Comparing the Financial Flexibility and Risk Management Performance of Participation and Conventional Banks Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

Year 2026, Volume: 15 Issue: 1 , 724 - 752 , 31.03.2026

Özkan İmamoğlu

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1820178

https://izlik.org/JA96NW96LF

Abstract

This study comparatively examines the financial flexibility and risk management performance of participation and conventional banks operating in Türkiye over the period 2019–2023 within an input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) framework. By employing the CCR (constant returns to scale) and BCC (variable returns to scale) models together, the study distinguishes overall technical efficiency, pure technical efficiency, and scale efficiency across a sample of six banks, comprising three participation banks and three conventional banks. In line with the intermediation approach, funding costs, personnel expenses, and total assets are included as inputs; loan volume and net profit are treated as desirable outputs; and the non-performing loan (NPL) ratio is incorporated as an undesirable output. In addition, DEA efficiency scores are interpreted together with selected indicators of financial flexibility and risk management, including capital adequacy, liquidity coverage, leverage, funding structure, and profitability.

The findings show that conventional banks outperform participation banks in both CCR and BCC scores, indicating stronger overall technical efficiency and pure technical efficiency. The scale-efficiency results further reveal that conventional banks operate closer to the most productive scale size, whereas participation banks display a persistent scale mismatch despite relatively acceptable BCC levels. At the same time, participation banks exhibit higher capital adequacy ratios, stronger liquidity buffers, and slightly higher leverage ratios, suggesting a more conservative risk posture and greater shock-absorption capacity. However, their higher NPL ratios and lower profitability limit their ability to convert prudential strength into sustainable growth and scale economies. The Malmquist total factor productivity analysis also indicates productivity growth for all banks during the sample period, with technological change emerging as the main driver. Overall, the results point to a trade-off between efficiency–profitability and resilience–flexibility across the two banking models and provide policy-relevant implications for strengthening participation banking within Türkiye’s dual banking system.

Keywords

Participation Banking , Conventional Banking , Data Envelopment Analysis , Financial Flexibility , Risk Management , Scale Efficiency

Katılım Bankaları ile Konvansiyonel Bankaların Finansal Esneklik ve Risk Yönetimi Performanslarının Veri Zarflama Analizi (DEA) Yöntemiyle Karşılaştırılması

https://izlik.org/JA96NW96LF

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2019–2023 döneminde Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren katılım ve konvansiyonel bankaların finansal esneklik ve risk yönetimi performanslarını girdi odaklı Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) çerçevesinde karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. CCR (sabit getiri) ve BCC (değişen getiri) modelleri birlikte kullanılarak genel teknik etkinlik, saf teknik etkinlik ve ölçek etkinliği ayrıştırılmış; üç katılım ve üç konvansiyonel bankadan oluşan örneklem analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada aracılık yaklaşımı benimsenmiş; fonlama maliyetleri, personel giderleri ve toplam aktifler girdi; kredi hacmi ve net kâr istenen çıktı; takipteki kredi oranı (TKO) ise istenmeyen çıktı olarak modele dâhil edilmiştir. Ayrıca etkinlik skorları, sermaye yeterliliği, likidite karşılama oranı, kaldıraç, fonlama yapısı ve kârlılık göstergeleriyle birlikte değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular, konvansiyonel bankaların CCR ve BCC skorları bakımından katılım bankalarına göre daha yüksek performans sergilediğini, dolayısıyla genel teknik etkinlik ve saf teknik etkinlik açısından daha güçlü bir konumda bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Ölçek etkinliği sonuçları, konvansiyonel bankaların en verimli ölçek düzeyine daha yakın çalıştığını; katılım bankalarında ise kabul edilebilir BCC düzeylerine rağmen kalıcı bir ölçek uyumsuzluğu bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Buna karşılık katılım bankalarının daha yüksek sermaye yeterliliği, güçlü likidite tamponları ve nispeten daha yüksek kaldıraç oranları ile daha ihtiyatlı bir risk duruşuna ve daha yüksek şok emme kapasitesine sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Ancak daha yüksek TKO oranları ve daha düşük kârlılık, bu ihtiyatlı bilanço yapısının sürdürülebilir büyüme ve ölçek ekonomilerine dönüştürülmesini sınırlandırmaktadır. Malmquist toplam faktör verimliliği analizi, dönem boyunca tüm bankalarda verimlilik artışı olduğunu ve bu artışın temel itici gücünün teknolojik değişim olduğunu göstermektedir. Genel olarak bulgular, iki bankacılık modeli arasında etkinlik–kârlılık ile dayanıklılık–esneklik eksenlerinde belirgin bir farklılaşma bulunduğunu ortaya koymakta ve Türkiye’nin ikili bankacılık sistemi içinde katılım bankacılığının güçlendirilmesine yönelik politika yapıcılar açısından önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Katılım Bankacılığı , Konvansiyonel Bankacılık , Veri Zarflama Analizi , Finansal Esneklik , Risk Yönetimi , Ölçek Etkinliği

References

• AAOIFI. (n.d.). Shari’ah standards (Selected entries: Murabahah, Ijarah, Salam, Istisna, Musharakah, Mudarabah). https://aaoifi.com/shariah-standards-3/?lang=en
• Ada, A. A., & Dalkılıç, N. (2014). Efficiency analysis in Islamic banks: A study for Malaysia and Turkey. Bankacılar Dergisi (BDDK), (90), 54–66. https://www.bddk.org.tr/Content/docs/bddkDergiTr/dergi_0015_03.pdf
• Amirteimoori, A., & Kordrostami, S. (2024). A firm-specific Malmquist productivity index model for banks. Financial Innovation, 10(1), Article 83. https://jfin-swufe.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40854-023-00583-2
• Arslan, B. G. (2010). The efficiency of participation and conventional banks: Evidence from Turkey (Çalışma raporu). Türkiye Katılım Bankaları Birliği (TKBB). https://tkbbegitim.org.tr/Documents/Yonetmelikler/The%20Efficiency%20of%20Participation%20and%20Conventional%20Banks_3.pdf
• Association for Financial Markets in Europe. (2025). Interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB): Industry perspectives. https://www.afme.eu/media/t5tehhpr/afmeirrbbfinal.pdf
• Bank of England. (2020). Credit institutions’ credit risk management practices and accounting for expected credit losses (IFRS 9). https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/paper/2020/december/gl-credit-risk-practices-accounting-expected-credit-losses.pdf
• Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu [BDDK]. (2019). Katılım bankaları ve İslami mikrofinans: Türkiye’deki uygulamalar. https://www.bddk.org.tr/Content/docs/bddkDergiTr/dergi_0026_03.pdf
• Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiency in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/47351/1/606634649.pdf
• Banker, R. D., Cooper, W. W., Thrall, R. M., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2004). Returns to scale in different DEA models. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(2), 345–362. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377221703001747
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2015). Corporate governance principles for banks. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d328.pdf
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2016). Interest rate risk in the banking book. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d368.pdf
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2021). Principles for operational resilience. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d516.htm
• Beck, T., Iqbal, Z., & Mutlu, R. (2016). Do Islamic banks contribute to risk sharing? Türkiye Katılım Bankaları Birliği (TKBB). https://tkbbegitim.org.tr/Documents/Yonetmelikler/Do-Islamic-Banks-Contribute-to-Risk-Sharing-Thorsten-Beck-Zamir-Iqbal-Rasim%20Mutlu-2016.pdf
• Benli, Y. K. (2013). Empirical evidence of Malmquist productivity change in Turkish banking. Panoeconomicus, 60(1), 85–101. https://panoeconomicus.org/index.php/jorunal/article/view/347
• Berger, A. N., & Humphrey, D. B. (1997). Efficiency of financial institutions: International survey and directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research, 98(2), 175–212. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v98y1997i2p175-212.html
• Beyoğlu, A. (2025). Türk bankacılık sektöründe dijital bankacılık verimlilik analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(2), 232–248.
• BIS – Financial Stability Institute. (2022). Principles for operational resilience – Executive summary. https://www.bis.org/fsi/fsisummaries/op_resilience.htm
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0377221778901388
• Dawood, T. J. (2023). Financial flexibility and its impact on financial recovery: Study for a sample of Iraqi commercial banks. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 18(4), 409–411. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/9128323.pdf
• Dünya Bankası. (2020). Islamic finance (brief). https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/brief/islamic-finance
• EBA – European Banking Authority. (2020). Guidelines on loan origination and monitoring (EBA/GL/2020/06). https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document_library/Publications/Guidelines/2020/Guidelines%20on%20loan%20origination%20and%20monitoring/884283/EBA%20GL%202020%2006%20 Final%20Report%20on%20GL%20on%20loan%20origination%20and%20monitoring.pdf
• EBA – European Banking Authority. (2022, October 20). Final standards and guidelines on interest rate risk in the banking book. https://www.eba.europa.eu/publications-and-media/press-releases/eba-publishes-final-standards-and-guidelines-interest-rate
• European Central Bank. (2024, July). Draft guide on governance and risk culture. https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/framework/legal-framework/public-consultations/pdf/ssm.pubcon202407_draftguide.en.pdf
• Fethi, M. D., & Pasiouras, F. (2010). Assessing bank efficiency and performance with operational research and AI techniques: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 204(2), 189–198. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v204y2010i2p189-198.html
• Gamba, A., & Triantis, A. (2008). The value of financial flexibility. Journal of Finance, 63(5), 2263–2296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01397.x
• Gao, H. (2023). Bank funding costs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 81, 102177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102177
• Iddouch, K., Charif, K., & Belkacem, L. (2023). Efficiency and productivity of Islamic banking: A DEA literature review. Journal of Banking (Working paper / University of Edinburgh repository). https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/files/354966271/IddouchEtalJOB2022LandscapeOfResearchOn.pdf
• IFSB – Islamic Financial Services Board. (2005). Risk management for institutions (IIFS): IFSB-1. https://cbben.thomsonreuters.com/sites/default/files/net_file_store/IFSB-1-Risk_Management_Standard.pdf
• IFSB – Islamic Financial Services Board. (2012). Guiding principles on liquidity risk management (IFSB-12). https://www.ifsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/IFSB-12-March-2012_En.pdf
• IFSB – Islamic Financial Services Board. (2016). Guiding principles on stress testing (IFSB-13). https://www.mbri.ac.ir/userfiles/file/Islamic%20Banking/ بانک%20مقالات/Islamic%20finance%20data/Guiding%20Principles%20on%20Stress%20Testing%20for%20Institutions%20offering%20Islamic%20Financial%20Services.PDF
• IFSB – Islamic Financial Services Board. (2016). Technical note on stress testing for IIFS (TN-2). https://www.ifsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/TN-2-on-Stress-Testing-final.pdf
• IFSB – Islamic Financial Services Board. (2021, October 6). FAQs on IFSB-12/13/24/25. https://www.ifsb.org/press-releases/the-ifsb-publishes-its-fourth-set-of-frequently-asked-questions-faqs-on-ifsb-12-ifsb-13-ifsb-24-and-ifsb-25/
• IFSB – Islamic Financial Services Board. (2023, December 27). IFSB publishes standards (incl. IFSB-22, IFSB-23). https://www.ifsb.org/press-releases/the-ifsb-publishes-another-three-key-standards-in-the-russian-language/
• IMF – International Monetary Fund. (2020). Jobst, A. A. The nature of Islamic banking and solvency stress testing (WP/20/156). https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2020/English/wpiea2020156-print-pdf.ashx
• IMF – International Monetary Fund. (2024). 2024 revised Basel Core Principles for effective banking supervision (Note). https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/PP/2024/English/PPEA2024037.ashx
• Islamic Financial Services Board [IFSB], & World Bank. (2018). The core principles for Islamic finance regulations and assessment methodology. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/672751528515184661/pdf/REVISED-Board-CPIFR-May-30-2018-06042018.pdf
• Islamic Financial Services Board [IFSB]. (2015). Core principles for Islamic finance regulation (Banking segment) (IFSB-17). https://www.ifsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/IFSB-17-Core-Principles-for-Islamic-Finance-Regulation-Banking-Segment-December-2015-final.pdf
• Jain, R., & Singh, S. (2025). Total factor productivity in Indian banks: A DEA-based Malmquist approach. Cogent Economics & Finance, 13(1), 2530031. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2025.2530031
• Kendirli, S., & Ergenoğlu, S. (2021). Katılım bankalarının kârlılık belirleyicileri: Türkiye örneği. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(3), 545–551.
• Kırer, H. (2017). Malmquist indices of productivity change in Turkish banking sector (2002–2011). Beykent University Journal, 10(1), 1–18. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/357233
• Kotze, P. (2024). Financial flexibility in South Africa: Prevalence revisited. Finance, 17(10), 450. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17100450
• Mai, X. T. T., Phung, A. T. K., & Vo, D. H. (2023). Efficiency of the Islamic banking sector and its determinants. Economies, 11(1), 32. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/11/1/32
• Marchica, M.-T., & Mura, R. (2010). Financial flexibility, investment ability, and firm value: Evidence from firms with spare debt capacity. Financial Management, 39(4), 1339–1365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2010.01115.x
• MSCI. (2023, October 6). Response to BCBS consultation on climate risk. https://www.msci.com/documents/1296102/23003857/BCBS%2BMSCI%2BResponse.pdf/3af8fb2d-a586-ce0b-32af-01025301367f
• Neifar, M., & Jarboui, A. (2020). Islamic vs. conventional banks: What differences? Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA Paper No. 102972). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/102972/8/MPRA_paper_102972.pdf
• Nguyen, Q. K. (2024). How does financial flexibility strategy impact on risk-taking? SAGE Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241240842
• Paradi, J. C., & Zhu, H. (2013). A survey on bank branch efficiency and performance research with DEA. Omega, 41(1), 61–79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048312000254
• Paradi, J. C., Wilson, D., & Yang, X. (2018). Bank branch efficiency with DEA (Preprint / book chapter). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273441363_Bank_branch_efficiency_with_DEA
• Reuters. (2024, April 25). Global Basel Committee bolsters rules for supervising banks. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/global-basel-committee-bolsters-rules-supervising-banks-2024-04-25/
• Reuters. (2024, June 11). ECB says many euro zone banks dragging their feet on loan-loss provisions (IFRS 9). https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/many-euro-zone-banks-still-far-meeting-rules-provisions-2024-06-11/
• Sathye, M. (2001). X-efficiency in Australian banking: An empirical investigation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 25(3), 613–630. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378426600001564
• The Review of Financial Studies. (2012). Debt financing and financial flexibility: Evidence from … Review of Financial Studies, 25(6), 1897–1935. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhs112
• Tomak, S., & Yılmaz, K. (2024). The impact of participation bank credits on imports and exports: Evidence from Türkiye. Çağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 121–135. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/4331274
• Türkiye Katılım Bankaları Birliği [TKBB]. (2015–2025). Participation Banking Strategy Document. https://en.tkbb.org.tr/upload/TKBB_Strateji_Belgesi_Ingilizce_2015-2025.pdf
• Türkiye Katılım Bankaları Birliği [TKBB]. (n.d.). Katılım bankacılığı nedir? Nasıl çalışır? https://tkbbegitim.org.tr/Documents/Yonetmelikler/TKBB-Katilim-Bankaciligi-Nedir-Brosur.pdf
• Wang, H., Zhou, G., & Yazgan, G. (2024). CAMELS-DEA in assessing the role of major factors under unconventional monetary policies: Evidence from Turkish banks. Applied Economics, 56(13), 1520–1540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2339186
• Yıldırım, İ. (2015). Financial efficiency analysis in Islamic banks: Turkey and Malaysia. Journal of Economics, Finance & Accounting, 2(3), 284–297. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/374954
• Zengin, B., & Can, Ü. İ. (2025). BİST banka endeksinde işlem gören bankaların pandemi öncesi ve pandemi sürecindeki etkinliklerinin kıyaslanması. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 35(190).
• Zhu, J. (2019). Data Envelopment Analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). https://www.deafrontier.net/DEA.pdf