Research Article

Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission

Volume: 75 Number: 2 January 15, 2026
EN

Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission

Abstract

This paper compares two retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) architectures—Two-Tier (bank-intermediated) and Direct (retail)—within a small-open-economy New Keynesian DSGE calibrated to Turkey. The model features monopolistic competition in deposits, a CES liquidity aggregator over bank deposits and CBDC, bank loan–deposit spreads, and a Taylor-rule policy rate. We trace impulse responses to four shocks: a banking (intermediation) shock, a liquidity-preference shock, a monetary policy shock, and a productivity shock. Three results emerge. First, the Two-Tier design preserves intermediation: deposit competition improves pass-through but does not trigger destabilizing outflows; loans and output fall modestly in adverse shocks, with limited disinflation. Second, the Direct design amplifies disintermediation under stress: deposit flight to CBDC is faster and larger, spreads widen, bank loans contract more, the output gap is more negative, and disinflation is stronger. These patterns are most pronounced for banking and liquidity shocks (Figures 1–2), present but milder for policy tightening (Figure 3), and small for positive productivity shocks where both designs yield rising real wages and subdued inflation (Figure 4). Overall, our Turkey-calibrated results support a “do-no-harm” Two-Tier CBDC: it delivers better deposit-rate pass-through and payment convenience while maintaining the traditional credit channel and smooth policy transmission, whereas a Direct CBDC would require tight safeguards (caps/tiered rates) to avoid credit crunch dynamics under stress.

Keywords

References

  1. Abad, J., Nuño, G., & Thomas, C. (2024). CBDC and The Operational Framework Of Monetary Policy. Bank for International Settlements.google scholar 
  2. Alper, K., & Çapacıoğlu, T. (2023). Funding Stability and The Pricing Of Retail Rates: Evidence From Turkish Banking Sector. In Koç University-TÜSIAD Economic Research Forum (ERF) (No. 2309). https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/296990 google scholar 
  3. Andolfatto, D. (2021). Assessing The Impact Of Central Bank Digital Currency On Private Banks. The Economic Journal, 131:525–540. google scholar 
  4. Assenmacher, K., Minesso, M. F., Mehl, A., and Pagliari, M. S. (2024). Managing The Transition To Central Bank Digital Currency. Working paper series - European Central Bank, (2907). google scholar 
  5. Auer, R. A. and Böhme, R. (2020). The Technology Of Retail Central Bank Digital Currency. BIS Quarterly Review, pages 85–100. google scholar 
  6. Auer, R., & Böhme, R. (2021). Central Bank Digital Currency: The Quest For Minimally Invasive Technology. In BIS Working Papers (No. 948). https://www.bis.org/publ/work948.htm. google scholar 
  7. Auer, R., Cornelli, G., & Frost, J. (2023). Rise of the Central Bank Digital Currencies. International Journal of Central Banking, 19(4), 185–214. google scholar 
  8. Aydin, H. I. (2007). Interest Rate Pass-Through In Turkey. In The Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Working Paper. (No. 07/05). https://ideas.repec.org/p/tcb/wpaper/0705.html google scholar 

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Economic Theory (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

January 15, 2026

Submission Date

September 20, 2025

Acceptance Date

December 23, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 75 Number: 2

APA
Bolcan, A. Z. (2026). Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 75(2), 549-578. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2025-1788041
AMA
1.Bolcan AZ. Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi. 2026;75(2):549-578. doi:10.26650/ISTJECON2025-1788041
Chicago
Bolcan, Aytuğ Zekeriya. 2026. “Two-Tier Vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission”. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi 75 (2): 549-78. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2025-1788041.
EndNote
Bolcan AZ (January 1, 2026) Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi 75 2 549–578.
IEEE
[1]A. Z. Bolcan, “Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission”, İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 549–578, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.26650/ISTJECON2025-1788041.
ISNAD
Bolcan, Aytuğ Zekeriya. “Two-Tier Vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission”. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi 75/2 (January 1, 2026): 549-578. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2025-1788041.
JAMA
1.Bolcan AZ. Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi. 2026;75:549–578.
MLA
Bolcan, Aytuğ Zekeriya. “Two-Tier Vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission”. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, vol. 75, no. 2, Jan. 2026, pp. 549-78, doi:10.26650/ISTJECON2025-1788041.
Vancouver
1.Aytuğ Zekeriya Bolcan. Two-Tier vs. Direct CBDC in Turkey: A DSGE Assessment of Banking Intermediation and Monetary Transmission. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi. 2026 Jan. 1;75(2):549-78. doi:10.26650/ISTJECON2025-1788041