TÜRK BANKACILIK SİSTEMİNİN REKABET SEVİYESİNİN PANZAR ROSSE MODELİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK AMPİRİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 49, 3 - 49, 01.03.2012

Melisa Erdilek Karabay Pınar Okay

Öz

Türk bankacılık sektöründeki artan rekabet, kriz sonrası yeniden yapılandırma uygulamaları neticesinde hızlanan küreselleşmeyle beraber finansal piyasalar arasındaki entegrasyona hız vermiştir. Bankacılık sektöründe rekabet düzeyinin ölçülmesine olan ilgi sektördeki yoğunlaşmanın artmasına paralel olarak son derece önem kazanmıştır. Bu nedenle çalışmada, panel veri kullanılarak 20022010 döneminde Türk mevduat bankalarının firma davranışına bağlı olarak rekabet düzeyinin tahmin edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda mevduat bankalarının rekabet seviyesinin tahmini için “Yeni Endüstriyel Organizasyon Teorisi” kapsamında geliştirilmiş olan Panzar-Rosse modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada 31 bankanın yıllık veri seti kullanılmış ve elde edilen ampirik sonuçlar bankacılık sektörünün monopolcü rekabet koşullarında faaliyet gösterdiğini ortaya koymuş ve tam rekabet ile tekelci koşullar reddedilmiştir. Özel mevduat bankalarının ise piyasa gücünü ellerinde tuttukları görülmektedir. Ampirik bulgular değerlendirildiğinde; Türk bankacılık sektörünün oligopolistik yapısına rağmen sektördeki firma davranışının tekelci rekabet ile tanımlandığı ortaya çıkmıştır bu da pazar gücü hipotezini desteklemektedir. Ayrıca, 2002-2010 yılları arasında yoğunlaşmadaki artış ve sektörün yeniden yapılanması nedeniyle banka sayısında ortaya çıkan azalma rekabetteki yoğunluğun azalmasını da beraberinde getirmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rekabet, Pazar Gücü, Panzar-Rosse Modeli, Yeni Endüstriyel Organizasyon, Türk Mevduat Bankaları

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE MEASUREMENT OF THE LEVEL OF COMPETITION IN THE TURKISH BANKING SYSTEM USING PANZAR-ROSSE METHODOLOGY

Öz

As the dynamics of competition and the impacts of globalization on banks have begun to change after the restructuring program in the Turkish banking sector, measuring the competitive behavior of banks has gained an increasing interest. In this paper we adopt the Panzar-Rosse model developed by “New Industrial Organization Approach” to assess the competitive conditions for deposit banks in Turkey. We used panel data for the period 2002-2010. By using disaggregated annual data from 31 banks, the empirical results of this study suggest that deposit banks operate under monopolistic competition as the cases of monopoly and perfect competition are rejected for the Turkish banking sector. It also appears as private deposit banks seem to enjoy even more market power. When we preview the empirical results briefly, we find that the deposit banks in Turkey can be characterized as monopolistically competitive despite its oligopolistic structure, thus supporting the market power hypothesis. We also show that the reduction in the number of banks, as a result of ongoing restructuring program in the sector and the associated increase in concentration during 2002-2010, was accompanied by a decline in the intensity of competition

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competition, Market Power, Panzar-Rosse Model, New Industrial Organization, Turkish Deposit Banks

Kaynakça

• ABBASOĞLU, O., F. AYSAN, A. FARUK and G. ALİ (2007), Concentration
• Competition, Efficiency and Profitability of the Turkish Banking Sector in the Post-Crises Period, MPRA Paper No. 5494.
• AKTAN, B. and O. MASOOD (2010), “The State of Competition of The Turkish Banking Industry:an Application of The Panzar Rosse Model”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, No:11 (1), p.131-145.
• Uygulama, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. ARAI, M.Y. and N. YOSHINO (2006), Concept of Competitiveness: Focusing on the Financial Sector, Discussion Paper.
• ARICAN, E., B.T. YÜCEMEMIŞ, M.E. KARABAY and G. IŞIL (2011), Türk
• Bankacılık Sektöründe Ölçek Ekonomileri, Pazar Hakimiyeti ve Rekabet Gücü, Maliyet Etkinliği ve Ölçek Ekonomilerine İlişkin Ekonometrik Bir Uygulama, TBB, No:278. BAIN, J. (1951), “Relation of Profit Rate to Concentration: American
• Manufacturing, 1936-1940”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, No:65(3), p.293-324.
• BAIN, J. (1954), “Economies of Scale, Concentration, and the Condition of
• Entry in Twenty Manufacturing Industries”, American Economic Review, No:44(1), p.15-39. BAIN, J. (1956), Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
• BARNEY, J. (1986), “Types of Competition and the Theory of Strategy
• Toward an Integrative Framework”, Academy of Management Review, No:11(4), p.791-800. BDDK (2010), Türk Bankacılık Sektörü Genel Görünümü, Haziran 2010, No: 3.
• BEGG, D., S. FISCHER and R. DORNBUSH, Economics, Mc GrawHill, 8th edition [edited by SERİN, V. (2000), Mikro İktisat, Alkım Kitabevi, İstanbul, p.124].
• BERGER, A.N., L.F. KLAPPER and R.T. ARISS (2008), Banking Structures and Financial Stability”, Wharton Working Paper Series.
• BIKKER, J.A. and L. SPIERDIJK (2001), Measuring and Explaining
• Competition In The Financial Sector, Utrecht School of Economics Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute, Discussion Paper Series. BIKKER, J.A (2004a), Testing for Imperfect Competition on EU Deposit and Loan Markets With Bresnahan's Market Power Model, 2004, Research Series Supervision, No. 52
• BIKKER, J.A. (2004b), Competition and Efficiency in a Unified European
• Banking Market, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. BIKKER, J.A., L. SPIERDIJK and P. FINNIE (2007), “Market Structure
• Contestability and Institutional Environment: the Determinants of Banking Competition”, DNB Working Paper No:156, De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam. BIKKER, J., S. SHAFFER and L. SPIERDIJK (2009), Assessing Competition with the Panzar-Rosse Model: The Role of Scale, Costs, and Equilibrium.
• Utrecht School of Economics Discussion Paper Series. BRESNAHAN, T. (1982), “The Oligopolistic Solution Concept is identified”.
• Economic Letters, Vol.10, p.87-92. BRESNAHAN, T. (1989), Handbook of Industrial Organization vol. 2, Chapter
• Empirical Studies of Industries with Market Power, New York, North-Holland. BUCHS, T. and J. MATHISEN (2005), Competition and Efficiency in Banking
• Behavioral Evidence from Ghana, IMF Working Paper. CETORELLI, N. (2001), “Competition Among Banks: Good or Bad?”
• Economic Perspectives, p.38-48. CLAESSENS, S. and L. LAEVEN (2004), “What Drives Bank Competition?
• Some International Evidence”. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, No:36, p.563–583. ÇELİK, T. and M. KAPLAN (2010), “Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Etkinlik ve Rekabet, 2002-2007”, Sosyo-Ekonomi, no: 2010 (2), p.7-28.
• ÇİVİ, E. (2001), “Rekabet Gücü: Literatür Araştırması”,Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, No:8(2), p.21-24.
• DE BANDT, O. and E.P. DAVIS (1999), A Cross-Country Comparison Of
• Market Structures In European Banking, ECB Working Paper, No.7. DEGRYSE, H.A. and S. ONGENA (2008), Competition and Regulation In The Banking Sector: A Review of The Empirical Evidence on The Sources of Bank
• Rents. In A. Thakor & A. Boot (Eds.), Handbook of Financial Intermediation and Banking. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DEGRYSSE, H., K. MOSHE and S. ONGENA (2009), “Micro Econometrics of
• Banking: Methods, Applications and Results, Oxford University Press. DEMSETZ, H. (1973), Two Systems of Belief about Monopoly, In: Harvey
• J. Goldschmid, H. Michael Mann, et J. Fred Weston, Dir., Industrial Concentration: The New Learning, Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ELMACI, O. and N. KURNAZ (2004), Sürdürülebilir Rekabet Gücüne Yönelik
• Vizyon Arayışlarında Faaliyet Tabanlı Maliyetleme Yaklaşımı, Selçuk Üniversitesi, ÜAS’04, IV. Ulusal Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Günay Ofset Matbaacılık ve Tic. Ltd. Şti., 8-10 Ekim, Konya. EMEK, U. (2005), Bankacılık Sisteminde Rekabet ve İstikrar İkileminin Analizi
• Türkiye Örneği, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. ERTEK, T. (2008), “İktisada Giriş”, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul.
• FREXIAS, X. and J.C. ROCHET (2008), MicroEconomics of Banking, MIT
• Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, UK. GELOS, R.G. and J. ROLDOS (2004), “Consolidation and Market Structure In
• Emerging Market Banking Systems”, Emerging Markets Review, Vol.5, p.39-59. GODDARD, J. and J.O.S. WILSON (2008), “Measuring Competition in
• Banking:A Disequilibrium Approach”, www.eief.it/files/2007/10/s_20071105.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 20.09.2011.
• GROENEVELD, J.M. and W.W. BOONSTRA (2005), Competition in a Highly
• Concentrated Banking Sector Theoretical, Empirical and Practical Considerations For The Netherlands, Rabobank Report. GÜNALP, B. and T. ÇELİK (2006), “Competition in the Turkish Banking
• Industry: Evidence from Savings Banks”, Applied Economics, No: 38, p.1335-1342.
• HAINZ, C. (2003), “Bank Competition and Credit Markets in Transition economies”, Journal of Comparative Economics, No: 31, p.223-245.
• HEMPELL, H.S. (2002), Testing for Competition Among German Banks
• Discussion paper, Deutsche Bundesbank, January. HONDROYIANNIS, G., LALOS, S. and E. PAPAPETROU (1999), “Assessing
• Competitive Conditions in the Greek Banking System”, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, No:9(4), p.377-391. ISERN, J. (2008), Cross-Country Analysis of The Effects of E-Banking and Financial Infrastructure On Financial Sector Competition: A Schumpeterian
• KARAGÖZ, K. and A. ŞEN (2010), “Döviz Kuru Rejimi- Ticari Rekabet Gücü
• İlişkisi: Türkiye İçin Ampirik Bir Analiz”, Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi, No:21, p.1-12. KASMAN, A. (2001), “Competitive Conditions in the Turkish Banking
• Industry”. Ege Academic Review, No:1 (2), p.72-82. LEE, C. (2007), “SCP, NEIO and Beyond,” ICSEAD Working Paper.
• MAN, T.W.Y., T. LAU and K.F. CHAN (2002), “The Competitiveness of Small
• And Medium Enterprises A Conceptualization With Focus On Entrepreneurial Competencies”, Journal Of Business Venturing, No:17, p.123–142. MATTHEWS, K.V and J. THOMPSON (2005), The Economics of Banking
• John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2nd edition. MATTHEWS, K.V. and T. ZHAO (2007), “Competitive Conditions Among the Major British Banks”. Journal of Banking & Finance, No:31 (7), p.2025-2042.
• MAUDOS, J. and J.J.F de GUEVARA (2007), “The Cost of Market Power in
• Banking: Social Welfare Loss vs. Cost inefficiency”, Journal of Banking & Finance, No: 31, p.2103–2125.
• MKRTCHYAN, A. (2005), “The Evolution of Competition In Banking in A
• Transition Ecopnomy: an Application of The Panzar-Rosse Model To Armenia”, The European Journal of Comparative Economics, No: 1(2), p.67-82. MOLYNEUX, P., LLOYD-WILLIAMS, D. M. and J. THORNTON (1994)
• Banking Industry: An Empirical Analysis of the Consolidation, Competition And Concentration in the Indonesia Banking Industry between 2001 and 2009”, http://ace2011.org.au/ACE2011/Documents/Abstract_Tri_Mulyaningsih.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.10.2011.
• MUHARRAMI, S. AL, K. MATTHEWS and Y. KHABARI (2006), “Market
• Structure and Competitive Conditions in the Arab GCC Banking System”, Journal of Banking & Finance, No:30(12), p.3487-3501.
• ORHAN, O.Z. and S. ERDOĞAN (2008), “Mikro İktisadi Analize Giriş” Palme Yayıncılık.
• ÖNSEL, Ş., F.ÜLENGİN, G. ULUSOY, E. AKTAS, Ö. KABAK and İ. TOPÇU (2008), “New Perspective On The Competitiveness of Nations”, Socio
• Economic Planning Sciences, No: 42, p.221-246. PANZAR, J.C. and J.N. ROSSE (1987), “Testing for Monopoly Equilibrium”.
• ROZAS, L. G. DE (2007), Testing For Competition In The Spanish Banking
• Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Edition 1, Volume 2. SHAFFER, S. (1993), Market Conduct and Excess Capacity in Banking: A
• Cross-Country Comparison, Working Papers 93-28, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. SHAFFER, S. (1994), “Bank Competition in Concentrated Markets”, Business Review, No:3(4), p.3-17.
• Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, No: 18(6), p.1063-1082.
• SHAFFER, S. (2004), “Patterns of Competition in Banking”, Journal of
• Economics and Business, No: 56, p.287-313. SHAFFER, S. and L. SPIERDIJK (2011), “Cost, Revenue, and Strategic
• Interaction”, Working Paper, http://www.rug.nl/staff/l.spierdijk/Cost_Revenue_and_Strategic_Interaction.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 01.12.2011.
• SHERRILL, S. (1989), Regulatory Distortion of Competition, Working Papers 28, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
• SHERRILL, S. (1996), The Translog Form and Declining Average Costs
• Working Papers 95-13/R, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. SNYMAN, R. and C.J. KRUGER (2004), “The Interdependency Between
• TBB (2011), Bankalarımız 2010, No: 276.
• TUNAY, B. (2009), “Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Rekabet ve Kırılganlık”
• Bankacılar Dergisi, No: 68, p.30-55. TURK-ARISS, R. (2009), “Competitive Behavior in Middle East and North
• Africa Banking Systems”. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, No: 49(2), p.693-710. YAKICI, T.A. and F. ÇANKAYA (2002), “Türk Bankacılık Sisteminin Ölçek
• Ekonomileri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi”, Bankacılar Dergisi, No:43, p.33-50. YETİM, S. and O. GÜLHAN (2005), Avrupa Birliği Tam Üyelik Sürecinde Türk
• Bankacılık Sektörü, Ankara: Xerox Doküman Merkezi. YEYATI, E.L. and A. MICCO (2007), “Concentration and Foreign Penetration in Latin American Banking Sector: Impact on Competition and Risk”, Journal of Banking and Finance, No: 31(6), p.1633-1647.
• YUAN, Y. (2006), “The State of Competition of The Chinese Banking
• Notes: (the HHI values are calculated by authors based on the data obtained from BAT, Statistical Reports, June 2011) Appendix - 2
• Descriptive Statistics of Turkish Private Deposit Banks LNPRVA 4.597575 -2.521515 4.652691 -2.545874 3.320215 -1.536772 6.263962 -3.617944 679922 0.161817 881142 450702 798236 418.3793 -229.4578 60648 LNOE 346292 322630 139484 758622 326486 537149 857645 452859 107913 5125 593384 LNASS 0.318172 -0.480422 -0.009684 189418 886890 Kurtosis Jarque-Bera Probability* Sum Sum Sq. Dev. 409520 131208 933572 277835 870300 845067 092438 954833 8775 49145 838608 2422 09360
• *p-value < 0,05 reject H0 , observations are normally distributed. Correlation Matrix LNASS 000000 037709 000000 322315 000000 660191 000000 585229 000000 008175 000000 DLNPL 0.021136 118910 186751 231635 008175
• Source: Authors’ calculation. Appendix - 4 Correlation Matrix of Deposit Banks LNASS 000000 0.281308 000000 505803 000000 664089 000000 426066 000000 0.084834 000000 DLNPL 0.017714 255840 261622 231275 0.084834
• Source: Authors’ calculation Appendix - 5 Correlation Matrix of Foreign-owned Banks LNASS 000000 084249 000000 383679 000000 658785 000000 677882 000000 075507 000000 DLNPL 0.006409 069509 161737 263969 075507