Cooperative versus Conventional (Joint-Stock) Banking In Europe: Comparative Resistance And Resilience During The Recent Financial Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the banking crisis of the 1990s, French cooperative banks emerged as more resistant and efficient than joint-stock banks, which enabled them to improve their market share and increase their reserve capital. This subsequently became the keystone of the external restructuring that led to the transformation of cooperative banks into large universal banking groups. At the time, their competitive advantage relied mainly on a different approach to risk-taking, which was associated with their cooperative legal form and their specific governance model.However, the same features have clearly not prevailed during the financial phase of the most recent crisis. Whereas governance models in the banking sector have been deeply questioned, the original cooperative model has evolved differently within European countries, with a high level of hybridization in some and a very diffuse cooperative network in others. Some European cooperative groups have been damaged by the crisis, mainly because of the corporate and investment banking that formed part of their activity.Yet the recent crisis has revealed the importance of a resistant and resilient worldwide banking system and the diversity of legal forms and organizations could contribute to achieving this goal. In this paper, we assess the resistance and resilience of major joint-stock banks during the crisis and compare them to cooperative banks in different European countries and Canada. We conduct our analysis at an aggregated/consolidated level for these two categories of banks. Using different indicators (e.g., z-score, loans to the economy, return on equity) as dependent variables, we verify whether the cooperative form is synonymous with greater resistance or resilience, and whether the results may be explained by different organizational schemes in cooperative banking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".