Search

Tal vez estamos en un momento único. El pasado ya no es lo que decían que era y el futuro todavía sólo constituye una esperanza de nuevos caminos de libertad y justicia. Sin duda, la ocasión apropiada para que las universidades redescubran el núcleo de su misión y de su mejor aportación a la sociedad: pensar y repensar de forma autónoma y crítica. En tal contexto, la presente obra presenta un conjunto de reflexiones y de experiencias en torno a la responsabilidad social universitaria, entendida en una múltiple dimensión: un gobierno plural y participativo en la adopción de decisiones; una administración socialmente efectiva y eficiente de los recursos disponibles; unas enseñanzas impregnadas por valores personales, profesionales y ciudadanos que favorezcan un comportamiento ético, un conducta inclusiva de los otros y una vinculación solidaria con los intereses generales, todo ello al servicio de una sociedad más justa; una investigación y transferencia de conocimientos interesada en cooperar para la resolución de las carencias y limitaciones observadas en la comunidad local y en el entorno más lejano; finalmente, un compromiso para promover la cultura y la práctica del desarrollo sostenible, donde la globalización solidaria entre las actuales generaciones vaya de la mano con el respeto de las necesidades y la calidad de vida de quienes algún día heredarán este planeta.

The private enforcement of competition law through damages actions and/or injunctions before ordinary courts of justice is currently the preferred system in the United States. It is playing an increasingly important role in Europe by supplementing a still predominantly public system based on disciplinary rules enforced by public authorities that do not entail compensation for victims. Compensation can only be achieved through private enforcement, which is already viewed as an alternative to the public system. This work, whose origins lie in the International Conference on the private enforcement of Competition Law held at the University of Valladolid's School of Law offers a comprehensive, pluralist overview of the subject by providing transversal approaches, joint assessment and information on various national experiences alongside more specific contributions that study specific matters of substantive and procedural law, by covering practically all the relevant issues in this field. The work also addresses the main problems of the system vis-à-vis private international law and its connection and interaction with public enforcement. Also available in Spanish language, with the title: La aplicación privada del Derecho de la competencia.

La Administración Pública de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa (RSC) se va consolidando como materia de estudio e interés académico y profesional para lograr una mayor sostenibilidad de nuestra sociedad presente y futura. Con esta edición se ofrece una guía básica que sintetiza los principales fundamentos e instrumentos para impulsar la consecución de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) a través de una gobernanza y gestión pública más abierta, responsable y comprometida con la transparencia y rendición de cuentas a nivel económico, social y ambiental.

La llamada aplicación privada del Derecho de la competencia, mediante acciones de daños y/o de nulidad ante los tribunales ordinarios de justicia, es en estos momentos el sistema de aplicación preferente de este sector en los Estados Unidos. En Europa está adquiriendo un protagonismo cada vez mayor, ya como complemento de un sistema que todavía es predominantemente público, al basarse en normas sancionadoras aplicadas por autoridades públicas -que sólo puede conseguirse por esta vía y que no alcanza a la compensación de las víctimas-, ya incluso como alternativa a tal sistema. La presente obra, que tiene su origen en el Congreso Internacional sobre aplicación privada del Derecho de la competencia, que se celebró en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Valladolid, ofrece un panorama bastante completo y pluralista de esta materia, al superponerse tratamientos transversales, de valoración conjunta o de información sobre diversas experiencias nacionales, con aportaciones más concretas, que estudian cuestiones específicas, tanto de Derecho material como procesal, y que contemplan prácticamente todas las que son relevantes en este campo. Asimismo, se abordan los principales problemas de Derecho internacional privado que plantea este sistema de aplicación privada, y sus conexiones e interacciones con la aplicación pública.

El Profesor Dr. Jürgen Wolter, catedrático emérito de Derecho penal y procesal penal de la Universidad de Mannheim, es un excelente penalista, autor de numerosas publicaciones, siempre relevantes y siempre especialmente originales, algunas de absoluta referencia mundial, como, por citar solo una, su libro sobre imputación objetiva y personal de conducta, peligro y lesión en un sistema funcional de delito. Siendo claro lo anterior, la faceta que aquí queremos destacar es la de Wolter como gran impulsor del diálogo científico entre la doctrina alemana y la de otros países y, en concreto, la española y toda la iberoamericana. Wolter ha intervenido desde hace muchos años, más de veinticinco, en múltiples reuniones científicas con presencia de penalistas y procesalistas de diversos países, desde luego también españoles y, en general, iberoamericanos. Igualmente, ha participado en libros en alemán y español fruto de la colaboración y debate entre penalistas españoles y alemanes. La cita de unos y otros se hace aquí imposible. Pero la más importante –e impresionante– contribución a estrechar lazos entre la ciencia penal alemana y la española e iberoamericana la ofrece Wolter como editor y director (hoy con Wilfried Küper, Michael Hettinger y Ralf Eschelbach) de la decana de las revistas jurídico-penales alemanas, el Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht (GA), fundada en 1853 por Theodor Goltdamm er, aún en la actualidad una de las más prestigiosas en Alemania y en el mundo entero.

La publicación del Curso de Derecho Penal, Parte General, tuvo desde su origen la vocación de transmitir a los alumnos, de manera pedagógica, las bases conceptuales del Derecho penal del Estado de Derecho a partir de los principios constitucionales, que cobran en este ámbito una especial relevancia. Las sucesivas y numerosas reformas producidas en nuestro Código penal desde el año 1995 nos obligan a hacer una revisión rigurosa de nuestra obra, incluyendo las principales novedades que establece la reforma operada por la LO 1/2015, de 30 de marzo. En ella se introducen cambios muy relevantes como el establecimiento de la cadena perpetua, llamada con cierto eufemismo "prisión permanente revisable" o la supresión del Libro III, relativo a las faltas, con el consiguiente incremento de penas respecto a la situación anterior. Esta tercera edición cuenta además de con los autores de la anterior, con nuevos profesores y con nuevas lecciones, con la pretensión de ofrecer una visión lo más completa posible del Derecho penal, ampliándolo a otras parcelas como el Derecho penal europeo, el Derecho penal internacional o el Derecho penal militar. La revisión se completa con la actualización de sus útiles tablas penológicas, que ayudan al alumno a la comprensión de algunos temas sumamente complejos. La presente edición sigue sin perder el carácter que se le dio al libro desde el comienzo, es decir, la de proporcionar a los estudiantes un manual escrito precisamente para ellos.

La Gran Recesión, iniciada en el territorio de la UE en 2008, ha supuesto un cierto cambio de ciclo en los fenómenos migratorios. Este es el caso de los países sudamericanos que en lo que va de siglo han experimentado un cierto proceso de doble dirección con España, en lo que a migraciones se refiere. Se trata de una investigación que parte de una perspectiva comparada. España y Argentina presentan más diferencias que similitudes en sus respectivas experiencias con el fenómeno migratorio. En consonancia con ello, los instrumentos normativos y políticos que estructuran el control migratorio en ambos estados también son netamente disímiles. En el caso español, el análisis de la situación argentina podría servir para entender que hay modelos de gestión migratoria claramente diferentes a los que se han puesto en marcha en el contexto hispano, bajo la orientación global de las políticas de la UE. En el caso argentino, por su parte, el estudio comparativo podría valer para entender que hay errores que no deben cometerse, y que la gestión de una nueva etapa de llegada de migrantes debería orientarse más por la readaptación de los mejores elementos de su tradición histórica que por la copia mimética de políticas ensayadas en el contexto de la UE.

La obra se estructura en tres bloques, dedicados respectivamente a la Parte General, a la Parte Especial y al Derecho Procesal, en treinta y tres capítulos. Los contenidos de la LO 2/2015 en materia de terrorismo están analizados en el Bloque segundo capítulo trigésimo segundo, el resto es dedicado a la LO 1/2015 en sus muy diversas y múltiples variables. Han participado en la elaboración veintiocho autores, todos ellos eminentes especialistas en las materias tratadas que han volcado en los escritos su sabiduría, su rigor científico y la calidad de sus propuestas. A todo ellos mi agradecimiento por su esfuerzo y el trabajo realizado y mis disculpas por la presión que he ejercido para que esta obra sea una realidad en los plazos establecidos.

Financial technologies are understood as ICT-based financial innovations and business entities based on these innovations (Lai & Samers, 2021; Langley & Leyshon, 2021; Wójcik, 2021b). Like other technological innovations, Fintech not only influences technical parameters of products and services, but also transforms the economic organization of firms and industries (Baldwin, 2020; Sanchez & Mahoney, 2013). ICT solutions in the financial sector complement the existing services (e.g., payment platforms), substitute human work and tangible assets (e.g., robo-advisers), and generate new solutions (e.g., mobile wallets). Furthermore, Fintech transcends borders and geographical frontiers, as exemplified by crowdfunding in financial centers accessible to start-ups and growth firms from peripheral locations (Bonini & Capizzi, 2019; Spigel, 2022). However, the ongoing digital transformation of financial services has a strong spatial and multiscalar dimension and takes various forms and outcomes, depending on the socioeconomic and institutional specifics (Leyshon, 2020; Baranauskas, 2021; Coe, 2021). The financial sector has recently been conceptualized as a financial ecosystem to reflect its exposition to dynamics and occasional disruptive change (Leyshon, 2020). Within a broadly defined financial ecosystem, two interrelated structures can be identified according to spatial characteristics (Gancarczyk, Łasak, & Gancarczyk, 2022; Lai, 2020). The first comprises global networks of financial centers and large investment banks, that is, global financial networks (GFNs), largely spanning over the borders of countries and regions (Coe, Lai, & Wójcik, 2014; Coe, 2021). The other forms are financial ecologies as segments of the financial ecosystem that are delimited by particular territories (Lai, 2016; Leyshon et al., 2004; Leyshon et al., 2006; Langley & Leyshon, 2020). Being subunits of the financial ecosystem, FEs represent interrelated financial intermediaries and other economic agents, focused on the provision and access to financial services in particular territories (Beaverstock et al., 2013; DawnBurton, 2020; Lai, 2016; Leyshon et al., 2004; Leyshon, 2020). In this vein, FEs can be considered as governance modes comprising private and public entities, such as banks, Fintech, BigTech, public agencies, enterprises, and customers, and relationships among these entities. The actors and relationships are delimited by a given location, such as a region or city (Langley, 2016; DawnBurton, 2020; Chen & Hassink, 2021; Appleyard, 2020). The relevance of the FE concept is based on the disproportionate outcomes that small ecologies may raise for comprehensive systems, as evidenced by the subprime market failure in the USA, affecting the subsequent financial and economic crisis of 2007-2009 (Leyshon, 2020), with relevant effects on many economies such as the European economy (Rodil-Marzábal & Menezes-Ferreira-Junior, 2016). Therefore, investigating small but critical points within the larger financial ecosystem is crucial for policy. It is also theoretically justified since the financial ecosystem has been predominantly studied as a general abstraction of the financial sector. Subsystems remain less explored, especially in the granularity of the spatial context. Since FEs are context-specific and undergo co-evolutionary dynamics with this context, they also transform as a phenomenon and a concept (Lai, 2020; Wójcik, 2021a). One of the main influences comes from the recent technological developments raised by Fintech. The growing empirical evidence in this area calls for understanding consequences for the FE construct (Welch, Rumyantseva, & Hewerdine, 2016) and adequate policy responses. Resonating with the said research gaps and an early stage of the development of the FE idea, this article aims to identify how Fintech frames FEs and propose the related conceptual and policy implications. To frame the FE concept, we use the methodological lens of construct clarity principles (Suddaby, 2010; Simsek et al., 2017) and concept reconstruction (Welch et al., 2016). The method includes a systematic literature review, which represents a unique approach, since the existing theorizing of FEs has been either in the form of conceptual papers or narrative reviews (Lund et al., 2016). Our findings raise conceptual and policy-related contributions. First, the article conceptually reframes the understanding of FE as financial services governance enhanced by technological advancements and focused on territorial projects and communities. Second, the concept of FE was clarified according to its main elements and its relationships with other adjacent ideas of spatial networking for socioeconomic development. Third, research propositions and areas for further investigation were proposed. In the following, we present the literature review to justify our aim and research questions. The methodology section presents the conceptual lens for our discussion of the FE as a construct shaped by Fintech; it also specifies the method of a systematic literature review. Results, discussion, and conclusion proceed in the next sections. CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS Financial ecosystems were institutionally introduced to the policy framework and gained widespread recognition in research since the Federal Reserve Bank of New York conference in 2006 (Leyshon, 2020). FEs have become a new theoretical abstraction of the financial services sector as an alternative to the neoclassical equilibrium-based doctrine (Leyshon, 2020). The main difference was in acknowledging radical dynamics within the sector treated as an ecosystem with a diverse and flexible set of financial intermediaries, institutional investors and supporting entities, such as exchanges, data providers, and regulators (Bose, Dong, & Simpson, 2019). The abstraction of complex adaptive systems has often been recalled as a broad framework to understand the functioning and change in the financial sector. Consequently, theoretical perspectives of evolution and coevolution, and in particular, the network governance concept to cope with complex coordination issues, demonstrate explanatory power in studying FEs (Chen & Hassink, 2021; Ponte & Sturgeon, 2014; Chen & Hassink, 2021, 2020; Coe & Yeung, 2019). The lens of the financial ecosystem was intended to provide concepts and methods that would address environmental and regulatory shocks and prepare for future breakthrough changes to the financial system (Leyshon, 2020; Fasnacht, 2018). Furthermore, within this idea, the classical goals set for the financial sector, such as optimizing capital allocation, matching savers and investors, and signaling scarcity and abundance, were expanded by sustainability and social responsibility goals that go beyond purely economizing (Bose et al., 2019; Fasnacht, 2018). The focus on the financial ecosystem as a model or abstraction of the financial sector predominated over what is the core of ecosystems, the interrelated actors embedded in particular socio-economic and institutional environments (Strumeyer & Swammy, 2017; Bose et al., 2019; Lai, 2020; Wojcik, 2021). Although the legal frameworks of financial ecosystems are intensely studied, the remaining context, such as socioeconomic environment and informal institutions, remain much less explored (Gancarczyk et al., 2022). These contextual factors are specific to individual territories within the financial ecosystem (Ponte & Sturgeon, 2014; Chen & Hassink, 2021, 2020; Coe & Yeung, 2019). Since the systemic approach assumes interrelations and mutual influences among its parts, changes or weaknesses in a subsystem affect the whole. A painful recognition for this gap happened just after the indicated 2006 turn to the financial sector as an ecosystem, with the shock of the 2007-2009 crisis. The latter originated in the smaller subunit of the ecosystem of the US subprime market. The following pandemic and political breakthroughs, as well as technological developments, raised new challenges, adaptations, and structural changes to the financial ecosystem (Leyshon, 2020). However, they were implemented differently in different spatial contexts, which stimulated a more granular approach of the financial ecosystem as a collection of place-based subsystems, that is, financial ecologies (Lai, 2016). Another justification for the more place-based perspective is that localized supply chains might require localized financial systems or ecologies (Sarawut & Sangkaew, 2022). Wójcik and Iannou (2020) argue that local and regional financial centers are expected to lose their position, and that the territories outside the core regions and financial centers will have to rely on retail banking and the public sector to fund investment and sustainable development. These smaller ecologies will coexist with global financial networks, which are worldwide networks of financial centers and investment banks (Lai, 2020). The concept of FE originated in the field of economic geography to reflect the spatial specifics and uneven distribution of financial ecosystems, and to address the crucial issues in financing for the particular territorial populations, such as inclusion, financialization, surveillance, and over-indebtedness (DawnBurton, 2020). Consequently, the FE concept recasts the financial system as a coalition of smaller constitutive ecologies, such that distinctive groups of financial knowledge and practices emerge in different places with uneven connectivity and material outcomes (Lai, 2016). The relevance of the FE phenomenon and concept consists of a more fine-grained approach to understanding uneven access to financial services and uneven connectedness to the financial system (DawnBurton, 2020; Leyshon, 2020). Furthermore, research on FEs signals weak and strong points in subsystems that can affect the efficiency of the entire financial system. FEs represent interrelated financial intermediaries and other economic agents focused on the provision of and access to financial services in particular territories (Leyshon, 2020). As systemic phenomena, they comprise both actors and their relationships, in which actors form various configurations of private and public entities, such as banks, public agencies, enterprises, and customers. The actors and relationships are delimited by a given location that forms a spatial context, that is, a set socioeconomic conditions of a territory, be it a region, city, or a country, and acknowledging multiscalar contexts (Langley, 2016; DawnBurton, 2020; Chen & Hassink, 2021; Appleyard, 2020). The context of a particular ecology should also be considered in a wider, multiscalar perspective. Multiscalarity of the context is an idea that advocates a multilevel analysis of a spatial unit (Chen & Hassink, 2021). The example of this approach is a regional financial ecology that should be analyzed in the context of the region, country, and relevant international environments. Due to the multiscalar perspective, spatially focused FEs do not lose a broader framework of the financial system in larger units and globally (Chen & Hassink, 2020). Taking into account the nature of the FE presented above, the main elements of this construct include actors, relationships among actors, outcomes, and contexts. While the scope of actors and contexts has been outlined above, the systemic relationships and outcomes of the FE require further explanation. The FE relationships are often captured as governance, whereby governance represents the sets of institutions (rules, norms) that affect the functioning of a particular socioeconomic system and its efficiency (Colombo, Dagnino, Lehmann, & Salmador, 2019; Ostrom, 1986; Williamson, 2000). In this vein, governance can be described according to the rules of collaboration and competition, and power relations (Lai, 2018). Types of governance range from the firm to hybrids, such as networks, and to markets (Gereffi, Humphrey, & Sturgeon, 2005; Williamson, 2000). The outcomes of FE represent the terms of and access to financing, with a more general effect on financial inclusion or exclusion and on the overall territorial development. With the wider financial systems, FEs share such constitutive elements as actors and their relationships centered around financial services supply and demand (Bose et al., 2019; Fasnacht, 2018; Lai, 2020). Moreover, they similarly focus on the coordination of the system through the lens of governance (DawnBurton, 2020; Langley & Leyshon, 2021). However, FEs also demonstrate some unique characteristics in relation to wider financial ecosystems, such as clear delimitation of a territorial space, be it a city, region, or country, and acknowledgment of an associated socioeconomic and institutional context (DawnBurton, 2020; Leyshon et al., 2004). The focus on a particular territory does not ignore the systemic nature of economic relationships in the globalized world, since FEs are considered in a multiscalar context (Chen & Hassink, 2020; Leyshon, 2020). Connectivity of given populations to a broader financial system becomes one of the major issues to ensure the infusion of external sources (Coe et al., 2014). The focus on relationships between commercial banks and retail customers, as well as underserved and unbanked individuals or enterprises, differentiates FEs from GFNs (Beaverstock et al., 2013; Coe et al., 2014; DawnBurton, 2020). The latter consider global networks of investment banks and financial centers liaising over peripheral and noncore territories (Coe et al., 2014; DawnBurton, 2020; Lai, 2018). This global perspective is also related to the governance approach in the framework of global value chains, which extends to financial activity (Milberg, 2008; Coe et al., 2014; Seabrooke & Wigan, 2017). The emphasis on socioeconomic effects for disadvantaged market segments and particular industries and projects represents an additional feature of FEs as outcome-oriented systems. While financial ecosystems are primarily targeted at economic efficiency and stability of the system itself, FEs emphasize territorial target groups and projects (Langley, 2016; Langley & Leyshon, 2017). Regarding governance, the focus of FEs has been on network governance of a complex and multi-actor adaptive system (Leyshon, 2020). Network governance is considered not only from the perspective of power relations and resource allocation, but also from learning and financial practices (Lai, 2016). As evolutionary and dynamic phenomena, financial ecosystems and FE undergo substantive and conceptual developments. One of the ongoing breakthrough transformations stems from Fintech. Financial ecosystems are increasingly reconceptualized as the ultimate mode of financial services governance transformed by financial technologies (Wójcik & Ioannou, 2020; Łasak & Gancarczyk, 2022; Gancarczyk et al., 2022). Similarly, the intensive development of FEs is closely related to technological changes that enable a flexible establishment of new forms of cooperation between economic entities (Arsanian & Fischer, 2019). Fintech increase efficiency and availability of existing and launch of new financial products (Hill, 2018; Livesey, 2018; Nicoletti et al., 2017; Sabatini, Cucculelli, & Gregori, 2022; Scardovi, 2017). However, negative effects are also reported, such as over-indebtedness of risky customers, Fintech surveillance, and exclusion of some customers due to computer illiteracy (Kong & Loubere, 2021; Łasak & Gancarczyk, 2021; Brooks, 2021). The economic and social outcomes of the emerging FEs transformed by Fintech have not been fully understood and systemized (Langley & Leyshon, 2021; Wójcik, 2021b). Given technological influences, the FE undergoes developments in its core elements, i.e., actors, governance, and outcomes, acknowledging spatial contexts. Despite the increasing stock of empirical findings that describe the impact of Fintech on the functioning of FEs, we lack a synthesis reflection to reconsider FEs from this perspective. Therefore, we formulate the following research questions: RQ1) How does Fintech affect the FE phenomenon in the area of its actors, governance, and outcomes in various spatial contexts? RQ2) What are the conceptual and policy-related implications of Fintech influencing FEs?