Author
Abstract
This paper aims to compare the efficiency, technological gap, and stability of Islamic and conventional banks in the GCC region. We estimate group-specific cost frontiers for each banking type, and a Meta cost frontier for all banks to draw insights on the technological heterogeneity between the GCC Islamic and conventional banks. In the second stage analysis, we use the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) to highlight the major determinants of bank efficiency in GCC countries. We also investigate the differences, if any, in the stability of Islamic and conventional banks against the 2007–08 global financial crisis. A panel dataset of 72 banks over the period 2005–2011 that covers the crucial period of the global financial crisis is used for the analysis. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference in mean efficiency between Islamic and conventional banks when efficiency is measured relative to the group frontier. But, Meta Frontier Analysis that accounts for the differences in the modalities of the two banking systems reveals that Islamic banking technology is not at par with the industry’s standard. The decomposition of the efficiency scores indicates that the pure technical efficiency of Islamic banks is significantly higher than that of conventional banks, but Islamic banks are posed to higher dis-economies of scale. The analysis further reveals that the 2007–08 financial turmoil has moderately affected the GCC banking sector; we found no evidence of statistically significant differences in the resilience levels of Islamic and conventional banks against the financial crises.
Suggested Citation
Mirwais Parsa, 2022.
"Efficiency and stability of Islamic vs. conventional banking models: a meta frontier analysis,"
Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 849-869, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jsustf:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:849-869
DOI: 10.1080/20430795.2020.1803665
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jsustf:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:849-869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TSFI20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.