Finansal Karmaşıklık: Türkiye, İran, Suudi Arabistan ve BAE Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Year 2025, Volume: 33 Issue: 64, 61 - 76, 26.04.2025

Fatemah Pourabdollah , Seyed-nezamuddin Makiyan , Mehdi Hajamini , Muhammad Hasan Zare

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.02.03

Abstract

Son yıllarda, bilim ve teknolojideki hızlı büyüme ve artan sayıdaki finansal araçlar nedeniyle küresel finansal ağ daha karmaşık bir hale gelmiştir. Bu durum finans sektöründe sistemik riskin artması ve dolayısıyla bu sektörün daha fazla kırılgan hale gelmesi gibi bazı sorunları beraberinde getirmiştir. Türkiye, İran, Suudi Arabistan ve BAE gibi gelişmekte olan piyasalarda, bu tür piyasaların finansal karmaşıklığı nedeniyle olası riskler ortaya çıkabilir. Bu bağlamda kriz olasılığı artabilir. Bu çalışmada, 2005-2020 yılları arasında McCabe’nin karmaşıklık ölçütü kullanılarak bu 4 ülkedeki finansal sistemlerin karmaşıklığı araştırılmıştır. Araştırma sonucuna göre, 95 ile Türkiye, 77 ile İran, 49 ile Suudi Arabistan ve 36 ile BAE finansal karmaşıklık açısından derecelendirilmiştir. Türkiye en yüksek, BAE ise en düşük sistemsel riske sahiptir; sermaye piyasasının incelenen ekonomilerde etkili bir rolü olmadığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

Finansal Karmaşıklık , McCabe Karmaşıklık Ölçütü , Türkiye , İran , Suudi Arabistan , Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri

Project Number

No

Financial Complexity: A Comparison Study of Türkiye, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE

Abstract

Over the last few decades, the global financial network has become increasingly complex due to the rapid growth in science and technology, as well as the expanding number of financial instruments worldwide. In this setting, several issues and problems arose, including the rising systemic risk in the financial sector, which in turn increased the sector's vulnerability. In emerging markets, such as Türkiye, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, the potential risk may arise due to the financial complexity of these markets. Therefore, the probability of crises will increase. This study investigated the complexity of financial systems in these countries using McCabe’s network approach from 2005 to 2020. Measuring complexity indicates that Türkiye, with a score of 95, Iran (77), Saudi Arabia (49), and the UAE (36) have been graded in terms of financial complexity. As a result, Türkiye has the highest, and the UAE has the lowest systemic risk among these countries. Additionally, the results suggest that capital markets do not play a significant role in these economies.

Keywords

Financial Complexity , McCabe’s Complexity , Türkiye , Iran , Saudi Arabia , United Arab Emirates

Ethical Statement

This article is the result of author's research and the authors declare that this article is original and has not been submitted elsewhere. This paper investigate and calculate the level of complexity in the Middle East (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE) which have not been done before.

Project Number

No

Thanks

No

References

• Acharya, V. et al. (2017), “Measuring Systemic Risk”, The Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 2-47.
• Botta, A. et al. (2022), “When Complexity Meets Finance: A Contribution to the Study of the Macroeconomic Effects of Complex Financial Systems”, Research Policy, 51(8), 103990.
• Boyd, J.H. & E.C. Prescott (1986), “Financial Intermediary-Coalitions”, Journal of Economic Theory, 38(2), 211-232.
• Caccioli, F. et al. (2018), “Network Models of Financial Systemic Risk: a Review”, Journal of Computational Social Science, 1(1), 81-114.
• Chowdhury, B. et al. (2018), “The Changing Network of Financial Linkage: The Asian Experience”, Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series.
• Diamond, D.W. (1984), “Financial Intermediation and Delegated Monitoring”, Review of Economic Studies, 51, 393-414.
• ECB European Central Bank (2010), Financial Stability Reviews, <https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.financialstabilityreview201711.en.pdf>, 25.05.2024.
• Espinosa-Vega, M.A. & S. Russell (2020), “Interconnectedness, Systemic Crises, and Recessions”, Latin American Journal of Central Banking, 1(1-4), 100008.
• Gofman, M. (2017), “Efficiency and Stability of a Financial Architecture with Too-Interconnected-to-Fail Institutions”, Journal of Financial Economics, 124(1), 113-146.
• King, R.G. & R. Levine (2010), “Financial Intermediation and Economic Development”, in: C. Mayer & X. Vives (eds.), Capital Markets and Financial Intermediation (156-189), Centre for Economic Policy Research published online by Cambridge University Press.
• Koskinen, J. et al. (2023), “Analyzing Networks of Networks”, Social Networks, 74(2023), 102-117.
• Kumar, V. (2018), Systemic Risk vs Systematic Risk, Accounting Education, E-book, <http://www.svtuition.org/2012/07/systemicrisk-vs-systematic-risk.html>, 25.05.2024.
• Li, F. et al. (2022), “Financial Stability and Network Complexity: a Random Matrix Approach”, International Review of Economics & Finance, 80, 177-185.
• Liao, Y. et al. (2020), “A Study on the Complexity of a New Chaotic Financial System”, Hindawi Complexity, ID 8821156.
• Morzy, M. et al. (2017), “On Measuring the Complexity of Networks: Kolmogorov Complexity versus Entropy”, Hindawi Complexity, ID 3250301.
• Ostad, H.A. et al. (2021), “The Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on the Systemic Risk of the Banking System with the Vector Autoregressive Model”, Quarterly Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 19(1400), 55-68.
• Poorabdollah, F. & S. Makiyan (2024), “Financial Complexity: Evidence from Iran”, Iranian Economic Review, DOI: 10.22059/IER.2024.372759.1007940.
• Raddant, M. & D.Y. Kenett (2016), “Interconnectedness in the Global Financial Market”, Office of Financial Paper, Working Paper, 16-09.
• Salim, Z. et al. (2023), “Centrality Measures of Financial System Interconnectedness: a Multiple Crises Study”, Heliyon, 9, 1-21.
• Tabak, B.M. et al. (2018), “Financial Networks”, Hindawi Complexity, ID 7802590.
• Tang, Y. et al. (2018), “Complexities in Financial Network Topological Dynamics: Modeling of Emerging and Developed Stock Markets”, Complexity, 2018, 1-31.