Institutional quality and risk in the banking system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to offer an empirical study of the impact of institutional quality on the banking system risk and credit risk. Design/methodology/approach Applying cross-sectional dependent tests and stationary tests to check the property of our sample, the panel corrected standard errors model is recruited as the main estimator, while feasible generalized least squares, pool ordinary least squares (OLS), robust pool OLS and other estimators are used as a robustness check for an unbalanced panel data for 56 economies divided into three subsamples between 2002 and 2015. Findings The empirical results show several significant contributions. First, an improvement in institutional quality is an important factor to reduce the banking system risk. This effect of the institutions is less important in well-capitalized, highly profitable and in high-economic growth countries. This effect is also stronger in highly liquid banking systems. Notably, a better institutional quality helps to reduce the banking system risk in the highly concentrated banking system. Second, institutional quality has a significant negative relationship with the banking credit risk, especially in highly concentrated banking systems and in high-growth countries. This influence is weaker in highly liquid and well-capitalized banking systems. Finally, better institutions reduce the positive effect of trade openness, but it induces a higher credit risk for the banking system from the trade openness. Notably, a better institutional quality enhances the negative effect of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow on both banking system risk and credit risk. These findings are documented for a global sample and three subsamples: low and lower-middle-income economies, upper-middle-income economies and high-income economies. Originality/value This study provides some recommendations, for policymakers, on the roles of institutions in the banking system and financial stability.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".