The requirement for increased flexibility in the labour market could apply both to increased variability in nominal wage increases and to increased geographical and professional mobility of the labour force. Increased adaptation to the rate of wage increase in the Euro area and increased variability in nominal wage costs? The design of the negotiation system probably has significance both for the adaptation of wage increases to that within the Euro area and for the degree of nominal wage flexibility. Wage formation in Sweden can be characterised by a combination of centralised and decentralised agreements. During 2001 trade and industry had a relatively high percentage of agreements with local wage formation. Almost 70 per cent of employees in the private sector had wage agreements that entailed complete or partial local wage formation. The percentage of local wage agreements in the public sector has also increased during the 1990s. A more decentralised wage formation process could entail greater nominal wage flexibility, as wage costs could then be connected to a greater extent to the individual company’s situation. On the other hand, a more co-ordinated wage formation could also entail increased flexibility, as it would make it easier for those determining wages at a central level to take the overall considerations required to enable the economy as a whole to develop favourably. It is unclear to what extent a potential Swedish participation in Stage Three of EMU would entail incentives for a more decentralised or more co-ordinated wage formation process.

The lack of specific alternative funding channels or sources can hinder investment particularly in higher-risk projects -startups, intangibles and innovation- which depend on venture capital or other specialised sources of market-based financing in their early stages. Small and medium-sized enterprises generally also encounter problems in tapping capital, owing to reduced access to market finance. There are several obstacles contributing to fragmentation. First, an investor seeking to diversify its portfolio by having exposures to companies in different countries must deal with legal barriers. The most telling example is the lack of harmonisation of insolvency regimes, which vary widely across jurisdictions for financial and non-financial corporations, as a result of different cultural traditions and legal frameworks. Second, this investor might face different regulations, as the process of strengthening the pan-European regulators is still incomplete. This is a more pressing question as markets become more integrated and technologically complex. Brexit entails a significant risk of further fragmentation, as some companies and transactions may relocate to several different financial centres, while others may remain in the UK. 11  Third, there are also inconsistencies in capital taxation. This is not only a problem of tax rates: tax bases are also different across countries, and there is enormous diversity and complexity in terms of legal requirements and forms, as in the case of withholding taxes. In addition, the so-called debt bias due to the favourable tax treatment of debt relative to equity distorts incentives in favour of the former.