KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Politik Ekonomik Kuram / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

BIST 100 Mevduat Bankalarında Finansal Risklerin Sürdürülebilir Büyüme ve Karlılık Üzerindeki Etkisi

Impact of Financial Risks on Sustainable Growth and Profitability in BIST 100 Deposit Banks

Tutku Ünkaracalar(KIRKLARELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6584-8681
Sayfa
779–797
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-25
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Elde edilen bulgular, finansal risk göstergelerinin genel olarak banka performansı üzerinde olumsuz etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmada, Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören yedi mevduat bankasının 2014-2024 dönemine ait verileri kullanılarak finansal risk unsurlarının karlılık ve sürdürülebilir büyüme performansı ile istatistiksel ilişkileri analiz edilmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Elde edilen bulgular, finansal risk göstergelerinin genel olarak banka performansı üzerinde olumsuz etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Çalışma, sürdürülebilir banka performansının birden fazla finansal risk kanalı tarafından sınırlandığını ve yalnızca tek bir performans göstergesine dayalı değerlendirmelerin eksik veya yanıltıcı olabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2014-2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Bankacılık · Sürdürülebilir Büyüme · Finansal Risk

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören yedi mevduat bankasının 2014-2024 dönemine ait verileri kullanılarak finansal risk unsurlarının karlılık ve sürdürülebilir büyüme performansı ile istatistiksel ilişkileri analiz edilmektedir. Çalışmanın teorik çerçevesi, bankaları yalnızca önceden birikmiş tasarrufları yatırımcılara aktaran pasif aracılar olarak görmeyen bir yaklaşımla yeniden yapılandırılmıştır. Buna göre mevduat bankaları, kredi verme faaliyeti yoluyla mevduat yaratan ve sürdürülebilir performansı kredi yaratımı, bilanço kompozisyonu, sermaye yapısı, likidite koşulları ve risk maruziyeti üzerinden şekillenen finansal kurumlardır. Araştırmada panel veri yöntemi benimsenmiş; öncelikle yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve eğim heterojenliği test edilmiş, ardından serilerin durağanlığı ikinci kuşak birim kök testleri aracılığıyla incelenmiştir. Ampirik modeller, eşanlı korelasyon ve değişen varyans sorunlarını dikkate alan dönem bazlı Görünüşte İlişkisiz Regresyonlar (SUR) ağırlıklandırmalı Panel Tahmin Edilmiş Genelleştirilmiş En Küçük Kareler (EGLS) yöntemiyle tahmin edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, finansal risk göstergelerinin genel olarak banka performansı üzerinde olumsuz etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle kredi riskinin içsel büyüme ve sürdürülebilir büyüme üzerinde belirleyici olduğu, buna karşılık likidite riski ve sermaye yeterliliği riskinin aktif karlılığı üzerinde daha güçlü etkiler sergilediği tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, bankacılık sektöründe risk ve performans arasındaki ilişkinin çok boyutlu bir yapıya sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, sürdürülebilir banka performansının birden fazla finansal risk kanalı tarafından sınırlandığını ve yalnızca tek bir performans göstergesine dayalı değerlendirmelerin eksik veya yanıltıcı olabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

This study examines the statistical associations between financial risk factors and both profitability and sustainable growth performance of seven deposit banks listed on Borsa Istanbul over the period 2014-2024. The theoretical framework is revised to avoid treating banks merely as passive intermediaries of pre-existing savings. Instead, the study recognizes deposit banks as credit-creating institutions whose lending activity, balance-sheet composition, capital position, liquidity structure, and risk exposure jointly shape sustainable performance. Employing a panel data framework, the analysis first tests for cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity, followed by the assessment of stationarity using second-generation unit root tests. The empirical models are estimated through Panel Estimated Generalized Least Squares (EGLS) with Period Seemingly Unrelated Regressions (SUR) weighting, ensuring robustness against contemporaneous correlation and heteroskedasticity. The findings reveal that financial risk indicators are predominantly associated with a deterioration in bank performance metrics. Specifically, credit risk emerges as a critical determinant adversely affecting both internal growth and sustainable growth rates, whereas liquidity risk and capital adequacy risk exhibit stronger explanatory power for variations in return on assets. These results underscore the multidimensional nature of risk-performance dynamics in banking. Overall, the evidence suggests that sustainable bank performance is jointly constrained by multiple financial risk channels, and that relying on a single performance indicator may yield incomplete or potentially misleading assessments. The study contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive, risk-integrated evaluation framework for bank performance while acknowledging that banking-sector sustainability also involves systemic risk, asset quality, market structure, and macro-financial resilience.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ünkaracalar, T. (2026). BIST 100 Mevduat Bankalarında Finansal Risklerin Sürdürülebilir Büyüme ve Karlılık Üzerindeki Etkisi. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 779–797. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1928555

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (43)

  1. Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2012). Job polarization and rising inequality in the nation and the New York–Northern New Jersey region. Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 18(7). Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  2. Acemoglu, D., & Loebbing, J. (2022). Automation and polarization (NBER Working Paper No. 30528). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30528
  3. Asteriou, D., & Hall, S. G. (2007). Applied econometrics: A modern approach (Rev. ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
  4. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2006). The polarization of the U.S. labor market (NBER Working Paper No. 11986). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w11986
  5. Autor, D., Chin, C., Salomons, A. M., & Seegmiller, B. (2022). New frontiers: The origins and content of new work, 1940–2018 (NBER Working Paper No. 30389). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30389
  6. Autor, D., & Salomons, A. (2018). Is automation labor-displacing? Productivity growth, employment, and the labor share (NBER Working Paper No. 24871). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24871
  7. Ayhan, F., & Elal, O. (2023). The impact of technological change on employment: Evidence from OECD countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, 122439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122439
  8. Baffour, P. T., Ebo Turkson, F., Gyeke-Dako, A., & diğerleri. (2020). Innovation and employment in manufacturing and service firms in Ghana. Small Business Economics, 54, 1153–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0120-7
  9. Barbieri, L., Mussida, C., Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2019). Testing the employment and skill impact of new technologies: A survey and some methodological issues (GLO Discussion Paper No. 397). Global Labor Organization.
  10. Bogliacino, F., & Vivarelli, M. (2012). The job creation effect of R&D expenditures. Australian Economic Papers, 51(2), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.2012.00425.x
  11. Card, D., & DiNardo, J. E. (2003). Technology and U.S. wage inequality: A brief look. In D. K. Ginther, M. Zavodny, & L. H. Foley (Eds.), Technology, growth, and the labor market (pp. 125–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0325-5_7
  12. Comin, D. (2010). Total factor productivity. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), Economic growth. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280823_32
  13. Cresti, L., Dosi, G., & Fagiolo, G. (2023). Technological interdependencies and employment changes in European industries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 64, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.11.006
  14. Çelik, O. (2020). The impact of technology on employment at regional level: The case of Turkey. Öneri Dergisi, 15(54), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.771657
  15. De Michelis, A., Estevão, M., & Wilson, B. A. (2013). Productivity or employment: Is it a choice? (IMF Working Paper No. 13/97). International Monetary Fund.
  16. Eeckhout, J., Hedtrich, C., & Pinheiro, R. (2026). IT and urban polarization. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 18(1), 223–259. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20220306
  17. Feldmann, H. (2013). Technological unemployment in industrial countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23, 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-013-0308-6
  18. Gibbs, M., & Bazylik, S. (2022). How is new technology changing job design? IZA World of Labor, (344). https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.344.v2
  19. Harrison, R., Jaumandreu, J., Mairesse, J., & Peters, B. (2014). Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm-level analysis using comparable micro-data from four European countries. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 35, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2014.06.001
  20. Hornbeck, R., & Moretti, E. (2019). Who benefits from productivity growth? Direct and indirect effects of local TFP growth on wages, rents, and inequality (NBER Working Paper No. 24661). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24661
  21. Hötte, K., Somers, M., & Theodorakopoulos, A. (2023). Technology and jobs: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122750
  22. Jebli, M. B., Youssef, S. B., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031
  23. Jones, C. I. (2019). Paul Romer: Ideas, nonrivalry, and endogenous growth. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 121(3), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12370
  24. Kamihigashi, T., & Sasaki, Y. (2022). The impact of multi-factor productivity on income inequality (Discussion Paper Series No. DP2022-31). Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
  25. Ladu, M. G. (2012). The relationship between total factor productivity growth and employment: Some evidence from a sample of European regions. Empirica, 39(4), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-012-9202-y
  26. Lücke, M. (1999). Sectoral value added prices, TFP growth, and the low-skilled wage in high-income countries (Kiel Working Paper No. 923). Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Universität Kiel.
  27. Marire, J. (2022). Unemployment, total factor productivity, budget deficit, and wage share in South Africa. Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, 14(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.20885/ejem.vol14.iss2.art4
  28. Nosratabadi, J. (2023). The effect of trade sanctions on employment through total factor productivity. International Economics and Economic Policy, 20, 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-023-00555-y
  29. Pedroni, P. (1997). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series with an application to the PPP hypothesis: New results (Working Paper). Indiana University.
  30. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(Special issue), 653–670.
  31. Pedroni, P. (2000). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 93–130.
  32. Pissarides, C. A., & Vallanti, G. (2007). The impact of TFP growth on steady-state unemployment. International Economic Review, 48(2), 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2007.00439.x
  33. Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2018). Technological change and employment: Is Europe ready for the challenge? Eurasian Business Review, 8(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-017-0100-x
  34. Ricardo, D. (2004). On the principles of political economy and taxation (P. Sraffa, Ed.; with the collaboration of M. H. Dobb). In The works and correspondence of David Ricardo (Vol. 1). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1817/1951)
  35. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Pt. 2), S71–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
  36. Say, J.-B. (2001). A treatise on political economy; or, the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth (C. R. Prinsep, Trans.; C. C. Biddle, Notes). Batoche Books. (Original work published 1880)
  37. Schmitt, J., Shierholz, H., & Mishel, L. (2013, November 19). Don't blame the robots: Assessing the job polarization explanation of growing wage inequality. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/technology-inequality-dont-blame-the-robots/
  38. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.
  39. Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.
  40. Stehrer, R. (2022). Capital accumulation, total factor productivity, and employment growth: Medium-term relations in a cross-section analysis (No. 161). Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission.
  41. Steuart, J. (1966). An inquiry into the principles of political economy. Oliver and Boyd. (Original work published 1767)
  42. Van Roy, V., Vértesy, D., & Vivarelli, M. (2018). Technology and employment: Mass unemployment or job creation? Research Policy, 47(9), 1762–1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.008
  43. Violante, G. L. (2018). Skill-biased technical change. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (pp. 12389–12394). Palgrave Macmillan.