欧洲央行-暴力冲突和跨界冲突（英）

Working Paper Series Violent conflict and cross-border lending Ralph De Haas, Mikhail Mamonov, Alexander Popov, Iliriana Shala Disclaimer: This paper should not be reported as representing the views of the European Central Bank (ECB). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ECB. No 3073 AbstractHow do violent conflicts shape cross-border lending? Using data on syndicated loansby 14,021 creditors to firms in 179 countries (1989–2020), we document a dual effect:foreign banks reduce overall lending relative to domestic banks but significantly increasefinancing to military and dual-use sectors during conflicts. This reallocation is strongeramong lenders less specialized in the conflict country, more specialized in militarylending, and domiciled in politically non-aligned nations. Effects are geographicallycontained and temporally limited, dissipating post-conflict. Our findings reveal howglobal banks strategically redirect credit toward military sectors during armed conflicts,despite reducing overall country exposure.JEL classification: D74, F34, F40, G15, G21Keywords: Cross-border lending, syndicated loans, violent conflict, geopoliticalrisk, bank specializationECB Working Paper Series No 3073 1Non-technical summaryOver the long span of human history, peace has been the anomaly, with conflict as theconstant. While economists have thoroughly examined the direct and indirect economic con-sequences of war, including the role that sovereign borrowing plays in maintaining militaryeffort, the relationship between private finance and armed conflict remains underexplored.We examine this relationship through the lens of cross-border lending during violent conflicts.Our analysis is guided by two opposing hypotheses. On the one hand, the extant liter-ature shows that cross-border lenders tend to “run for the exit” when faced with negativeshocks to the local economy, such as systemic banking crises. This literature thus suggeststhat cross-border lending should decline when countries experience violent conflict. Con-versely, armed conflict may generate countervailing forces due to rising demand for credit,particularly in defence-related sectors. Foreign banks, less directly impacted by local hostil-ities, may be better positioned to accommodate this demand compared to domestic banksfacing immediate conflict-related constraints, and can thus emerge as pivotal financiers ofmilitary production in conflict zones.To study this question, we lean on three sources of data. First, we obtain comprehensivesyndicated loan data covering 1.3 million loans by 14,021 lenders to 97,169 firms across 179countries during 1989–2020. Next, we extract information from the Uppsala Conflict DataProgram, which provides detailed and complete information on armed conflicts, includingbattlefield death counts.Finally, we employ an AI-based approach to identify military-related borrowers by distinguishing primary military sectors (exclusively