Corporate Governance and Banking Stability in the MENA Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the determinants of banking stability through a comprehensive analysis of various financial and governance factors. Employing a panel regression approach, we examine the impact of key accounting variables, including capital adequacy ratio, return on assets, non-performing loans, bank size, and gross domestic product, as well as governance factors, covering board composition, audit quality, women on board, and the presence of risk committees, on the stability of banks operating in the MENA region between 2009 and 2020. Our findings reveal that most of these variables have a positive impact on banking stability. However, non-performing loans and the presence of independent directors on the board exhibit a negative relationship with banking stability. Therefore, it is found that banks under consideration maintain stability in tandem with good corporate governance practices and economic expansion, thereby positively influencing the MENA banking sector. The study recommends researchers to delve deeper into the complex relationships between these variables and banking stability and suggests that future studies explore additional factors that might impact the stability of banks in the MENA region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".