The interlinkages of financial institutions and the state in South-East Europe are at the core of the three articles which build this special issue of the Financial History Review. The articles were presented at the th conference of the South-East European Monetary History Network on ‘Financial development and economic growth in South-East Europe – a historical and comparative perspective’, which was jointly organized by the Oesterreichische Nationalbank and the University of Vienna in September . In addition to being selected and commented on by the organizers of the conference, the articles underwent the journal’s standard refereeing process. In the first article, Matthias Morys provides a cross-country analysis of monetary reform in four countries that became autonomous within and later independent from the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century. The central question of the article is why the establishment of a national monetary system including national coinage and a central bank came relatively late in the process of state formation, at times not until several decades after independence. To understand the process, Morys suggests an innovative approach, i.e. a concept of successive stages of monetary reform. He identifies five stages of monetary reform followed by all four countries: first, enactment of a national budget, followed by a Coinage Act, the issue of government bonds, the foundation of a national bank of issue and – finally – convergence to the gold standard. Future research could use this concept to examine whether other emerging financial systems followed a similar path. Turning to the empirical results, Morys argues that from the viewpoint of the newly independent countries the establishment of a unified national currency was not necessary, at least not immediately, as fiscal reforms could be implemented and foreign lending obtained without the costly implementation of national coinage and establishment of a central bank. As a result, both reforms were undertaken relatively late and only when it became clear that they would help manage national debt and support the financial development of the private sector, as the banks of issue in all four countries not only served as monetary authorities but played an important role as commercial lenders and lenders to the government as well.

中文翻译：

---

东南欧金融和货币史特刊简介

金融机构与东南欧国家之间的相互联系是构成本期《金融史评论》特刊的三篇文章的核心。这些文章是在东南欧货币历史网络第  会议上发表的，主题是“东南欧的金融发展和经济增长——历史和比较的视角”，该会议由德国国家银行和大学联合举办9 月  维也纳。除了被会议组织者挑选和评论外，文章还经过了期刊的标准审稿过程。在第一篇文章中，马蒂亚斯·莫里斯 (Matthias Morys) 对四个国家的货币改革进行了跨国分析，这些国家在 19 世纪独立于奥斯曼帝国，后来独立于奥斯曼帝国。这篇文章的核心问题是，为什么在国家形成过程中，包括国家铸币和中央银行在内的国家货币体系的建立相对较晚，有时直到独立后几十年才建立。为了理解这个过程，莫里斯提出了一种创新方法，即货币改革连续阶段的概念。他确定了四个国家都遵循的货币改革的五个阶段：首先，制定国家预算，然后是铸币法，发行政府债券，建立国家发行银行，最后是向金本位制收敛. 未来的研究可以使用这个概念来检查其他新兴金融系统是否遵循类似的路径。关于实证结果，莫里斯认为，从新独立国家的角度来看，建立统一的国家货币不是必要的，至少不是立即的，因为财政改革可以实施，外国贷款可以在不实施昂贵的国家铸币的情况下获得并成立中央银行。因此，这两项改革都进行得相对较晚，而且只有在它们明确有助于管理国家债务和支持私营部门的金融发展时才进行，因为所有四个国家的发行银行不仅充当货币当局，而且还发挥了作用。作为商业贷款人和政府贷款人的重要角色。