Efficient Structure Versus Market Power:Theories and Empirical Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the market structure-performance relationship within the Tunisian banking system during the period 1990-2005. We attempt to distinguish between two theories, namely the Efficient Structure Theory and Market Power Theory. Using the Data Envelopment Analysis Method, we estimate efficiency measures under X-efficiency, Technical Efficiency, Scale Efficiency and Allocative Efficiency. By incorporating into our analyses these forms of efficiency, this study allowed us to test the validity of new hypotheses. The empirical investigation is conducted on profit and price regressions for a sample of 10 commercial banks. The results reject the SCP and Quite life hypotheses under the market power theory but retain the RMP hypotheses. Also, all the hypotheses under Efficient Structure theory are rejected. This result suggests that Tunisian banks do not exert a monopole power entailing the exploitation of customers, yet they are able to extend their market share and generate profits thanks to a diversification of products.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it