The main task of the financial intermediation system indicated by Amable [2003] is to provide enterprises with funds to finance their economic activity. The financial intermediation system is an institutional area, also distinguished in many other studies on the models of capitalism [Mykhnenko, 2005, Zielenkiewicz, 2013, Bohle and Greskovits, 2012, Hall and Soskice, 2001, Coates, 2000, Hall and Gingerich, 2009]. These systems are defined as centralized, if the banking system plays the most important role in them (as financial intermediaries), or decentralized, when this function is primarily performed by the capital market. The analyses relate to the size, significance and share of both these segments in the national financial intermediation systems. The study also included financing from abroad in the form of direct investments.
Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, moving from a centrally planned economy to a market economy, faced the necessity to build a financial intermediation system from the basis (or rebuilt an existing one), so they could choose a model, which they considered to be the most appropriate [Babos, 2010, Bohle and Greskovits, 2012]. It is worth mentioning that an in-depth discussion on this subject was rather not conducted. The CEE countries simply implemented a set of recommendations prepared by experts from Western Europe and the United States [Rapacki, 2009]. This group of countries differs in this respect from the countries that have previously joined the European Union, because the financial systems functioning there is the result of long-term development and evolution.
This study rejects the idea of creating a separate category for the economies of CEE countries, that is, Dependent Market Economies, proposed by Nölke and Vliegenthart [2009]. In order to identify models of capitalism in selected 11 countries from CEE (CEE11; Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia), four countries of Western Europe were selected, representing four European models of capitalism identified by Amable [2003]: Anglo-Saxon model—the United Kingdom; Mediterranean model—Spain; Continental model—Germany and Scandinavian/Nordic model—Sweden. The reference countries were selected arbitrarily on the basis of the author’s expert knowledge and researches presented by Amable [2003] and Próchniak et al. [2016]. Literature review, expert knowledge and analysis of information available in databases allowed to select six variables to conduct the analysis:
[DCPS]—domestic credit to private sector (% gross domestic product [GDP], World Bank, 2017) [FDI]—foreign direct investments, calculated as the difference between average direct investment inflows and average direct investment outflows from 2004 to 2006 and 2013 to 2015, respectively (% of GDP; own calculations based on World Bank, 2017) [MIPFA]—the sum of mutual fund assets, insurance company assets and pension fund assets (all of them in % GDP, own calculations based on World Bank, 2017) [GPEA]—gross portfolio equity assets (% GDP, World Bank 2017) [SMC]—stock market capitalization (% GDP, World Bank 2017) [BAC-5]—assets of the five largest banks to the assets of all banks (World Bank 2017).
The first three indicators, that is, [DCPS], [FDI] and [MIPFA] are treated as input variables, and the remaining three, that is, [GPEA], [SMC] and [BAC-5] are output variables. They represent both resources and financial flows appearing in the analyzed economies.
For each variable, a partitive coefficient of similarity was calculated. It shows the similarity between the CEE11 country and the selected country from Western Europe. If its value is 100, it means that the CEE11 country has the same value of variable as the reference country. Hence there is a complete resemblance. However, if the value of the partitive similarity coefficient is equal to 0, it should be understood that these countries show a complete lack of similarity, because the value of the variable for the CEE11 country is outside the following range (regardless of the direction of disparity):
If the value for a given variable is between 0 and 100, then the partitive similarity coefficient is calculated in proportion to the distance between the value of the variable for the reference country and the limit value in this range.
Based on the calculated partitive similarity coefficients, similarity hexagons are constructed. They are used to compare the CEE11 countries to the reference countries of Western Europe. The tops of hexagons represent variables describing the area of financial system. The greater the hexagon area (field), the greater the similarity of countries in a given area. From the six partial similarity coefficients obtained for each CEE11 country in relation to four reference countries, the arithmetic mean is calculated. It is treated as a synthetic similarity coefficient.
It can be stated, in general, that financial intermediation system in the CEE11 countries in 2005 was the most similar to the Continental model, represented by Germany (Table 1). The Mediterranean model was the second most similar to these economies. But it should be emphasized that the differences between values of similarity coefficients for these two models are low for all CEE11 countries (usually 0.8–1.6 pp, regardless of the direction). The similarity in this respect to other countries/models is much lower.
Coefficients of similarity—financial system (2005)
Bulgaria | 36.0 | 37.6 | 14.4 | 13.6 |
Croatia | 60.8 | 59.9 | 35.7 | 32.1 |
Czech Republic | 56.4 | 55.4 | 31.1 | 26.4 |
Estonia | 56.7 | 51.1 | 42.7 | 20.4 |
Hungary | 57.4 | 56.4 | 32.1 | 35.4 |
Latvia | 56.8 | 55.9 | 31.7 | 33.3 |
Lithuania | 62.9 | 57.2 | 39.0 | 27.2 |
Poland | 49.7 | 48.8 | 27.0 | 28.0 |
Romania | 46.5 | 45.7 | 21.7 | 24.5 |
Slovakia | 50.3 | 49.4 | 25.2 | 26.2 |
Slovenia | 62.0 | 61.1 | 36.8 | 37.3 |
Own calculations.
The
As a result of the analyses it can be concluded that
The
The
In the area of financial intermediation,
The similarity coefficients for
After 9 years, the situation in the CEE11 countries had changed significantly. In almost all cases, the similarity coefficient to Germany increased. However, changes completed in the financial intermediation brought most countries even closer to the institutional architecture characterizing Spain, hence the Mediterranean model. These were: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. Only four countries—Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia—still showed the greatest similarity to Germany. The differences between similarity coefficients for these two reference countries were usually small, but the shift toward the Mediterranean model was clearly visible. The smallest similarity—just like in 2005—could be seen in case of the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian models (Table 2).
Coefficients of similarity—financial system (2014)
Bulgaria | 45.2 | 48.4 | 12.7 | 24.1 |
Croatia | 72.8 | 66.9 | 36.5 | 33.8 |
Czech Republic | 61.0 | 64.2 | 24.4 | 23.0 |
Estonia | 72.4 | 66.5 | 35.0 | 28.1 |
Hungary | 61.6 | 63.8 | 25.2 | 29.1 |
Latvia | 61.0 | 64.3 | 24.6 | 34.9 |
Lithuania | 59.9 | 56.6 | 25.7 | 21.8 |
Poland | 59.7 | 62.9 | 24.0 | 30.4 |
Romania | 47.5 | 50.7 | 12.3 | 21.0 |
Slovakia | 67.5 | 67.4 | 31.9 | 22.6 |
Slovenia | 52.3 | 55.5 | 15.3 | 22.2 |
Own calculations.
The
In the field of financial intermediation, the similarity of
On the scale of similarity,
The resemblance of financial system of
The similarity coefficient for
The similarity of
In Table 3, the changes that took place between 2005 and 2014 in percentage points of the coefficients of similarity of CEE11 to the reference countries representing four models of capitalism are presented.
Change of the coefficients of similarity between 2005 and 2014—financial system (percentage points)
Bulgaria | 9.2 | 10.8 | –1.7 | 10.5 |
Croatia | 12.0 | 7.0 | 0.8 | 1.7 |
Czech Republic | 4.6 | 8.8 | –6.7 | –3.4 |
Estonia | 15.7 | 15.4 | –7.7 | 7.7 |
Hungary | 4.2 | 7.4 | –6.9 | –6.3 |
Latvia | 4.2 | 8.4 | –7.1 | 1.6 |
Lithuania | –3.0 | –0.6 | –13.3 | –5.4 |
Poland | 10.0 | 14.1 | –3.0 | 2.4 |
Romania | 1.0 | 5.0 | –9.4 | –3.5 |
Slovakia | 17.2 | 18.0 | 6.7 | –3.6 |
Slovenia | –9.7 | –5.6 | –21.5 | –15.1 |
Own calculations.
The greatest change was observed in case of Slovenia. The country moved away from Sweden (Nordic model) by 21.5 pp. In fact, it drifted away from all the reference countries likewise. Similar direction of changes, although smaller differences, can be observed in Lithuania. The country moved the farthest away from Nordic model (13.3 pp) than from Anglo-Saxon one (5.4 pp). The resemblance to the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic models in the area of financial system decreased in case of Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania, and at the same time increased in relation to the Mediterranean and Continental models. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Poland, in terms of similarity, approached to all the reference countries except Sweden. Slovakia took a step back in resemblance to the United Kingdom, but approached the Scandinavian model the most from the whole group of CEE11 countries. Croatia was the only state that increased the coefficient of similarity to all of the reference countries. Bulgaria noticed highest increase in likeness to the United Kingdom, which—although in a smaller scale—was also observed for Estonia, Poland, Latvia and already mentioned Croatia.
The highest increase in similarity to the reference countries was recorded by Slovakia (18.0 pp to Spain; 17.2 pp to Germany) and Estonia (15.4 and 15.7 pp, respectively). A remarkable step in the same direction was taken by Poland (14.1 and 10.0 pp, respectively) and Bulgaria (10.8 and 9.2 pp, respectively). Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia were also closer to the Continental model (range from 4 to 5) and the Mediterranean one (range from 7 to 9). Finally, Romania made the least step toward institutional solutions existing in Continental and Mediterranean models.
Looking at the results of the research, several overall conclusions can be formulated. First of all, changes in institutional architecture of financial intermediation system in analyzed group of countries moved them away from Anglo-Saxon and (the most) from Scandinavian models of capitalism. At the same time, they approached the Continental and Mediterranean ones. The greatest step forward was taken toward Mediterranean model, represented by Spain.
CEE11 countries were characterized by the greatest resemblance to Spain in GPEA and MIPFA. As far as GPEA is concerned, the similarity was high both in 2005 and in 2014 (the partitive coefficients of similarity values were close to 80). In case of MIPFA, an increase in similarity can be observed (approximately from 70 to 80). The average similarity in BAC-5 was high in the beginning and in the end of analyzed period (around 70), but in case of FDI it grew up (to over 60 from 40). In terms of SMC the likeness was quite low, and during the reviewed period it increased slightly. The smallest values were assumed by partitive coefficients of similarity for DCPS, but they were also increased (from 20 to 30). The similarity of the CEE11 countries to Spain remained at a high level or increased in the analyzed scope and time interval. The resemblance is clearly more concerned on the outputs side (approximately 60) than on inputs side (50), both in 2005 and 2014. This general conclusion for the entire group of CEE11 countries coincides with the analyses made earlier, for each country separately.
Resemblance to Germany also results from the high values of partitive coefficients of similarity for GPEA and MIPFA. In case of the first variable, it increased from around 50 to 70 and for the second variable from 40 to 55. Although the partitive coefficient of similarity for the SMC was high, it fell in the analyzed period (approximately from 80 to 70). The decrease in the value of this coefficient was also recorded in the case of BAC-5 (by a few points, from around 60) and FDI (from about 45, by some 10 points) variables. However, a significant increase of similarity for the DCPS (from 50 points by half) was noticed. The analysis of the source data indicates that this is primarily the effect of a drop in the DCPS value in Germany. Also in this case, the majority of the similarity is concentrated on the outputs side (over 60) than on inputs (around 50). This also coincides with previous analyses.
After these detailed analyses, several observations and conclusions can be made:
In 2005 in the area of financial intermediation, CEE11 countries were most similar to the Continental model of capitalism, represented by Germany. Bulgaria was the only exception. The second one in these classifications was the Mediterranean model, represented by Spain. Bulgaria was the exception. The difference in the average values of the coefficient of similarity between the Continental and the Mediterranean models was insignificant; In all countries of the region, the variables MIPFA and GPEA reached the values closest to the Spanish ones, and in the case of the variable SMC to the German ones. The values of the other variables were not in clear order. Hexagons of similarity were located by half in the inputs and outputs sides; in many cases, the shift of the hexagon to the output side was detected. The shapes of some similarity hexagons for different CEE11 countries were alike, but it is difficult to indicate any regularity. The institutional changes that took place between 2005 and 2014 in both the CEE11 and reference countries led to a change of the model to which the region’s countries showed the highest similarity. The CEE11 countries had become the most similar to Spain, that is, the Mediterranean model. There were four exceptions: Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia. In the second place, in terms of similarity in 2014, there was a Continental model represented by Germany. The four countries mentioned earlier showed up the greatest similarity to it. The difference in average values of coefficients of similarity for these two models remained insignificant. For Continental and Mediterranean models of capitalism, the similarity increased from 2005 to 2014, and for the other two models they decreased. The CEE11 countries moved away the most from the Scandinavian model. As in 2005, in all countries of the region the variables MIPFA and GPEA reached the values closest to the Spanish ones, and in the case of the variable SMC to the German ones. The values of other variables were organized without any clear order. The hexagons of similarity were arranged by half on the inputs and half on the outputs sides, or mostly on the inputs side, either to a large extent on the outputs side. However, it seems that more often than in 2005 there was a shift toward outputs side of figures. Some hexagons of similarity were alike each other, but it is hard to indicate any regularity.