Do financial sector reforms necessarily result in expansion of credit to the private sector? How does bank ownership affect the availability of credit to the private sector? Empirical evidence is somewhat mixed on these issues. We use the Indian experience with liberalization of the financial sector to inform this debate. Using bank-level data from 1991-2007, we ask whether public and private banks deployed resources freed up by reduced state preemption to increase credit to the private sector. We find that even after liberalization, public banks allocated a larger share of their assets to government securities than did private banks. Crucially, we also find that public banks were more responsive in allocating relatively more resources to finance the fiscal deficit even during periods when state pre-emption (measured in terms of the requirement to hold government securities as a share of assets) formally declined. These findings suggest that in developing countries, where alternative channels of financing may be limited, government ownership of banks, combined with high fiscal deficits, may limit the gains from financial liberalization.

A study of 53 countries during 1980-95 finds that financial liberalization increases the probability of a banking crisis, but less so where the institutional environment is strong. In particular, respect for the rule of law, a low level of corruption, and good contract enforcement are relevant institutional characteristics. the data also show that, after liberalization, financially repressed countries tend to have improved financial development even if they experience a banking crisis. This is not true for financially restrained countries. This paper’s results support a cautious approach to financial liberalization where institutions are weak, even if macroeconomic stabilization has been achieved.

We examine the short- and long-run effects of financial liberalization on capital markets. To do so, we construct a new comprehensive chronology of financial liberalization in 28 mature and emerging market economies since 1973. We also construct an algorithm to identify booms and busts in stock market prices. Our results indicate that financial liberalization is followed by more pronounced boom-bust cycles in the short run. However, financial liberalization leads to more stable markets in the long run. Finally, we analyze the sequencing of liberalization and institutional reforms to understand the contrasting short- and long-run effects of liberalization.

This paper presents recent trends in bank ownership across countries and summarizes the evidence regarding the implications of bank ownership structure for bank performance and competition, financial stability, and access to finance. The evidence reviewed suggests that foreign-owned banks are more efficient than domestic banks in developing countries, promote competition in host banking sectors, and help stabilize credit when host countries face idiosyncratic shocks. But there are tradeoffs, since foreign-owned banks can transmit external shocks and might not always expand access to credit. The record on the impact of government bank ownership suggests few benefits, especially for developing countries.

The early start of the process of bank restructuring and privatization in Hungary provides a longer and richer amount of evidence than that available for any other transition economy. Majnoni, Shankar, and Varhegyi analyze the dynamics of bank restructuring in Hungary with a focus on the role played by foreign ownership. They explore the performance over time of foreign-owned Hungarian banks and study the extent to which efficiency gains are affected by the chosen acquisition strategy-strategic acquisition in contrast with investment in a newly established bank (greenfield investment) - or by the management style adopted after the acquisition. The authors supplement previous results on the effects of foreign bank ownership in three ways. First, they explicitly consider the time span required for the change of ownership to affect bank performance. Second, the authors explore how important the chosen acquisition strategy is for the success of an acquisition. And third, they study how relevant the adopted management style is to this end, as proxied by the degree of reliance on foreign management.This paper - a product of the Financial Sector Network - is part of a larger effort to study the effects of financial liberalization.

The financial liberalization thesis emerged in the 1970s and has been of considerable importance ever since, not merely in terms of its theoretical influence but, perhaps more importantly, in terms of its impact on policy makers and policy debates. Although it has encountered increasing scepticism over the years, it nevertheless had a relatively early impact on development policy, which still continues unabated, through the work of the IMF and the World Bank. The latter two institutions, perhaps in their traditional role as promoters of what were claimed to be free market conditions, were keen to encourage financial liberalization policies as part of more general reforms or stabilization programmes. This book explores what we have learned from the vast experience of the theoretical and policy aspects of the financial liberalization.