IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Universal Banking, Intertemporal Smoothing and European Financial Integration

Listed author(s):
  • Franklin Allen
  • Douglas Gale

As international financial systems become increasingly integrated, the need to reform each country's system has become clear. How to reform those systems is a hotly debated policy issue. Much of this debate has centered on universal banking and the relationship between banks and financial markets. These issues have particular importance for the European Union. The stated goal of creating a single European financial system, without any barriers between member countries, implies a movement toward a single kind of financial system. Should a market system be the goal or would a German-style intermediated system be more desirable? The theories that have been invoked to justify many of the moves to market-based systems are based on traditional neoclassical models. Competition is thought to be desirable because it leads to increased efficiency. Opening up new financial markets is thought to be desirable because it offers increased risk-sharing opportunities. Much of the financial reform that has occurred in countries such as France and Spain has been concerned with moving away from a German-style intermediated system and allowing access to global financial markets. In doing this they gain the advantages of cross-sectional risk sharing. However, they may be losing the advantages of intertemporal smoothing and other forms of risk sharing. It may be that this change is desirable, but it is important that the trade-off be properly understood before moving in this direction. This is particularly true for Germany, where the potential already exists for a system of intertemporal smoothing. Once the move to a market-based system has been made, it is much more difficult to regain the advantages of an intermediated system. The authors identify two types of financial systems. A market-based system promotes cross-sectional risk sharing. An intermediary-based system promotes intertemporal risk smoothing. Which system is best in a particular situation depends on the degree of homogeneity in each generation. According to this view, it is not immediately clear that a move towards a single European financial system will lead to an improvement in welfare. The parts of the European Union which currently have intermediary-based financial systems such as Germany, may well be made worse off because there will be disintermediation and possibilities for intertemporal smoothing may be eliminated. The European Union is not the only place where the issue of financial integration is an important one. The Clinton administration has made it a priority to encourage the Japanese to open their financial system and allow foreign competition. Just as the analysis above suggests the German financial system might be damaged by the move towards a single market in the European Union, the effectiveness of the Japanese financial system might also be reduced by such a change. Similarly, with NAFTA and the extension of this free trade zone to the rest of the Americas, it is again not immediately clear that moving towards a single financial market will benefit all countries.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Paper provided by Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania in its series Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers with number 95-20.

in new window

Date of creation: Mar 1995
Handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:95-20
Note: This paper is only available in hard copy
Contact details of provider: Postal:
3301 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, 3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104.6367

Phone: 215.898.1279
Fax: 215.573.8757
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:95-20. 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: (Thomas Krichel)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.