Differential Impact of Fintech and GDP on Bank Performance: Global Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the World Bank Global Findex Database for 91 countries in 2014, 2017, and 2021, we examine whether fintech levels influence bank performance and whether fintech’s interaction with GDP per capita causes differential effects on bank performance globally. Since fintech levels were already very high for rich countries when the World Bank started providing fintech development statistics in 2014, we estimate AbFintech by regressing fintech levels on GDP per capita by year. AbFintech is the difference between the fintech level and its fitted values. Then, using multiple regression analyses, we investigate the impact of AbFintech on bank performance worldwide, focusing on the differential effects of AbFintech and GDP levels on bank performance. We find AbFintech significantly increases bank performance, primarily in less developed countries. Specifically, AbFintech increases banks’ ROA in the least developed countries and net interest margin in 75th percentile countries. Also, AbFintech decreases the cost-to-income ratio in 75th percentile countries, while it increases the ratio in the most developed countries. The resulting policy implication is that banks in less developed countries benefit most from investing in fintech innovation since they can provide a broader customer base, including formerly unbanked or underbanked customers, with more convenient services at lower costs.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".