The "Anglo-American" or "Anglo- Saxon" pattern of financial organization features a functional division of labor and a balance among three main, interrelated sectors: the banking system, the money market, and the securities market. This pattern is often contrasted with the "Continental European" or "German" pattern, in which banks dominate the financial system while the money and securities markets are relegated to minor, secondary roles. The advantages and disadvantages of each pattern of organization relative to the other are much studied and debated. Also discussed are the questions of whether today's globalization of finance (which is less unprecedented than many believe) will bring about a convergence of financial systems and, if so, in what direction. Financial historians have become interested in an additional question: why the two different patterns of financial organization emerged in history. Thus far, however, they have only scratched the surface in attempts to answer it. A reason for the limited progress in understanding why systemic differences emerged in history is that, while Anglo- Saxon and German systems may compete with each other in the real world, in the world of financial historians—be it the Anglo-Saxon, the Continental European, or any other division—the German model seemingly has carried the day. This is not meant to imply that financial historians have weighed the evidence and decided that the German bank-based pattern of financial organization is best, although some on both sides of the Atlantic would agree with such a contention.1 Rather, it is meant to suggest that banks everywhere have received the lion's share of attention from financial historians. I would hazard the guess, based on some years of experience, that there are 25 or 50 dissertations, articles, and books on the history of banks and banking for each one on the history of money and securities markets download
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar