However, the actual reality emphasizes that small and medium size enterprises play an important role in the economic activity in both the developed and developing countries, through their absorptive capacity in employing the workforce of the different levels of training and education. A study by the Riyadh Economic Forum on “the Saudi Business Sector and Meeting the Economic Challenges” showed that the average number of workers in the Saudi private sector stood at 8.4 workers per one single institution, and, consequently, 90 percent of the institutions in the Kingdom is considered within the scope of small and medium size enterprises. Small and medium size enterprises are considered the best efficient and effective tool for accelerating economic and social development, especially in remote areas with the least opportunities for development. They also provide a fertile field for training workers and developing their skills. To this end, governments have paid great attention to such enterprises and established the basic regulatory framework needed for their growth and development, particularly after having proved their ability to reduce pressure on the government sector in providing job opportunities and training. Governments also helped big enterprises in the marketing process and in providing raw materials and primary commodities at the different production phases. It is noted that most regional and international aid donating agencies and organizations have a growing tendency to provide financial resources and technical assistance aimed at assisting such small and medium size enterprises to depend upon themselves and play their anticipated role in the economy.

For most cross-border mergers, the business case is more difficult to anticipate in the current competitive landscape. Admittedly, too, there are certain cultural, institutional and regulatory obstacles that hinder the emergence of a truly European banking market. The resistance to removing these obstacles largely imply preserving ring-fencing structures at national level, limiting or even impeding the free flow of capital or liquidity across borders. 3/5  In my view, after achieving a significant reduction of risks in the financial sector as well as a complete pan-European decision-making process, it would be time to call for an end to these national ring-fencing supervisory practices, which are detrimental to financial integration and, thus, limit the ambition of the BU as a single jurisdiction. The implementation of the SSM and SRB may be seen as a remarkable achievement. But we must acknowledge that the BU still lacks one of its three main pillars, the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS). At a minimum, a building needs three pillars to ensure its structural soundness; likewise, I believe that the EDIS would contribute to making the BU more stable, particularly in times of stress, which is in fact when the resilience of structures are tested. Certainly, a fully-fledged mutualised EDIS would have a strong impact on citizens’ trust; but, in addition, a greater degree of risk-sharing within the euro area would also help align financial responsibility with the pan-European decision-making process, already in place in the areas of banking supervision and resolution.