We provide a new theory of the role of banks as catalysts for industrialization. In their influential analysis of continental European industrialization, Gerschenkron and Schumpeter argued that banks promoted the creation of new industries. We formalize this role of banks by introducing financial intermediaries into a “big push” model. We show that banks may act as catalysts for industrialization provided they are sufficiently large to mobilize a critical mass of firms and that they possess sufficient market power to make profits from coordination. The theory provides simple conditions that help explain why banks seem to play a creative role in some but not in other emerging markets. The model also shows that universal banking helps to reduce the cost of acting as catalyst. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: G21, N2, O14, O16.

We empirically examine how venture capitalists adjust coinvestor relationships over time. We identify a fundamental trade-off where the benefits of familiarity are weighed against the opportunity costs of coinvesting with other syndication partners. Using US data, we find that venture capitalists dynamically adjust their relationship intensities by gradually disengaging from overly deep relationships. More centrally networked investors are more cautious with disengaging. In hot investment markets investors disengage more readily from existing relationships, but new relationships forged in hot market are less enduring. Perhaps surprisingly, we find a negative relationship between deeper prior relationships and investment performance.

We develop a theory’ and empirical test of how the legal system affects the relationship between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. The theory uses a double moral hazard framework to show how optimal contracts and investor actions depend on the quality of the legal system. The empirical evidence is based on a sample of European venture capital deals. The main results are that with better legal protection, investors give more non-contractible support and demand more downside protection. These predictions are supported by the empirical analysis. Using a new empirical approach of comparing two sets of fixed-effect regressions, we also find that the investor’s legal system is more important than that of the company in determining investor behavior.