340 Recht
Refine
Document Type
- Journal article (4)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (5) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Institute
Publisher
- Kluwer (1)
- MDPI (1)
- Routledge (1)
- Science Publishing Group (1)
- Virtus Interpress (1)
On 5 May 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany announced in a momentous ruling that the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB) exceeds European Union (EU) competences. This decision initiated a lively debate in law and economics all over Europe. This article provides a unique interdisciplinary reading of the ruling in order to clarify the line of argument. Considering a cross-disciplinary view enlightens the understanding of the historic judgment.
This article studies the hidden blemishes of two benchmark rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In 2015 and 2018, the ECJ approved two unconventional monetary instruments, among others ‘Outright Monetary Transactions’ and the ‘Public Sector Purchase Program’. Yet, there is a vigorous debate about both monetary operations in law and economics. In this interdisciplinary article, we address law and economic arguments in order to elucidate insights to the legal community. In particular, we elaborate on the legal implications of a variety of concerning issues such as public policy interference, effect on wealth redistribution, erosion of democratic legitimacy and lack of effectiveness of monetary policy. These topics remain disregarded in the ECJ rulings. Consequently, the verdicts do not identify the economic boundaries of the European Central Bank’s mandate appropriately.
This article adopts a qualitative comparative causal mapping approach to extend knowledge of the interrelated barriers to public entrepreneurship and the outcomes of such entrepreneurship. The results highlight marked differences between the sales segment and the distribution grid segment of German public enterprises that should prompt a refined perspective on public entrepreneurship. Notably, besides intra-organizational barriers and those interfering from the external environment, results also show that a public enterprise’s supervisory board can hinder its progress. This study thus contributes to recent discussion on governance and entrepreneurship by revealing a feature that could distinguish public from private enterprises.
Our paper investigates the response of acquiring firms’ stock returns around the announcement date in cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) between listed Chinese acquirers and German targets. We apply an event study methodology to examine the shareholder value effect based on a sample of M&A deals over the most recent period of 2012-2018. We apply a market model event study based on the argumentation of Brown and Warner (1985) and use short-term observation periods according to Andrade, Mitchell, and Stafford (2001) as well as Hackbarth and Morellec (2008). The results indicate that the announcement of M&A involving German targets results in a positive cumulative abnormal return of on average 2.18% for Chinese acquirers’ shareholders in a five-day symmetric event window. Furthermore, we found slight indications of possible information leakage prior to the formal announcement. Although it shows that the size of acquiring firms is not necessarily correlated with the positive abnormal returns in the short run, this study suggests that Chinese acquirers’ shareholders gain higher abnormal returns when the German targets are non-listed companies.
This paper is a brief review on the book ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’ by the French scholar Thomas Piketty. The book has started a new debate about inequality and capital taxation in Europe. It provides interesting empirical facts and develops a theory of the functioning of capitalist economies. However, I personally think the book is less convincing than recognized in the public debate. The demonstrated theory of economic growth in the book is elusive and lacks a psychological and behavioral underpinning. In fact, I do think that the increasing inequality and economic divergence are caused by capitalism but the psychological and behavioral aspects of humans are of similar or greater significance. Therefore, Piketty’s argument does not stimulate an open and scientifically founded debate in all aspects.