SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Assessing the stability of the Turkish banking sector under macroeconomic conditions: A LOPCOW–Oriented AROMAN approach

Makroekonomik koşullar altında Türk bankacılık sektörü istikrarının LOPCOW–Oriented AROMAN yaklaşımıyla analizi

Halil İbrahim Yavuz(SELCUK UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2964-4873
Pages
267–282
Publication Date
2026-10-21
🏛️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)

According to the results, the highest stability performance was observed in 2010, followed by 2007, 2011, 2023, and 2012, while the lowest performance was recorded in 2019.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study assesses the stability performance of the Turkish banking sector over the 2007–2025 period under macroeconomic conditions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Unlike bank-level performance studies, years are treated as decision alternatives, and an 11-criterion decision matrix is constructed using indicators of capital adequacy, profitability, asset quality, liquidity, funding balance, and the macroeconomic environment.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, the highest stability performance was observed in 2010, followed by 2007, 2011, 2023, and 2012, while the lowest performance was recorded in 2019.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2007–2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bankacılık Sektörü İstikrarı · LOPCOW · Oriented AROMAN

Abstract

This study assesses the stability performance of the Turkish banking sector over the 2007–2025 period under macroeconomic conditions. Unlike bank-level performance studies, years are treated as decision alternatives, and an 11-criterion decision matrix is constructed using indicators of capital adequacy, profitability, asset quality, liquidity, funding balance, and the macroeconomic environment. Criterion weights are determined using the LOPCOW method, an objective weighting technique based on the information structure of the decision matrix. The relative stability performance of the years is then ranked through the Oriented AROMAN method, in which cost-oriented criteria are transformed from a stability perspective. The findings show that the most influential criteria are the USD/TRY exchange rate change, the CBRT lending rate, inflation, GDP growth, and the non-performing loans ratio. According to the results, the highest stability performance was observed in 2010, followed by 2007, 2011, 2023, and 2012, while the lowest performance was recorded in 2019. Robustness analyses indicate that the baseline ranking is largely stable under different β parameters.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye bankacılık sektörünün 2007–2025 dönemindeki istikrar performansını makroekonomik koşullar altında yıllar itibarıyla değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmada bankalar yerine yıllar karar alternatifi olarak ele alınmış; sermaye yeterliliği, kârlılık, aktif kalitesi, likidite, fonlama dengesi ve makroekonomik çevreyi temsil eden 11 kriterli bir karar matrisi oluşturulmuştur. Kriter ağırlıkları, karar matrisinin bilgi yapısına dayalı objektif bir ağırlıklandırma yöntemi olan LOPCOW ile belirlenmiştir. Yılların göreli istikrar performansı ise maliyet yönlü kriterlerin istikrar odaklı biçimde dönüştürüldüğü Oriented AROMAN yöntemiyle sıralanmıştır. Bulgular, en etkili kriterlerin USD/TL kur değişimi, TCMB borç verme faizi, enflasyon oranı, GSYH büyüme oranı ve takipteki alacaklar oranı olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlara göre en yüksek istikrar performansı 2010 yılında gerçekleşmiş; bu yılı 2007, 2011, 2023 ve 2012 izlemiştir. En düşük performans ise 2019 yılında elde edilmiştir. Sağlamlık analizleri, temel sıralamanın farklı β parametreleri altında büyük ölçüde korunduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavuz, H. İ. (2026). Assessing the stability of the Turkish banking sector under macroeconomic conditions: A LOPCOW–Oriented AROMAN approach. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 267–282. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1969201

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (50)

  1. Akbulut, O. Y. (2024). Assessing the environmental sustainability performance of the banking sector: A novel integrated grey multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. International Journal of Knowledge and Innovation Studies, 2(4), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.56578/ijkis020404
  2. Albaraki, Z., Abdelhadi, A., & Al-Sulaiman, T. (2026). Evaluating Saudi banks’ financial performance using an entropy–TOPSIS framework. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19(8), Article 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19080551
  3. Alsanousi, A. T., Alqahtani, A. Y., Makki, A. A., & Baghdadi, M. A. (2024). A hybrid MCDM approach using the BWM and the TOPSIS for a financial performance-based evaluation of Saudi stocks. Information, 15(5), Article 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15050258
  4. Asker, V., Yaşar, M., & Kiracı, K. (2025). The financial performance analysis using LOPCOW and AROMAN integrated MCDM approach: An application in airport groups. Studies in Business and Economics, 20(3), 28– 53. https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2025-0043
  5. Athanasoglou, P. P., Brissimis, S. N., & Delis, M. D. (2008). Bank-specific, industry-specific and macroeconomic determinants of bank profitability. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 18(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2006.07.001
  6. Azadov, A., & Rzayev, R. (2026). CAMELS yöntemiyle Türkiye bankacılık sektörü ve özel, yabancı, kamu sermayeli mevduat bankalarının performans analizi: COVID-19 pandemi krizinin etkilerinin ölçülmesi. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 118–147. https://doi.org/10.59445/ijephss.1839976
  7. Babacan, A., Eyceyurt Batır, T., & Kamil, B. (2026). Türkiye’de COVID-19 sürecinde bankacılık sektörünün performans değerlendirmesi ENTROPİ, COPRAS ve PROMETHEE yaklaşımları. Verimlilik Dergisi, 60(2), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1768137
  8. Rachmadi, E., Setiyono, B., Saktiawan, B., & Muizzuddin, M. (2026). Bank stability under global risk uncertainty: The interplay of internal characteristics and external regulatory environment. Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking, 29(0), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.59091/2460-9196.2816
  9. Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency. (n.d.). Aylık bankacılık sektörü verileri. Retrieved May 15, 2026, from https://www.bddk.org.tr/Veri/Detay/159
  10. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (n.d.). Basel III: International regulatory framework for banks. Bank for International Settlements. Retrieved June 1, 2026, from https://www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm
  11. Bayyurt, N. (2013). Ownership effect on bank’s performance: Multi criteria decision making approaches on foreign and domestic Turkish banks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 919–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.565
  12. Beheshtinia, M. A., & Omidi, S. (2017). A hybrid MCDM approach for performance evaluation in the banking industry. Kybernetes, 46(8), 1386–1407. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-03-2017-0105
  13. Bektaş, S. (2022). Türk sigorta sektörünün 2002-2021 dönemi için MEREC, LOPCOW, COCOSO, EDAS ÇKKV yöntemleri ile performansının değerlendirilmesi. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 16(2), 247–283. https://doi.org/10.46520/bddkdergisi.1178359
  14. Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Jovčić, S., Dobrodolac, M., Simić, V., & Bačanin, N. (2023). An alternative ranking order method accounting for two-step normalization (AROMAN)—A case study of the electric vehicle selection problem. IEEE Access, 11, 39496–39507. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3265818
  15. Bouraima, M. B., Jovčić, S., Dobrodolac, M., Pamučar, D., Badi, I., & Maraka, N. D. (2024). Sustainable healthcare system devolution strategy selection using the AROMAN MCDM approach. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 1(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap1120243
  16. Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye. (n.d.-a). Elektronik Veri Dağıtım Sistemi. Retrieved May 15, 2026, from https://evds3.tcmb.gov.tr/
  17. Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye. (n.d.-b). TCMB faiz oranları (%) gecelik (O/N). Retrieved May 15, 2026, from https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/tr/tcmb+tr/main+menu/temel+faaliyetler/para+politikasi/mer kez+bankasi+faiz+oranlari/faiz-oranlari
  18. Chinh, D. T., Quynh, P. H., Hien, N. T. T., Minh, V. Q., & Quang, V. M. (2025). Comparing methodologies for ranking alternatives: A case study in assessing bank financial performance. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 15(6), 29173–29179. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.14024
  19. Čubranić-Dobrodolac, M., Jovčić, S., Bošković, S., & Babić, D. (2023). A decision-making model for professional drivers selection: A hybridized fuzzy–AROMAN–Fuller approach. Mathematics, 11(13), Article 2831. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132831
  20. Çelen, A. (2014). Evaluating the financial performance of Turkish banking sector: A fuzzy MCDM approach. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development, 35(2), 43–70.
  21. Demireli, E. (2010). TOPSIS çok kriterli karar verme sistemi: Türkiye’deki kamu bankaları üzerine bir uygulama. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 5(1), 101–112.
  22. Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Detragiache, E. (1998). The determinants of banking crises in developing and developed countries. IMF Staff Papers, 45(1), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/3867330
  23. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
  24. Dinçer, H., & Görener, A. (2011). Performans değerlendirmesinde AHP-VIKOR ve AHP-TOPSIS yaklaşımları: Hizmet sektöründe bir uygulama. Sigma: Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 29(3), 244–260.
  25. Drehmann, M., & Juselius, M. (2014). Evaluating early warning indicators of banking crises: Satisfying policy requirements. International Journal of Forecasting, 30(3), 759–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2013.10.002
  26. Ecer, F. (2019). Özel sermayeli bankaların kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performanslarının değerlendirilmesine yönelik çok kriterli bir yaklaşım: Entropi-ARAS bütünleşik modeli. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(2), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.470336
  27. Ecer, F., & Pamučar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
  28. Erdoğan, B. (2022). COVID-19 kamu sermayeli mevduat bankalarının performansını nasıl etkiledi? SV-EDAS modeli uygulaması. Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 5(7), 897–912. https://doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2022.1034
  29. Hamamcı, H. N., & Karkacıer, A. (2022). Evaluation of financial performance of participation banks in Turkey and GCC with TOPSIS method. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 8(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.1020027
  30. Hoang, X. T., & Tran, V. D. (2024). Enhancing understanding of changes in solution rankings with variations in user coefficients in AROMAN method. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, 13(3), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmerr.13.3.354-361
  31. International Monetary Fund. (2019). Financial soundness indicators compilation guide 2019. https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/2019/2019-fsi-guide.pdf
  32. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., Demir, G., Puska, A., & Pamucar, D. (2025). A hybrid framework for assessing Pakistani commercial bank performance using multi-criteria decision-making. Financial Innovation, 11, Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00728-x
  33. Kaminsky, G. L., & Reinhart, C. M. (1999). The twin crises: The causes of banking and balance-of-payments problems. American Economic Review, 89(3), 473–500. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.473
  34. Katı, M. (2025). Kalkınma ve yatırım bankalarının finansal performanslarının CRITIC–MAIRCA yöntemleriyle incelenmesi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (47), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1518691
  35. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), Article 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
  36. Köhler, M. (2015). Which banks are more risky? The impact of business models on bank stability. Journal of Financial Stability, 16, 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2014.02.005
  37. Laeven, L., Ratnovski, L., & Tong, H. (2016). Bank size, capital, and systemic risk: Some international evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 69, S25–S34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.06.022
  38. Mandić, K., Delibašić, B., Knežević, S., & Benković, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.036
  39. Murad, S. M. W., Pathan, S., Durand, R. B., & Zheng, C. (2025). Understanding bank-level uncertainty: New insights into banking activity and its macroeconomic impacts. International Review of Economics & Finance, 102, Article 104258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2025.104258
  40. Onocak, D. (2024). Türkiye’deki mevduat bankalarının entropi ağırlıklandırmalı CAMELS ve ESG performans analizi. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 24(72), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.55322/mdbakis.1290277
  41. Özçalıcı, M., & Bumin, M. (2020). An integrated multi-criteria decision making model with self-organizing maps for the assessment of the performance of publicly traded banks in Borsa İstanbul. Applied Soft Computing, 90, Article 106166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106166
  42. Özçalıcı, M., Kaya, A., & Gürler, H. E. (2022). Long-term performance evaluation of deposit banks with multi- criteria decision making tools: The case of Turkey. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 50, 87–114. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.975901
  43. Pätäri, E., Karell, V., Luukka, P., & Yeomans, J. S. (2018). Comparison of the multicriteria decision-making methods for equity portfolio selection: The U.S. evidence. European Journal of Operational Research, 265(2), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.001
  44. Schularick, M., & Taylor, A. M. (2012). Credit booms gone bust: Monetary policy, leverage cycles and financial crises, 1870–2008. American Economic Review, 102(2), 1029–1061. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.2.1029
  45. Seçme, N. Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using Analytic Hierarchy Process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11699–11709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.013
  46. Turkish Statistical Institute. (n.d.). Veri portalı. Retrieved May 15, 2026, from https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/
  47. Türegün, N. (2022). Financial performance evaluation by multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Heliyon, 8(5), Article e09361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09361
  48. Vuong, G. T. H., Nguyen, Y. D. H., Nguyen, M. H., & Wong, W.-K. (2024). Assessing the impact of macroeconomic uncertainties on bank stability: Insights from ASEAN-8 countries. Heliyon, 10(11), Article e31711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31711
  49. Wu, H.-Y., Tzeng, G.-H., & Chen, Y.-H. (2009). A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on balanced scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 10135–10147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.042
  50. Yılmaz, Ö., & Yakut, E. (2021). Entropi temelli TOPSIS ve VIKOR yöntemleri ile bankacılık sektöründe finansal performans değerlendirmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(4), 1297–1321. https://doi.org/10.16951/atauniiibd.874660