Prior research on the structure‐performance relationship has not investigated all of the relevant relationships among market structure, profits, prices, and explicitly calculated measures of firm efficiency. This paper replicates the four approaches in the literature, adds several innovations, and applies the analysis to banking data. We find more support for the structure‐conduct‐performance hypothesis than for the relative‐market‐power and efficient‐structure hypotheses, although the data are not fully consistent with any of these theories. We also find support for Hick's quiet‐life hypothesis, which implies that firms with market power adhere less rigorously to efficiency maximization. J.E.L. Classification Numbers G21, G28, L41, L89 The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Governors or its staff. The authors thank Dean Amel, Jim Berkovec, Myron Kwast, Nellie Liang, LenNakamura, Steve Rhoades, and participants in the meeting of the Federal Reserve System Committee on Financial Structure and Regulation for helpful comments, and Ken Cavalluzzo, Jalal Akhavein, John Leusner, and Seth Bonime for outstanding research assistance.
Berger, A.N. and Hannan, T.H. (1997), "Using Efficiency Measures to Distinguish Among Alternative Explanations of the Structure‐Performance Relationship in Banking", Managerial Finance, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 6-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb018599Download as .RIS
MCB UP Ltd
Copyright © 1997, MCB UP Limited