Bibliographic record
Abstract
JULY/AUGUST 2003 129 P hil Strahan and various coauthors have written a series of significant papers on the impact of interstate banking and intrastate branching deregulation. His present paper summarizes and extends much of that research.1 I suspect that most economists would agree that draconian restrictions on branch banking or on the ability of bank holding companies to cross state lines make no sense. Geographic restrictions historically left the U.S. banking system vulnerable to regional economic shocks, limited banks’ ability to exploit economies of scale and scope, sheltered weak banks from competition, and imposed costs on the consumers of banking services. Strahan’s work attempts to quantify the impact of the removal of such restrictions on economic growth and entrepreneurial activity at the state level. His estimates are striking—for example, the removal of restrictions on branching appears to have increased the growth rate of state per capita incomes by about one-third, and the effect is persistent. He also estimates a marked increase in the rate of new business incorporations following deregulation, as well as a large decline in the volatility of state-level business cycles after interstate banking was permitted. Economists and economic historians have long debated the effects of a country’s financial system on its economic development. This commentary relates Strahan (2003) to other studies on the effects of geographic restrictions on banks, with a focus on historical comparisons. In addition, I raise some specific questions about Strahan’s empirical analysis in the traditional discussant’s role as devil’s advocate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.044 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".