Search results

This paper studies the impact of ownership structure on performance in European banking both prior and during the recent crisis. We use a panel of European banks during the period 1996–2011 and utilize random effects estimations in order to identify differences in bank performance (profitability, loan quality, and cost efficiency) due to differences in ownership structure. Both stakeholder and shareholder banks have distinct advantages, shareholder banks showing better profitability before the crisis but stakeholder banks having higher loan quality before and during the crisis. Differences in profitability and loan quality between stakeholder and shareholder banks before the crisis are especially pronounced in countries that experienced a banking crisis after 2007. There is strong a heterogeneity in performance between different stakeholder ownership groups. With the exception of private savings banks, profitability and loan quality of stakeholder banks has improved relative to that of general shareholder banks during the crisis years. The paper contributes to the previous literature by comparing pre-crisis and crisis performance and includes more refined ownership classifications. The results indicate that the survival of the stakeholder model is due to its competitive advantages. Our findings provide support for those arguing that the diversity of organizational structures is worth preserving. Ownership pluralism should become a policy objective in the banking industry.

Islamic and cooperative banks – including credit unions – are broadly similar in that they both share risk with savers. However, risk sharing goes along with ownership control in cooperatives, whilst Islamic banks share risk with borrowers also, and full downside risk with depositors. Islamic banking is consistent with mutual ownership, which may ease some of the governance and efficiency concerns implied by Shari’ah constraints. Greater risk sharing among cooperative bank stakeholders, along the lines of products offered by Islamic banks, may strengthen cooperatives’ financial resilience.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to show that cooperative banks’ values and finalities are not identical to capitalist banks, which are solely geared toward the maximization of short-term financial returns.

The idea that has been widely trumpeted since the beginning of the cooperative movement is profoundly “democratic” due to the fact that it is based on the idea of one person=one vote and because the concept of “collective property” remains topical to this day.

This raises questions as to the best way of conceptualizing the fact that some executives of banking institutions operating in the social economy have in recent years prioritized the development of growth strategies whose only goal is to constantly increase their power and adopt the same ultimate goals as capitalist banks do.

Results – This chapter highlights the reasons for cooperative banks’ deviations and suggests a return to the original mindset of the social and solidarity ideal. It specifies what the terms “market” and “competition” refer to and also suggests a reshaping of two categories derived from neoclassical thinking: “free and self-determined individuals” and “enterprise.” Lastly, it identifies the institutional conditions underlying the generalization of cooperative finance so this is no longer viewed as something marginal or isolated.

Alternative enterprises – organizations that operate as a business while still also being driven by a social purpose – are sometimes owned by workers or other stakeholders, rather than shareholders. What role does ownership play in enabling alternative enterprises to prioritize substantively rational organizational values, like environmental sustainability and social equity, over instrumentally rational ones, like profit maximization? We situate this question at the intersection of research on: (1) stakeholder governance and mission drift in both hybrid and collectivist-democratic organizations; and (2) varieties of ownership of enterprise. Though these literatures suggest that ownership affects the ability of alternative enterprises to maintain their social missions, the precise nature of this relationship remains under-theorized. Using the case of a global, social, and environmental values-based banking network, we suggest that alternative ownership is likely a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to combat mission drift in enterprises that have a legal owner. A supermajority of this network’s banks deploy alternative ownership structures; those operating with these structures are disproportionately associated with social movements, which imprint their values onto the banks. We show how alternative ownership acts through specific mechanisms to sustain enterprises’ missions, and we also trace how many of these mechanisms are endogenous to alternative ownership models. Finally, we find that ownership models vary in how well they enable the expression and maintenance of these social values. A ladder of mission-sustaining ownership models exists, whereby the dominance of substantive, non-instrumental values over operations and investment becomes increasingly robust as one moves up the rungs from mission-driven investor ownership to special shareholder and member-ownership models.

Purpose – This chapter aims to show the similarities and differences that can be found in the destiny of cooperative banks and mutual insurance companies; these two industries, for reasons both similar and specific, are now “at a crossroads.” To reinforce this, we begin by tracing the history of cooperative banks and mutual insurance companies to better inform the future. Cooperative banks and mutual insurance gradually secularized and out of corporatism have patiently built-in different ways depending on the network as opposed to companies.

Results – This chapter will pursue these observations by identifying the impacts of recent crises in shaping business models by questioning a central issue which is that the trap values meet performance requirements in a fierce competition. Then, this chapter will end with the discussion on the main challenges faced by the mutual sphere; «She» should be replaced by «it». Could it exert a role in the crisis?

Despite recent advances, neither organizational studies nor the scholarship on economic resilience has systematically addressed how the ecologies of organizations that populate local economies can serve as infrastructures for responding proactively to economic shocks. Using county-level data, this study analyzes relationships between the prevalence of organizational alternatives to shareholder value-oriented (SVO) corporations within a particular locality and its unemployment levels during and after the Great Recession. The results support the hypothesis that the presence of such alternative organizations can enhance the capacities of local economies to resist and recover from recession shocks. Cooperative, municipal, and community-based enterprises, research universities, and nonprofits more generally were associated with greater resistance to the recession shock and stronger recoveries – specifically, lower surges in unemployment rates from 2007 to 2010 and greater reductions in unemployment rates from 2010 to 2016. By contrast, SVO corporations were associated with greater surges in unemployment and perhaps weaker recoveries. Providing a proof of concept, this study opens up new lines of inquiry for organizational studies by linking organizational ecologies to the promotion of collective efficacy and a more broadly shared prosperity in economic life.

This chapter attempts to offer a clearer look at the historical roots of the founding of mutualist finance. Without denying that the various forms of financial mutualism may have legal and organizational roots in ancient times, the author considers what, for contemporary mutualist banks, may constitute the soul.

In its first part, the document presents the individual constructions that existed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in a context in which economic development and the industrial revolution banished the rules and standards of the former society. It refers to Utopian socialisms as opposed to the scientific solutions proposed for a new social organization and to the new solidarism according to Léon Bourgeois. Christian sources are also called to mind with social Christianity (Protestant) and social Catholicism until the birth of the social doctrine of the Church.

This frenzy of ideas as well as the confrontation with reality led to the birth, in Germany, of the first experiments with alternative finance. This is the subject of the second part of this chapter, which then develops the bank mutualism created by the founding fathers, F.W. Raiffeisen and H. Schulze-Delitzsch.

The historical description of the creation of mutualist banks brings up two major problems when talking about the “other finance”: the interest and activity of the bank. Is an ethical finance capable of proposing a credible alternative? This is a question that needs to be answered in the light of history.

This chapter attempts, more than 150 years after the fact, to demonstrate the ponderous presence of the question and the permanence of the founding ideas in order to comprehend the facts and propose ideas for analysis and construction of an “other finance.”

In this chapter the authors identified and discussed the most significant barriers faced by cooperative movements in Malta, providing recommendations for potential solutions. Primary data for this research were collected through the use of semi-structured interviews with a selection of 18 representatives of the small current Maltese cooperative movement, most of whom are active either in individual cooperatives (16) and/or in the cooperative institutions (five).

Findings indicated that the most significant problems are the lack of education and awareness regarding the cooperative movement. These are closely followed by the divide within the movement itself, which is also hindering further development of Maltese cooperatives. Therefore, for the movement to grow and develop, one must first tackle the lack of education and awareness of this business model. Furthermore, in order for the movement to reach its full potential there must be cooperation amongst cooperatives, leading to the appropriate environment for growth.

Through the identification of these significant barriers, targeted action may be recommended and taken so as to reduce, if not eliminate, these barriers and thereby help the Maltese cooperative movement flourish.

That Melchior Palyi taught a course at the University of Chicago on the European banking system is unsurprising, given his background provided in the biographical sketch presented above.

With a population of over 150¹ million, Bangladesh provides a large consumer market for potential industries. Moreover, it holds one of the lowest wage structures in the world. The comparative advantage of Bangladesh lies primarily in its agro-processing industries. But besides agriculture, the rural-based microenterprise (MEs) sector in Bangladesh is a potentially lucrative field of investment (IPPF, 2001). In spite of its major contributions toward economic development, the rural-based microentrepreneurs in Bangladesh suffer from lack in working capital, institutional credit facilities, and poor management. There are many formal and informal financing organizations that are functioning in the money market of Bangladesh. Formal financing institutions like government and privately owned commercial banks normally give loans to large- and medium-scale industries (Alam, 2009). Cooperative banks in the country, although giving loans to the rural-based microenterprises, confine their credit giving activities mainly to the members of the bank (BIDS, 1981, 1988, 1989, 1990). One of the specialized and well-known microcredit giving organizations in Bangladesh called “Grameen Bank” (Yunus, 1993; Nabi, 1990) also gives microcredit to the rural-based microentrepreneurs, especially to the rural poor women. Besides many NGOs, moneylenders in rural Bangladesh are also an important source of lending funds to the rural-based microentrepreneurs.