Bank ownership and productivity developments: evidence from Turkey

被引:24
|
作者
Isik, Ihsan [1 ]
机构
[1] Rowan Univ, Glassboro, NJ 08028 USA
关键词
Turkey; Banks; Corporate ownership;
D O I
10.1108/10867370710756174
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
Purpose - This paper analyzes the responsiveness of different ownership forms to changing business environment by drawing on Turkish experience. Design/methodology/approach - This study is conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the paper uses Malmquist index theory, to estimate the total factor productivity change, technological change, efficiency change, pure efficiency change and scale efficiency change indexes for the Turkish banks. In the second stage, utilizing the generalized least regression format, it examines the significance of the productivity differences between different ownership forms after controlling for size and changes in the macro-economy. Findings - Under the "traditional banking definition," productivity growth during the period was 1.2 percent for state banks, 3.9 percent for private banks and 14.2 percent for foreign banks. Under the "non-traditional banking definition," the productivity gain over the period was 2.9 percent for state banks, 9.5 percent for private banks and 17.0 percent for foreign banks. Research limitations/implications - The future research can extend the data set and may include more explanatory factors to characterize the bank forms that record the fastest productivity growth. Practical implications - Private ownership appears to be more adaptive to new environment. Foreign banks can be used as a policy instrument to induce efficiency and productivity improvements in local banking industries. Liberalization of markets through competition boosts economic performance. Originality/value - In analyzing impacts of reforms, the significance of inter-temporal change should be tested to better guide regulators, investors and managers.
引用
收藏
页码:115 / +
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The impact of ownership structure on bank productivity and efficiency: Evidence from semi-parametric Malmquist Productivity Index
    Sufian, Fadzlan
    Kamarudin, Fakarudin
    [J]. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE, 2014, 2 (01):
  • [2] Ownership, bank size, capitalization and bank performance: Evidence from India
    Gupta, Neeraj
    Mahakud, Jitendra
    [J]. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE, 2020, 8 (01):
  • [3] Ownership Concentration, Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkey
    Mandaci, Pinar Evrim
    Gumus, Guluzar Kurt
    [J]. SOUTH EAST EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS, 2010, 5 (01) : 57 - 66
  • [4] Bank ownership, performance, and the politics: Evidence from Taiwan
    Chen, Pei-Fen
    Liu, Ping-Chin
    [J]. ECONOMIC MODELLING, 2013, 31 : 578 - 585
  • [5] Ownership concentration and bank performance: Evidence from India
    Gupta, Neeraj
    Mittal, Sachin
    Agarwal, Tarun
    Bakhshi, Priti
    Sahoo, Minati
    [J]. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE, 2022, 10 (01):
  • [6] Ownership dispersion and bank performance: Evidence from China
    Bian, Wenlong
    Deng, Chao
    [J]. FINANCE RESEARCH LETTERS, 2017, 22 : 49 - 52
  • [7] Bank Competition and Outreach: Evidence from Turkey
    Aysan, Ahmet Faruk
    Disli, Mustafa
    Schoors, Koen
    [J]. EMERGING MARKETS FINANCE AND TRADE, 2013, 49 : 7 - 30
  • [8] Unshrouding: Evidence from Bank Overdrafts in Turkey
    Alan, Sule
    Cemalcilar, Mehmet
    Karlan, Dean
    Zinman, Jonathan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2018, 73 (02): : 481 - 522
  • [9] Exports, Ownership and Firm Productivity: Evidence from China
    Sun, Xiaonan
    Hong, Junjie
    [J]. WORLD ECONOMY, 2011, 34 (07): : 1199 - 1215
  • [10] Bank discrimination, holding bank ownership, and economic consequences: Evidence from China
    Lu, Zhengfei
    Zhu, Jigao
    Zhang, Weining
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BANKING & FINANCE, 2012, 36 (02) : 341 - 354