Search results

This paper analyzes the effect of the banking market (concentration and competition) on financial development.

In order to estimate the effects of banking concentration and competition on financial development, we conducted an empirical analysis using the System Generalized Method of Moments (S-GMM) through a dynamic panel data model.

The main results suggest that concentration and competition affect financial development. In particular, an increase in bank concentration may inhibit the country's financial development, due to the lack of competition. Our results do not confirm the controversy between concentration and competition, suggesting that concerning financial development, concentration is the reverse of competition.

The results of this study add a new perspective on banking market power: a financial system concentrated or uncompetitive constrains financial development.

The literature that combines the investigation of the effects of banking market structure (concentration) and banking market conduct (competition) on financial development is scarce. Although a concentrated banking sector can reduce competition through barriers to new entrants (which could expand financial services offer), it is also true that a concentrated banking sector can be competitive. In order to avoid the controversy, our paper chooses to look into a comprehensive approach considering independent measures of bank concentration and bank competition, which together refer to the banking framework.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the financial friction effect of non-performing loans (NPLs) on financial intermediation (FI) through empirical evidence from the Brazilian experience.

The authors develop a new variable, financial intermediation flow and a new indicator, FI, both measures of FI. To empirically test FI, the authors use a dynamic panel data framework that draws on 101 banks (December 2000 to December 2015).

An increase in NPL reduces FI. Thus, NPL amplifies financial friction in FI. This result holds in different time frames, such as the pre-crisis period, the crisis period and the post-crisis period.

The FI measure developed in this study offers the policymakers a possibility to monitor financial stability.

This study adds to this debate by proposing a measure of FI derived from financial flows. This measure allows one to estimate the role of NPL as a financial friction that can pose a threat to financial stability.

We present a critical literature review debating Brazilian research on social and environmental accounting (SEA). The aim of this study is to understand the role of politics in the construction of hegemonies in SEA research in Brazil. In particular, we examine the role of hegemony in relation to the co-option of SEA literature and sustainability in the Brazilian context by the logic of development for economic growth in emerging economies. The methodological approach adopts a post-structural perspective that reflects Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. The study employs a hermeneutical, rhetorical approach to understand and classify 352 Brazilian research articles on SEA. We employ Brown and Fraser’s (2006) categorizations of SEA literature to help in our analysis: the business case, the stakeholder–accountability approach, and the critical case. We argue that the business case is prominent in Brazilian studies. Second-stage analysis suggests that the major themes under discussion include measurement, consulting, and descriptive approach. We argue that these themes illustrate the degree of influence of the hegemonic politics relevant to emerging economics, as these themes predominantly concern economic growth and a capitalist context. This paper discusses trends and practices in the Brazilian literature on SEA and argues that the focus means that SEA avoids critical debates of the role of capitalist logics in an emerging economy concerning sustainability. We urge the Brazilian academy to understand the implications of its reifying agenda and engage, counter-hegemonically, in a social and political agenda beyond the hegemonic support of a particular set of capitalist interests.