2009 10 : 3 :,,,,,,,, :, ( ) ( ),, (Structure2Conduct2Performance, SCP) (Relative2Market2Power, RMP) ( Efficiency2Structure, ES) Bain (1951),,,,,,,,, X2,,,,,,,, X2,,,,,,,, 3,, :100800, :xuzhong @pbc. gov. cn ;,, :100871, :shenyan01 @gmail. com,minggao. shen @gmail. com ;, :, 05JJD790071,, 75
: :,,, 20 90,,, (Berger and Hannan, 1989 ; Hannan,1991),,,,, (Shepherd, 1982, 1986 ;Rhoades, 1985 ; Kurts and Rhoades, 1991), (Smirlock et al, 1984,1986 ;Smirlock, 1985 ; Evanoff and Fortier, 1988) Smirlock et al,,,,,,shepherd (1986) : ;, ;, Shepherd (1986), Smirlock (1984),, Smirlock et al (1986),,,, Berger (1995) X2,,,,,Berger, Frame Kamerschen (1997), (2004) 1995 2000,,,,,, (2001) 15 1994 1998,,,, (2001) 2000,,, 12 81 300, 2001 2004,,,,,,,,,,, 76
2009 10,,,,,,,,, 70 2000 2004, :,,, 2005 12,; ; :,,,, 12 81 363, 76,63,65,54,73,, 19 ( ),Shen et. al. (2008) Park and Sehrt (1997),,, ( ),, : ( ), ( ) ( ), 2001 2004,, 50 %,,,,2004,,, HHI( Herfindahl Index) HHI = n ( x i ) 2 i = 1 HHI HHI,,HHI = 0 ; HHI = 1, HHI,,,, 77
: :, HHI, CRn (Concentration Ratio) CRn n : CRn = x i n i = 1 N x i N, x i i 1 2001 2004 HHI CR5 1,CR5 1 HHI, HHI 0118, 011 0118, 011,, HHI 0118,,,,,, 2001 2004, HHI,, i = 1 2001 2002 2003 2004 HHI HHI 0. 28 0. 28 0. 28 0. 30 0. 20 0. 19 0. 19 0. 19 0. 22 0. 22 0. 23 0. 25 0. 29 0. 30 0. 29 0. 32 CR5 CR5 83. 08 83. 58 84. 35 83. 02 75. 55 76. 40 76. 84 76. 01 62. 25 65. 10 67. 41 70. 25 86. 89 88. 21 86. 01 88. 12 CR5,, CR5 75 % Bain, CR5 75 %,,, CR5 n,, HHI, CR5,,,,,,RMP, ; ES,, 78
2009 10 ( ) Berger et al (1993), (data envelopment analysis, DEA),, DEA (econometric frontier approach, EFA), (stochastic frontier approach),,,, Ferrier Lovell (1990),,, Berger Humphrey(1991) (distribution2 free approach, DFA),,, Berger (1995) Frame and Kamerschen (1997),,,,,, ;,, DeYoung (1997),, Alhadeff (1954) Schweiger and McGee (1961), Benston (1965) Bell and Murphy(1968) Cobb2Douglas, 1, Benston et al (1982),,,,, Schweiger Mcgee (1961) Bell Murphy (1968), Benston(1972),Benston et al (1982) Clark (1984) Benston et al (1983) Berger et al (1997),,,,,,,,,,, ( ),, Y,W, m j : 79
: : OC mj = C( Y mj, W mj ) x m v mj ln OC mj = ln C( Y mj, W mj ) + ln x m + ln v mj (1) x, v,,, (Seemingly Unrelated Regressions) (1),,,,,, LSDV (Least Squares Dummy Variable), ln x min ln x min,ln x min, 1i, : X - EFF i = exp (ln x) min - (ln x i ) X - X - EFF 0 1, X - EFF 1 EFF, : ln OC = + r ln y r 4 r = 1 2 2 2 + m = 1 + 1 2 mn ln w m ln w n m = 1 n = 1 m ln w m, rs = sr, mn = 4 + 1 2 rs ln y r ln y s 4 r = 1 4 s = 1 + 2 r = 1 m = 1 nm rm ln y r ln w m + ln x + v, OC,, Y, : (y1) (y2) (y3) (y4) 2 W : W 1,; 25 0. 52 0. 49 0. 25 0. 97 0. 19 W 2, ( - 40 0. 51 0. 50 0. 28 0. 84 0. 14 )Π ( ),, 20 %,, 80 30 0. 50 0. 46 0. 26 1. 00 0. 18 15 0. 45 0. 48 0. 27 0. 61 0. 10 15 0. 45 0. 53 0. 20 0. 76 0. 15 17 0. 42 0. 41 0. 25 0. 58 0. 08 16 0. 40 0. 42 0. 23 0. 61 0. 11 19 0. 40 0. 40 0. 20 0. 55 0. 10 18 0. 40 0. 39 0. 20 0. 68 0. 14 7 0. 39 0. 37 0. 31 0. 52 0. 08 12 0. 37 0. 37 0. 22 0. 52 0. 09 25 0. 36 0. 36 0. 23 0. 49 0. 07
2009 10, 9712 %, 2, 0115, 10,,,,,,,,, ( ) (RMP), ; ( ES),,, SCP,,,,,,, ( ),,,,,,,,,,,, ( ), : (ROA) (ROE) (NIM) (NIR) ROA ROE,,,, ROE, ROE,,,, ROA 81
: : 3 2001 2004, :ROA 1299 0. 20-23. 69 56. 50 Π 1362 27. 17 0. 00 99. 29 : ( %) 1362 16. 50 0. 00 94. 00 1362 HHI 0. 24 0. 00 0. 89 ( ) 865 0. 44 0. 20 1. 00 (0,1 ) ( ) 865 0. 16 0. 04 1. 00 (0,1 ) Ln( ) ( ) 1432 12. 47 8. 19 15. 11 1262 0. 27-0. 89 18. 79 659 87. 19 56. 92 99. 74,,(HHI) X -,,,,,,, 4 (ROA) 3, (1) (2) (3) (4), 0. 0172 33 0. 0219 333 0. 0237 333 0. 0287 333, (0. 00825) (0. 00654) (0. 00766) (0. 00837) - 3. 144 33-3. 343 333-2. 526 33-3. 228 33 (1. 489) (0. 852) (1. 256) (1. 535) 5. 636 333 4. 515 333 (0. 988) (1. 214), - 0. 0605-0. 0707 33-0. 119 33-0. 125 33 ROA, (0. 0443) (0. 0331) (0. 0600) (0. 0533) Ln( ) 0. 169 0. 183, (0. 105) (0. 121) 0. 0166-0. 00462 (0. 0149) (0. 0196) - 0. 726-0. 768 (0. 553) (0. 550) 0. 626 33-1. 850 333-3. 476-3. 565 3 (0. 266) (0. 432) (2. 331) (2. 602) ( ) 1316 846 672 602, R2 0. 009 0. 090 0. 097 0. 131 : P < 0. 01, 33 P < 0. 05, 3 P < 0. 1 82
2009 10 (heterogeneity) ( Hsiao,2003),,,,, 4, (1) (2), (3) (4) 4,,,, ROA,,,,,,, 2009, (Ln ( ) ) ( ),,,,,,, 5, ( (1) (2) ),,,,,,,,,,R 016 % 1215 %,,, 5 ; (1) (2) (3) (4),, 0. 0758-0. 0209-0. 0412-0. 0996, (0. 0544) (0. 0635) (0. 0729) (0. 0758) 2. 401 7. 288-2. 746-3. 053 : (9. 613) (9. 617) (9. 834) (10. 44) - 62. 61 333-11. 85 3 (6. 163) (6. 531) 5, - 1. 086 333-0. 797 333-0. 906 33-0. 773 3, (0. 265) (0. 277) (0. 459) (0. 464), Ln( ) - 2. 711 333-3. 453 333 (0. 989) (1. 047) - 0. 944 333-1. 026 333 (0. 125) (0. 138), 9. 009 333 8. 245 333, (1. 964) (2. 053), 5. 601 333 18. 28 333 141. 4 333 164. 8 333, (0. 821) (2. 055) (17. 42) (18. 40) 1325 831 682 611 R2 0. 006 0. 125 0. 417 0. 428 : 333 P < 0. 01, 33 P < 0. 05, 3 P < 0. 1 ( 83
: : ),,,,, HHI,,,,,, ( ), :,,,,,, HHI CRn5,,,, 6 : (1) roa (2) roa 0. 0172 33 0. 0219 333 0. 0287 333 0. 0210 333 0. 0237 333 0. 0344 333 (5) roa (0. 00825) (0. 00654) (0. 00837) (0. 00744) (0. 00766) (0. 0104) - 3. 144 33-3. 343 333-3. 228 33-3. 847 333-2. 526 33-3. 312 33 (1. 489) (0. 852) (1. 535) (1. 019) (1. 256) (1. 625) 5. 636 333 4. 515 333 6. 232 333 6. 432 33 (3) roa (4) roa (6) roa (0. 988) (1. 214) (1. 888) (2. 633) - 0. 0605-0. 0707 33-0. 125 33-0. 0834 33-0. 119 33-0. 159 33 (0. 0443) (0. 0331) (0. 0533) (0. 0367) (0. 0600) (0. 0638) Ln( ) 0. 183 0. 169 0. 354 333 (0. 121) (0. 105) (0. 0785) - 0. 00462 0. 0166-0. 000373 (0. 0196) (0. 0149) (0. 0197) - 0. 768-0. 726-0. 695 (0. 550) (0. 553) (0. 566) 0. 626 33-1. 850 333-3. 565-0. 252-3. 476-5. 193 333 (0. 266) (0. 432) (2. 602) (0. 283) (2. 331) (2. 008) 1316 846 602 846 672 602 R 0. 009 0. 090 0. 131 0. 062 0. 097 0. 134, ROA 6, (1) (3), (4) (6) 6,,,,,,RMP,, ROA, 84
2009 10,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2004 :, 6,2005 :, 8,2004 : DFA, 4,2001 :, 4 :2005 : :, 3 :2000 :, 6,2004 :,() 6 : (2001 2004),,2001 :, 3 Alhadeff, D. A.,1954, Monopoly and Competition in Banking, Berkeley : University of California Press. Bain, J. S.,1951, Relation of Proflt Rate to Industry Concentration : American Manufacturing 1936 1940, Quarterly Journal of Economics 65, 293 324. Berger, A. N.,1995, The Proflt2Structure Relationship in Bank2ing2Tests of Market2Power and Efficient2Structure Hypotheses, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 27, 404 431. 299. Berger,A. N., and Timothy H. H.,1989, The Price2Concentration Relationship in Banking, Review of Economics and Statistics 71, 291 Berger, A. N.,1993, Distribution2Free Estimates of Efficiency in the U. S. Banking Industry and Tests of the Standard Distributional Assumptions, Journal of Productivity Analysis 4, 201 292. Berger, A. N.,Demirguc K., Haubrich, J.,2004, Bank Concentration and Competition : An Evolution in the Making, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 36, 435 451. Berger, A. N., Leusner, J. H., Mingo, J. J.,1997, The Efficiency of Bank Branches Journal of Monetary Economics,40,141 162. Berger, A. N., Humphrey, D. B.,1991, The Dominance of Inefficiencies over Scale and Product Mix Economies in Banking, Journal of Monetary Economics 28,117 148. Berger, A. N., Hunter, W. C., and Timme,S. G.,1993, The Efficiency of Financial Institutions : A Review and Preview of Research Past, Present, and Future, Journal of Banking and Finance, 17, 221 249. Bell, F. W. and Murphy, N. B.,1968, Costs in Commercial Banking : A Quantitative Analysis of Bank Behavior and its Relation to Bank Regula2tion. Research Report, 41, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Benston, G. J.,1965, Branch Banking and Economies of Scale, Journal of Finance, 20, 312 331. Benston,G. J., Hanweck, G. A. and Humphrey, D. B.,1982, Scale Economies in Banking : A Restructuring and Reassessment, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking,4,435 454. Benston, G. J., Berger, A. N., Hanweck, G. A., and Humphrey, D. B.,1983, Economies of Scale and Scope in Banking, Research Papers in Banking and Financial Economies, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Evanoff, D. and Fortier, D.,1988, Reevaluation of the Structure2Conduct2Performance Paradigm in Banking, Journal of Financial Services Research, 1, 277 294. Ferrier, G. D., Lovell, K.,1990, Measuring Cost Efficiency in Banking : Econometric and Linear Programming Evidence, Journal of Econometrics, 46, 229 245. 85
: : Frame, W. S., and Kamerschen, D. R.,1997, The Profit2Structure Relationship in Legally Protected Banking Markets Using Efficiency Mea2sures, Review of Industrial Organization 12, 9 22. Hannan, T.,1991, Bank Commercial Loan Markets and the Role of Market Structure : Evidence from Surveys of Commercial Lending. Journal of Banking and Finance, 15, 133 149. Hsiao, Cheng,2003,Analysis of Panel Data, Cambridge Press. Rhoades, S. A.,1985, Market Share as a Source of Market Power : Implications and Some Evidence, Journal of Economics and Business, 37, 343 363. Schweiger, I. and Mcgee, J. S.,1961, Chicago Banking, Journal of Business, 34, 203 366. Shepherd, W. G.,1982, Economies of Scale and Monopoly Prof2its, in J. V. Craven (ed. ) Industrial Organization, Antitrust, and Public Policy, Nijhoff : Kluwer. Shepherd, W. G.,1986, Tobin s q and the Structure2Performance Relationship : Comment, American Economic Review 76, 1205 1210. Shen, Y., Shen, M. G., Xu, Z., Bai, Y., 2009, Bank Size and SME Lending : Evidences from China, World Development, forthcoming. Smirlock, M., Gilligan, T., and Marshall, W.,1984, Tobin s q and the Structure2Performance Relationship, American Economic Review 74, 1051 1060. Smirlock, M., Gilligan, T., and Marshall, W.,1986, Tobin s q and the Structure2Performance Relationship : Reply, American Economic Review 76, 1211 1213. Stevens, J. L.,1990, Tobin s q and the Structure2Performance Relationship : Comment, American Economic Review 80, 618 623. Market Structure and Banking Industry Performance in China Xu Zhong,Shen Yan,Wang Xiaokang and Shen Minggao (People s Bank of China) (CCER, Peking University) Abstract :The paper examined the relationship between the market structure and performance of the banking industry in China. In the study, we found positive relationship between market share and return to bank assets, and negative relationship between market concentration and return to assets. Using loan overdue as an indicator for bank performance, we found that the market with higher concentration posted with higher ratio of non2performance loan (NPL). This supported the relative market strength hypothesis on market structure and banks performance. In addition, the study found that efficiency had been an importance factor in determining financial institution performance, measured by both return to assets and NPL ratio. Besides, reduced market concentration can improve banks efficiency and reduce their NPL ratio. Therefore, further market opening, entry criteria relaxing and competition enhancing will improve efficiency of financial institutions, and in turn, the efficiency of the banking industry in China. Key Words :Market Structure ; Efficiency ; Banking Industry Competition ; Performance JEL Classification : G210, L100 ( : ) ( : ) 86