COMPETITION LEVEL ANALYSIS FOR THE FINTECH SECTOR IN TURKIYE COMPARED TO GERMANY

Abstract

Purpose- This study's objective is to observe Türkiye’s fintech market structure by their competitiveness results. To get a better observation Türkiye compared with a fintech-developed country as Germany. The inconvenient definition of fintech caused this study to examine 4 massive fin-tech sectors. Especially current situation of the financial-technology market there are several branches. The study refrains from the engineering-intensive branches to serve its purpose. The study includes; Payments, Lending, Personal Finance, and Insuretech branches. We expect to observe the competitive dynamics for several branches. Methodology- The study selected the “entropy index” as a method. The entropy index shows the market depth for related sectors. It can be defined as a density analysis. We can make the index with at least 5 observations. However, the increase in the observation level causes the low-variance level index results. Findings- The study made its index by the top ten firms by their sales revenue level. The study observes the market in 5 branches. The conclusion part supplied 5 different density results. In that situation, observations can be seen more specifically for the market. The study used the entropy density index to observe the competitiveness level of the market. Results were multiple because the branches were divided from the sector. Every branch has its dynamics. On the Türkiye side, we expect fewer companies than in Germany. However, in the personal finance sector, we can observe the competitiveness levels are close. However, in this study, we can also observe high gaps between the sectors of insurance tech and lending. This study did not have the purpose of determining the factors behind them but the study tried to give political suggestions. Conclusion- The density level for lending and personal finance sectors can be compatible with a high-fintech level company. For the insure-tech side, companies value and numbers are lower. The payment sector has more technology than the other sectors but the number of firms are lower than in Germany. We were expecting the competitive structure are not improve in Turkey because of the low-quantity firms. At some branches, we obtained the results that support this expectation. However, the view of the study observed that some branches has low competitive market structure when compared the Germany. But at some points, there are massive cliffs between the two countries. We can attribute the situation to the habits. The habits of technology meant. Especially on the insurance side, Turkey should improve itself. Türkiye should be getting more investment, subsidies, etc. in the sector of insure-tech and payment sector. Because their competition level is a risk to the country’s market structure. This study includes no detailed politics but suggests to subsidies and incentives from the government side. Government should support and encourage the new-entry firms or entrepreneurs for the sector of fintech

Keywords

• Fintech
• fintech demand
• fintech factors
• tech fin
• technological progress
• behavior finance

References

1. Aloulou, M., Grati, R., Al-Qudah, A. A., & Al-Okaily, M. (2024). Does FinTech adoption increase the diffusion rate of digital financial inclusion? A study of the banking industry sector. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(2), 289-307.
2. Agrawal, S. S., Rose, N., & PrabhuSahai, K. (2024). The fintech revolution: AI's role in disrupting traditional banking and financial services. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 7(1), 243-256.
3. AKSOY, B., & BİLGEL, D. (2019). Finansal teknoloji şirketleri ve geleceğin bankacılığı: açık bankacılık. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (17), 1097-1105.
4. Boot, A., Hoffmann, P., Laeven, L., & Ratnovski, L. (2021). Fintech: what’s old, what’s new? Journal of Financial Stability, 53, 100836.
5. Buchak, G., Hu, J., & Wei, S. J. (2021). FinTech as a financial liberator (No. w29448). National Bureau of Economic Research.
6. Caragea, D., Cojoianu, T., Dobri, M., Hoepner, A., Peia, O., & Romelli, D. (2024). Competition and innovation in the financial sector: Evidence from the rise of FinTech start-ups. Journal of Financial Services Research, 65(1), 103-140.
7. Carmona, A. F., Lombardo, A. G. Q., Pastor, R. R., Quirós, C. T., García, J. V., Muñoz, D. R., & Martin, L. C. (2018). Competition issues in the area of financial technology (Fintech). Policy Dep. Economics and Scientific Quallity Life Policies, European Parliament.
8. Farrell, M., Cortis, D., Debono, J., & Debattista, J. (2019). Disrupting Finance FinTech and Strategy in the 21st Century. Book Chapter: InsurTech. In Disrupting Finance FinTech and Strategy in the 21st Century. (pp. 71-82). Palgrave Macmillan.

9. Fettahoğlu, S., & Kıldıze, D. (2019). Dijital finansal okuryazarlık ve bireylerin finansal teknoloji kullanma konusundaki tutumları. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 12, 867-889.
10. KÖRPE, E. (2021). Dijital dönüşüm ile yeni finans çaği ve gelecek yaklaşimlari. Uluslararası Bankacılık Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 108-131.
11. Lestari, D., & Rahmanto, B. T. (2023). Fintech and its challenge for banking sector. Lestari, D., & Rahmanto, BT (2021). Fintech and Its Challenge for Banking Sector. The Management Journal of BINANIAGA, 6(01), 55-70.
12. Milne, A. (2016). Competition policy and the financial technology revolution in banking. Journal of Financial Regulation, 2(1), 120-135.
13. Schindler, J. W. (2017). FinTech and financial innovation: Drivers and depth. Finance and Economics Discussion Series, 2017-081. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
14. Schueffel, P. (2016). Taming the beast: A scientific definition of fintech. Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 32-54.
15. Turkish Presidential Finance Office. (2023). Türkiye Fintech Rehberi (1st ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Presidential Finance Office Publications.
16. Vezzoso, S. (2018). Fintech, access to data, and the role of competition policy. In Competition and Innovation (pp. 45-67). São Paulo, Brazil: Scortecci