2000年-世界发展银行全球_Banking_Systems_Around_the_Globe___Do_Regulation_and_Ownership_Affect_the_Performance_and_Stability__66页_2mb

Banking Systems Around the Globe: Do Regulation and Ownership Affect Performance and Stability?

Core Content

This working paper by James R. Barth, Gerard Caprio, Jr., and Ross Levine explores the relationship between bank regulation, bank ownership, and the performance and stability of banking systems across more than 60 countries. The study is part of a broader effort by the World Bank to understand the effects of financial sector regulation on economic development.

Main Questions and Findings

The paper investigates three key questions:

1. Do regulatory restrictions on commercial banks' activities (securities, insurance, real estate) affect financial system efficiency and stability?

   • No reliable statistical relationship exists between these restrictions and the development of the banking sector, securities markets, or industrial competition.
   • However, regulatory restrictions on securities activities are associated with higher interest rate margins for banks.

2. Do restrictions on the mixing of banking and commerce affect banking system stability?

   • There are no positive effects from such restrictions.
   • Restricting banks from owning nonfinancial firms is positively associated with banking instability.
   • Restricting nonfinancial firms from owning banks has no effect on financial fragility.
   • The paper argues that restrictions on mixing banking and commerce do not reduce financial fragility, contrary to some policy beliefs.

3. Does state ownership of banks affect financial system performance and stability?

   • Greater state ownership is associated with poorer financial development and less competitive industrial sectors.
   • The paper supports the view that government ownership hinders financial development and is linked to less efficient financial systems.

Key Information

Regulatory Restrictions on Bank Activities

• The study constructs indices to measure the degree of regulatory restrictiveness on commercial banks engaging in securities, insurance, and real estate activities.
• Each activity is rated on a scale from 1 (unrestricted) to 4 (prohibited).
• The data shows substantial cross-country variation in regulatory environments.

Mixing of Banking and Commerce

• Two measures are used: nonfinancial firms owning banks and banks owning nonfinancial firms.
• Both are rated on a similar scale from 1 to 4.
• The paper finds no beneficial effects from restricting the mixing of banking and commerce.

State Ownership of Banks

• Data is collected on the share of state-owned bank assets in total commercial bank assets.
• The findings indicate that greater state ownership is associated with less developed financial systems and less competitive industries.

Stability and Banking Crises

• Tighter regulatory restrictions on securities activities are strongly associated with higher probabilities of banking crises.
• The positive link between regulatory restrictions and banking crises is not due to reverse causation.

Methodology and Data Sources

• The researchers collected data from international surveys by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the World Bank.
• They also used data from other sources such as the Institute of International Bankers, Euromoney, and central bank publications.
• The data reflects the regulatory environment in 1997, with some earlier data from 1995.
• A summary index of regulatory restrictions is created, combining measures of securities, insurance, real estate, and banks owning nonfinancial firms.

Conclusion

• The study suggests that regulatory restrictions on commercial banks do not reliably improve financial system performance or stability.
• State ownership of banks is associated with less efficient and more fragile financial systems.
• The mixing of banking and commerce does not appear to harm financial stability and may even be beneficial.
• The paper calls for more research on the interplay between regulation and supervision, and emphasizes the need for comprehensive and accurate data to better understand the implications of banking policies on economic development.

Summary Statistics

• Nine countries had very restrictive systems (Restrict > 3): Japan, Mexico, Rwanda, Ecuador, Barbados, Botswana, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, and Guatemala.
• Nine countries had more liberal systems (Restrict < 1.75): Switzerland, Suriname, South Africa, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Austria, and Israel.
• The sample includes 24 OECD countries, 14 Latin American countries, 11 Sub-Saharan African countries, 12 Asian countries, and 5 countries from northern Africa and non-OECD Europe.

Empirical Results

• Simple correlations and regression analyses are used to assess the relationships between regulatory/ownership practices and financial system performance.
• The results suggest that each regulatory variable should be examined individually due to the diversity of cross-country regulatory environments.
• The paper concludes that regulatory restrictions and state ownership are not reliable indicators of financial stability or efficiency.

Implications

• The findings challenge the common belief that restricting commercial banks to traditional activities (deposits and loans) enhances financial stability.
• The East Asian financial crisis has led to hasty conclusions about the role of close ownership links in financial instability, which the paper argues is not supported by the data.
• The study emphasizes the importance of policy research and empirical evidence in shaping financial sector reforms.

Further Research

• The authors note that this research is ongoing, and future work will explore specific hypotheses and methodological issues in greater depth.
• They aim to investigate regulatory and supervisory practices more thoroughly using new cross-country data.
• The current paper serves as a progress report and a contribution to the ongoing debate on appropriate banking reforms.