SavedAdd your journal

Journals / BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1

Competition Paradox in Turkish Participation Banking: Asymmetric Effects of Market Concentration on Financial Performance

Türk Katılım Bankacılığında Rekabet Paradoksu: Pazar Yoğunlaşmasının Finansal Performans Üzerindeki Asimetrik Etkileri

Halil İbrahim Yavuz(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2964-4873
Turgay Yavuzarslan(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi)0000-0002-0481-1279
Savaş Mücteba Harputlu(Hitit Üniversitesi)0000-0002-1228-785X
Pages
50–70
Publication Date
2026-06-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Consequently, it is advised that policymakers provide a competitive regulatory framework that encourages the entry of new technology-oriented actors into the sector.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the asymmetric effects of market concentration on financial performance in the Turkish participation banking sector using quarterly data for the period 2016:Q1–2025:Q3.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Empirical findings clearly demonstrate that the relationship between market structure and profitability is not homogeneous.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Consequently, it is advised that policymakers provide a competitive regulatory framework that encourages the entry of new technology-oriented actors into the sector.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Katılım Bankacılığı · Pazar Yoğunlaşması · Asimetrik Etki

Abstract

This study examines the asymmetric effects of market concentration on financial performance in the Turkish participation banking sector using quarterly data for the period 2016:Q1–2025:Q3. Analyzing five participation banks operating in the sector, the study employs second-generation panel data econometrics (CS-ARDL / CCE-MG) that account for cross-sectional dependence and bank-specific slope heterogeneity. Empirical findings clearly demonstrate that the relationship between market structure and profitability is not homogeneous. While early-entrant private actors in the sector are positively affected by increased competition in accordance with the Efficient Structure Hypothesis (ESH), state-owned and relatively new entrant banks benefit from market power advantages in line with the traditional Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) paradigm. Across the sector, Pooled Error Correction Model (ECM) estimations with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors indicate that decreasing market concentration (increasing competition) has a statistically significant and positive impact on return on assets (ROA) in the long run. Sub-period analyses reveal a divergence between the short- and long-run effects of competition shocks, whereas the Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test indicates a bi-directional dynamic interaction between HHI and profitability. Consequently, it is advised that policymakers provide a competitive regulatory framework that encourages the entry of new technology-oriented actors into the sector.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türk katılım bankacılığı sektöründe pazar yoğunlaşmasının finansal performans üzerindeki asimetrik etkilerini 2016:Q1–2025:Q3 dönemine ait çeyreklik verilerle incelemektedir. Sektörde faaliyet gösteren beş katılım bankasının analiz edildiği çalışmada, yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve banka bazlı eğim heterojenliğini dikkate alan ikinci nesil panel veri ekonometrisi (CS-ARDL / CCE-MG) kullanılmıştır. Ampirik bulgular, pazar yapısı ile kârlılık ilişkisinin homojen olmadığını açıkça kanıtlamaktadır. Sektöre daha erken tarihte giren bankalar Etkinlik Yapısı Hipotezi'ne uygun olarak artan rekabetten pozitif etkilenirken, kamu sermayeli ve pazara görece yeni giren bankalar geleneksel Yapı-Davranış-Performans paradigması doğrultusunda pazar gücü avantajından faydalandığı tespit edilmiştir. Sektör genelinde Driscoll-Kraay standart hatalı Havuzlanmış Hata Düzeltme Modeli (ECM) tahminleri, azalan pazar yoğunlaşmasının aktif kârlılığını (ROA) uzun dönemde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Alt dönem analizleri, rekabet şoklarının kısa ve uzun dönem etkilerinin ayrıştığını ortaya koyarken, Dumitrescu-Hurlin paneli nedensellik testi HHI ve kârlılık arasında çift yönlü dinamik bir etkileşim bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma sonucunda politika yapıcıların, sektöre teknoloji odaklı yeni aktörlerin girişini teşvik eden rekabetçi bir regülatif çerçeve sunması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavuz, H. İ., Yavuzarslan, T., Harputlu, S. M. (2026). Competition Paradox in Turkish Participation Banking: Asymmetric Effects of Market Concentration on Financial Performance. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1, 50–70. https://doi.org/10.46520/bddkdergisi.1972883

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Aksoy, C., ve Ekim Kocaman, B. (2025). Türk bankacılık sektöründe piyasa yoğunlaşmasının analizi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 101-118.
  2. Ashwani, B. ve Ishu, B. (2026). Revisiting structure conduct performance amid India’s banking sector consolidation. SN Business & Economics, 6(60). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-026-01058-z
  3. Bain, J. S. (1951). Relation of profit rate to industry concentration: American manufacturing, 1936–1940. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65(3), 293-324.
  4. Berger, A. N. (1995). The profit-structure relationship in banking—Tests of market-power and efficient-structure hypotheses. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27(2), 404–431. http://www.jstor.com/stable/2077876
  5. Bolarinwa, S. T., ve Obembe, O. B. (2017). Concentration–profitability nexus: New approach from causality. Studies in Microeconomics, 5(1), 84–98.
  6. Chudik, A., ve Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
  7. De Hoyos, R. E., ve Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482–496.
  8. Demsetz, H. (1973). Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. The Journal of Law & Economics, 16(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1086/466752
  9. Ditzen, J. (2018). Estimating dynamic common-correlated effects in Stata. The Stata Journal, 18(3), 585–617.
  10. Driscoll, J. C., ve Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646837
  11. Dumitrescu, E.-I., ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29, 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
  12. Eurostat. (2021). Glossary: Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI). Statistics Explained. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/101021.pdf
  13. Ferreira, C. (2013). Bank market concentration and bank efficiency in the European Union: A panel Granger causality approach. International Economics and Economic Policy, 10, 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-013-0234-y
  14. Ghaemi Asl, M., Rashidi, M. M., ve Ghorbani, A. (2022). Empirical evaluation of structure-conduct-performance paradigm as applied to the Iranian Islamic banking system. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 15(4), 759–787. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-12-2020-0622
  15. Greene, W. (2018). Econometric analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
  16. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312.
  17. Horobet, A., Radulescu, M., Belascu, L., ve Dita, S. M. (2021). Determinants of bank profitability in CEE countries: Evidence from GMM panel data estimates. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(7), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14070307
  18. Ivascu, L., Ali, W., Khalid, R., ve Raza, M. (2023). The impact of competitive strategies on performance of banking sector; The mediating role of corporate social responsibility and operational excellence. Energies, 16, 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010297
  19. Karim, S., ve Lucey, B. M. (2024). BigTech, FinTech, and banks: A tangle or unity? Finance Research Letters, 64, 105490.
  20. Khan, N., Afridi, M. A., Tahir, M., ve Burki, U. (2026). Market structure, efficiency, and the quest for banking performance: New insights from an evolving banking market. International Journal of Financial Studies, 14, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs14010008
  21. Kuzu, S. (2018). Türkiye bankacılık sektöründe yoğunlaşma ile finansal kırılganlık ilişkisi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(1), 477–498.
  22. Mirzaei, A. (2011). The effect of market power on stability and performance of Islamic and conventional banks. Islamic Economic Studies, 18(1-2). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3159811 adresinden erişilmiştir. (05/04/2026)
  23. Mirzaei, A., Moore, T., ve Liu, G. (2013). Does market structure matter on banks’ profitability and stability? Emerging vs. advanced economies. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 2920–2937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.031
  24. Panzar, J. C., ve Rosse, J. N. (1987). Testing for "monopoly" equilibrium. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 443-456.
  25. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany.
  26. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967–1012.
  27. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., ve Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2670182
  28. Pesaran, M. H., ve Smith, R. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 79–113.
  29. Phillips, P. C. B., ve Sul, D. (2002). Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence (Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1362). Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University. http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=311501 adresinden erişilmiştir.
  30. Rebić, M., Paunović, S., ve Popović, B. (2022). Measuring concentration and efficiency in Bosnia and Herzegovina banking sector using dynamic panel model. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 17(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeb-2022-0002
  31. Serel, A., ve Akşehirli, N. (2020). Türk bankacılık sektöründe yoğunlaşma. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (48), 175–204.
  32. Smirlock, M. (1985). Evidence on the (non) relationship between concentration and profitability in banking. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 17(1), 69–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1992507
  33. Taşkın, F. D. (2015). Türk bankacılık sektöründe finansal istikrar-rekabet ilişkisi. Maliye Finans Yazıları, (103), 175-204.
  34. U.S. Department of Justice, ve Federal Trade Commission. (2023). Merger Guidelines (Issued December 18, 2023). Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023_merger_guidelines_final_12.18.2023.pdf
  35. Yayla, M. (2007). Türk bankacılık sektöründe yoğunlaşma ve rekabet: 1995-2005. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 1(1), 127-147.
  36. Yazgan, G. (2023). Türkiye’deki mevduat bankalarının gelir çeşitlendirme derecelerinin Herfindahl-Hirschman (HHI) endeksi ile ölçülmesi: 2012-2021 dönemi. Denetim ve Güvence Hizmetleri Dergisi, 3(1), 48–60.
  37. Yeddou, N. (2024). Ownership structure and bank performance: The impact of market competition. Applied Economics, 56(49), 5987–6019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2023.2267204