to convertibility. The third sub-period (1907-1925) was punctuated by two banking crises: the first (1907) vindicated economists who had stressed the need of a LLR, but did not lead to any crisis-prevention regulation; the second (1921-23) confirmed – to no avail – the dangers congenital to bank-industry ties, pinpointed by some members of the profession. The following sub-period (1926-1930) was inaugurated by the first commercial bank regulation (1926) and responded to the economists’ call for restricting bank competition. The 1936 regulation, which marked the onset of the approximately five-decade long fifth regime, matured in a vacuum of economic debate.Financial crises were an important trigger in all the discussed regulatory episodes to which many players, amongst which economists, contributed with varying weights and roles according to the circumstances. Players’ public and private motivations towards regulation were relevant drivers. The existing political regime is not found to have been a discriminating factor in determining the influence economic theory had on bank legislation. More important was instead the degree of authority and legitimacy that economists as a professional category displayed at the time of reforming the regulation. Finally, the desirability of economic theory actually percolating into banking laws is discussed, although the historical evidence on the matter is not clear-cut.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 2 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ael|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:2:y:2012:i:1:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.