Research article

The impact of monetary policy on banks' risk-taking behavior in an emerging economy: The role of Basel II

  • The main goal of this study is to investigate the impact of monetary policy (MP) on the risk-taking behavior of Bangladeshi banks. It also attempts to examine the role of Basel II in the association between MP and bank risk-taking pre- and post-2010. This study analyzes data from 33 commercial banks in Bangladesh over the 20 years from 2002 to 2021 and uses the two-step system generalized method of moments to address heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation issues. Unlike previous research, this study confirms the significant effect of Basel II on the relationship between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior. The main findings are first that a non-linear U-shaped relationship exists between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior, implying that when bank rate (BR) and cash reserve ratio (CRR) increase, bank credit risk first decreases, then later increases. Second, bank-level characteristics such as liquidity, regulatory capital, and size have a significant effect on risk, whereas bank age has an insignificant effect on risk-taking behavior. Third, MP and Basel II jointly influence risk-taking so that banks take higher risks before implementing Basel II. Overall, thisstudy offers significant practical implications for academics, researchers, and regulators interested in leveraging the findings.

    Citation: Changjun Zheng, Md Abdul Mannan Khan, Mohammad Morshedur Rahman, Shahed Bin Sadeque, Rabiul Islam. The impact of monetary policy on banks' risk-taking behavior in an emerging economy: The role of Basel II[J]. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2023, 3(4): 427-451. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2023024

    Related Papers:

    [1] Araya Ranok, Chanida Kupradit . Effect of whey protein and riceberry flour on quality and antioxidant activity under gastrointestinal transit of gluten-free cookies. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 434-448. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.434
    [2] Siti Hajar Othman, Nazirah Mohd Rosli, Norhazirah Nordin, Masturina Abdul Aziz . Formulation of crispy chicken burger patty batter: Properties and storage qualities. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(2): 426-443. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022027
    [3] Nionela V. Kononenko, Aleksandra A. Sharova, Larisa I. Fedoreyeva . Tissue damage to wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum) under salt exposure. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 395-407. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.395
    [4] Nicole Roberta Giuggioli, Thais Mendes da Silva, Simone Dimitrova . Geographical indication (GI) branded quality: a study case on the homogeneity of the Carota Novella di Ispica Region. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 538-550. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021031
    [5] Mutshidzi Matidza, Tsietsie Ephraim Kgatla, Mpho Edward Mashau . Leavening capacity, physicochemical and textural properties of wheat dough enriched with non-commercial unripe banana flours. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(4): 978-994. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023052
    [6] Luh Suriati, I Made Supartha Utama, Bambang Admadi Harsojuwono, Ida Bagus Wayan Gunam, I Made Adnyana, Ahmad Fudholi . Nano-ecogel to maintain the physicochemical characteristics of fresh-cut mangosteen. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(4): 988-999. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021059
    [7] Elena Y. Osipenko, Yuliya Y. Denisovich, Galina A. Gavrilova, Ekaterina Y. Vodolagina . The use of bioactive components of plant raw materials from the far eastern region for flour confectionery production. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 73-87. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.73
    [8] Md. Shaha Nur Kabir, Kamal Rasool, Wang-Hee Lee, Seong-In Cho, Sun-Ok Chung . Influence of delayed cooling on the quality of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) stored in a controlled chamber. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 272-285. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.272
    [9] Mariyana Strateva, Deyan Stratev, Georgi Zhelyazkov . Freezing influence on the histological structure of Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 278-291. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023015
    [10] Ibrahim Fusseini, Stephen K. Torkpo, Kwame Afreh-Nuamah . Assessment of levels of temperature conditions on the effectiveness of multiple-layer hermetic bag for bio-rational management of aflatoxin in stored maize. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(3): 342-353. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.3.342
  • The main goal of this study is to investigate the impact of monetary policy (MP) on the risk-taking behavior of Bangladeshi banks. It also attempts to examine the role of Basel II in the association between MP and bank risk-taking pre- and post-2010. This study analyzes data from 33 commercial banks in Bangladesh over the 20 years from 2002 to 2021 and uses the two-step system generalized method of moments to address heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation issues. Unlike previous research, this study confirms the significant effect of Basel II on the relationship between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior. The main findings are first that a non-linear U-shaped relationship exists between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior, implying that when bank rate (BR) and cash reserve ratio (CRR) increase, bank credit risk first decreases, then later increases. Second, bank-level characteristics such as liquidity, regulatory capital, and size have a significant effect on risk, whereas bank age has an insignificant effect on risk-taking behavior. Third, MP and Basel II jointly influence risk-taking so that banks take higher risks before implementing Basel II. Overall, thisstudy offers significant practical implications for academics, researchers, and regulators interested in leveraging the findings.



    A first episode of pneumonia with unknown cause was detected in Wuhan at the end of 2019 and reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) Country Office in China on 31 December 2019 [1]. This was the first case of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that quickly spread all over the world in the past few months. The WHO declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020; on 11th March 2020 WHO further determined that COVID-19 could be characterized as a pandemic [1].

    Several studies [2][4] have concentrated on the biological and epidemiological factors governing COVID-19 transmission, while few others [5] have investigated the potential impact of socio-economic characteristics on governing the extent of COVID-19 diffusion in the population. Societal and economic factors can be of critical importance for accuracy of models of the outbreak because of the economic [6],[7] and health impacts of the drastic measures that have been put in place in an effort to slow the spread of the disease in those same countries (e.g social distancing, quarantine, lockdowns, testing, and reallocation of hospital resources) [8], [9] and worldwide.

    In this paper, we take a reverse perspective and analyze how socio-economic determinants pre-dating the pandemic (data taken not later than 2019) relate to the number of reported cases, deaths, and the ratio detahs/cases of COVID-19 via machine learning methods. Our focus is on understanding the connection between epidemiological variables of the COVID-19 pandemic and the (i) level of health care infrastructure, (ii) general health of the population, (iii) economic factors, (iv) demographic structure, (v) environmental health, (vi) societal characteristics, and (vii) religious characteristics of a country. We hypothesize that different countries have different specific socio-economic features and incidence of the disease and therefore the implementation of government measures must be thoughtful and data evidence-driven and heterogeneous across countries and across resources in order to effectively combat COVID-19.

    We analyze 32 interpretable models, including (i) regression models with both independent and proximity dependent outcomes; and (ii) variable selection through LASSO. After this step, we build two indices of variable importance for each of the determinants to estimate their overall association with the the number of cases, deaths, and deaths/cases rate. An Absolute Importance Index (AII) and a Signed Importance Index (SII) are constructed. The AII determines the presence of the variable in the top-10 absolute correlation ranking, while the SII takes in consideration the sign of the correlation. By focusing only on those findings that are common to a majority, the findings are less sensitive to the limitations of any single model considered.

    Our analysis determines that the socio-economic status of a country follows some sort of Action-Reaction Principle, as it is not only heavily influenced by the pandemic (we did not address this in the study, but it is an established fact in the literature [10][12]), but it is also a distinct factor of the pandemic and must be taken into consideration by governments. The level of mobility, the quality of the health care system, the economic status of a country, and the features of a society are associated with the number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19.

    Our work suggests that government resources (both in the form of equipment and staff) must not be allocated blindly, and highlights that different countries might benefit from different measures based on the specific country socio-economic status.

    The remaining part of the manuscript is organized as follows. Section 2 is dedicated to a brief description of the datasets used, the description of the epidemiological variables that we are considering, and the description of the socio-economic determinants involved in our study. Moreover, it includes a summary of the methods used. More details on this are present in the Supplementary Material (Appendixes S1, S2, S3, S4). Section 3 is dedicated to the results of our analysis, while Section 4 to the discussion of the results, and Section 5 to the conclusions.

    Remark. A complete literature review is not feasible, given that the global effort of researchers around the world has produced a massive amount of results on COVID-19. We apologize for all citations that are missing.

    This section is dedicated to (i) the description of the datasets used for the input variables, the outcome variables, and the geographical weighting; and (ii) the methods used for the statistical analysis (linear regression, LASSO, and MICE). We refer to the Supporting Information for more details about the Data Sources (S1), technical results about our statistical methods (S2), and the tables of Descriptive Statistics (S3), and Importance indices (S4).

    Multiple datasets have been combined for the analysis (See Appendix S1 for the specific information on the data sources, and relative websites). The datasets were then organized in three groups based on their role in the models: (i) the outcome variables Y, namely epidemiology variables, such as the number of cases, the number of deaths, and the ratio between them; (ii) the predictors X which include the socio-economic determinants; and (iii) the weighting matrix A, which includes geographic information.

    The total number of reported cases and deaths attributed to COVID-19 as of 2nd May 2020 were obtained from Our World In Data [13] and used as outcome variables of our models.

    As the only predictors of our models, 44 SE variables were chosen for our analyses based on their potential explanatory power and to facilitate comparisons with other published works [5]. Data were obtained from publicly available databases [14][20] for a total of 199 countries/regions, 32 of which only had data for all 44 variables of interest (see Appendix S1 for more details). Given the fact that the years for which data were available varied by country/region, we chose to use the most recent data available for each country, (oldest being 2010, most recent being 2019). SE factors were divided into 7 categories based upon the common theme to which each of our 44 variables most closely aligned. These categories are similar to some that have been used previously [5]: (i) Capacity of a country to deal with COVID-19 cases (Healthcare Infrastructure); (ii) Statistics indicative of the health of the population of a country (Health Statistics); (iii) Economic situation and tourism/mobility in a country (Economic Health); (iv) Demographic structure of a country, in particular the age structure and the spatial distribution of the population (Demographic Structure); (v) Societal characteristics such as the level of education, the possibility of access to technology, and features of government (Societal Characteristics); (vi) Pollution level and ecological footprint (Environmental Health); and (vii) Religious practices in the population (Religious Characteristics). The division of variables into each of these categories can be seen in Appendix S1.

    Latitude and longitude coordinates for capital cities were obtained for each country from the CEPII (Centre d'Études Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales) GeoDist database. Coordinates for 11 countries were not found in the GeoDist database and were obtained from Google.

    Using these coordinates, we calculated the pairwise distances between cities using the Spherical Law of Cosines. Given two cities C1, C2 on the surface of the Earth with latitude and longitude coordinates (α1, β1) and (α2, β2), and assuming a constant radius of the Earth R = 6378 kms, we have that the distance between C1 and C2 is given by the following formula

    d(C1,C2)=arccos(sin(α1)*sin(α2)+cos(α1)*cos(α2)*cos(β2β1))*R.

    The matrix A has then been computed such that the entries were given by

    Aij=exp{d(Ci,Cj)}exp{d(,)}

    for i, j = 1,..., 199. Here d(·,·) a normalization factor computed as the average over the distances between every city Ci and every city Cj. We considered the ellipticity of the Earth to have a minor influence on our results and we we considered the spherical approximation appropriate. Our strategy relates to the theoretical work [21].

    Multiple countries did not report values for some of the SE determinants, so we decided to do imputation, in order to be able to include all countries (both those with and without any missing information). To perform imputation, we used the R package mice which performs imputation via Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE). The method assumes that the probability that a value is missing depends only on observed values and not on unobserved values [22], [23]. We assumed this throughout all our analyses.

    The MICE algorithm [22], [23] produces a series of regression models, where each variable with missing data is modeled conditional upon the other variables in the data, and so according to its distribution. In the first step, MICE performs a simple imputation for every missing value in the dataset. The imputations for one of the variables are set back to missing, and this variable is considered as the dependent variable in a regression model with all the other variables used as independent variables, under the assumptions valid in generalized linear models [24]. The missing values for the variable playing the role of dependent variable at this step are then replaced with predictions (imputations) from the regression model. This procedure is then repeated for every variable and in an iterative fashion. At the end of the iteration process, MICE outputs one imputed dataset, and after the process stabilized, the distribution of the parameters governing the imputations is produced. The algorithm is independent on the order in which the variables are imputed. For a summary of the method, we refer to Appendix S2.

    We considered 5 different outcome variables: (i) Y1 = # cases; (ii) Y2 = # deaths; (iii) 1 = # cases/total population; (iv) 2 = # deaths/total population; and (v) Y0 = # deaths/# cases. To determine how total population impacted each of the outcome variables 1, 2, and Y0 (those dependent variables scaled by population size), we ran each of these models with two different sets of explanatory variables: (i) All variables (|X| = 44); and (ii) All but total population (POP) count (|X| = 43).

    Although the complete dataset contained 199 countries/regions, missing values resulted in preliminary linear regression models excluding 135 of those countries/regions [25]. As mentioned, we imputed the missing values using the mice package in R [22] and re-ran our models, so as to include all 199 countries. Models for automatic variable selection, such as LASSO [26], [27] were also considered. We used R Studio Version 1.2.5042 and libraries readxl, readr, gdata, mice, glment, caret for the computations.

    To measure the importance of the variables across our models, we built two indices. An Absolute Importance Index (AII) and a Signed Importance Index (SII). The AII counts the number of time a variable appears in the top-10 correlated variables based on absolute correlation. On the other side, the SII counts the presence of a variable in the top-10 correlated variables with sign. For example if the variable X appears 12 times in the top-10 highest correlated variables with Y, 10 times positively correlated, then AII = 12, while SII = 8. We computed such indices globally and for each single type of outcome variable. Please refer to Appendix S4 for more details.

    The results of the models produced with the imputed dataset are reported below in Table 1. Multiple and adjusted R2 values that describe the fit of each model can be found in Table 1 as well. We will describe the specific results about the importance of the variables grouping them by the 7 classes as in Appendix S1, but by joining Health Infrastructures and Health Statistics in one single subsection for convenience of explanation.

    Table 1.  Multiple and adjusted R2 for all linear regression models performed on the MICE-imputed dataset, containing data for 199 countries/regions. Models that included total population contained 44 socio-economic variables while those excluding total population contained 43. All models were run with and without the weighting matrix A based on geographical distance between the largest cities in each country/region. Abbreviations: Pop. Tot. = Population Total; Geo. Weight. = Weighting by Geographical Distance Matrix A.
    Outcome Variable With Pop. Tot. No Geo. Weight.
    With Geo. Weight.
    Mult. R2 Adj. R2 Mult. R2 Adj. R2
    # cases (Y1) Y 0.8532 0.8113 0.5626 0.4376
    # deaths (Y2) Y 0.7918 0.7323 0.6206 0.5122
    2*# cases/Pop. Tot. (1) Y 0.5135 0.3745 0.5225 0.3860
    N 0.5135 0.3785 0.5205 0.3874
    2*# deaths/Pop. Tot. (2) Y 0.4238 0.2592 0.5249 0.3892
    N 0.4235 0.2636 0.5229 0.3905
    2*# deaths/# cases (Y0) Y 0.2997 0.0996 0.4942 0.3597
    N 0.2973 0.1023 0.4891 0.3474

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In all the figures, the results are grouped based on the category. Half of the models included weighting with a geographical distance matrix (see Section 2 for more details). The number of times each variable appeared among the top-10 highest correlated variables in these models was tallied with its own sign (sign + if positively correlated, sign - if negatively correlated). The magnitude and direction of each bar represents the signed percentage of this tally. The letters in the figures represent the way the 44 socio-economic variables are divided into categories. A: Health Infrastructure, B: Health Statistics, C: Environmental Health, D: Economic Health, E: Demographic Structure, F: Societal Characteristics, and G: Religious Characteristics. Tables of detailed raw, signed, and weighted tallies can be found in Appendix S4.

    The number of physicians, essential health coverage index, and death rate were among the top-10 variables in 25%, 25%, 15.63% of our models, respectively (Panels A,B in Figures 16; Appendix S4). The number of physicians correlated positively with Y1, 1, Y2, and 2 and negatively with Y0. Access to essential health services consistently correlated positively in our models, appearing in 50% of Y1, Y2, and Y0 models, though completely absent from the top-10 variables in 1 and 2 models. Similarly, crude death rate correlated positively in 25–50% of Y1, Y2, and Y0 models, but was never selected among the top-10 variables in 1 and 2 models.

    Number of nurses and midwives, number of hospital beds, prevalence of diabetes, and crude birth rate consistently correlated negatively in 37.5%, 50%, 21.88%, and 43.75% of our models, respectively (Panels A,B in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Number of hospital beds appeared in all categories of models; it was least common in Y1 at 25%, most common in Y2 at 75%, and was in 50% of the models in the remaining categories. Number of nurses and midwives were identified as important in 100% of 1 models and 50% of 2 models but were notably absent from all other models. Birth rate appeared among our top-10 variables in 25% of Y1 and 1 models and 50% of 2 models. Prevalence of diabetes appeared in 25–75% of all model categories, with a notable absence from Y1 models.

    Figure 1.  Indices of importance SII of socio-economic variables in models of number of COVID-19 cases (Y1). We analyzed the effects of 44 socio-economic determinants in a total of 4 models, with number of COVID-19 cases as the outcome variable.
    Figure 2.  Indices of importance SII of socio-economic variables in models of number of COVID-19 cases/population total (1). We analyzed the effects of 44 socio-economic determinants in a total of 8 models, with number of COVID-19 cases/population as the outcome variable (4 with total population included among the determinants, and 4 with total population removed).
    Figure 3.  Indices of importance SII of socio-economic variables in models of number of COVID-19 deaths (Y2). We analyzed the effects of 44 socio-economic determinants in a total of 4 models, with number of COVID-19 deaths as the outcome variable.
    Figure 4.  Indices of importance SII of socio-economic variables in models of number of COVID-19 deaths/population total (2). We analyzed the effects of 44 socio-economic determinants in a total of 8 models, with number of COVID-19 deaths/population as the outcome variable (4 with total population included among the determinants, and 4 with total population removed).
    Figure 5.  Indices of importance SII of socio-economic variables in models of number of COVID-19 deaths/cases (Y0). We analyzed the effects of 44 socio-economic determinants in a total of 8 models, with number of COVID-19 deaths/cases as the outcome variable (4 with total population included among the determinants, and 4 with total population removed).
    Figure 6.  Indices of importance SII of socio-economic variables in all models of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and deaths/cases. We analyzed the effects of 44 socio-economic determinants in a total of 32 models, with number of COVID-19 cases, cases/population total, deaths, deaths/population total, and deaths/cases as outcome variables.

    Domestic government health expenditure was the only measure of economic health that was identified among the top-10 variables of all categories of models and consistently correlated positively with the outcome variables in all those models (Panel D in Figures 16; Appendix S4). In contrast, employment to population ratio and income distribution consistently correlated negatively with the outcome variables in all models and were identified as important determinants in 43.75% of all our models (Panel D in Figures 16; Appendix S4). GDP, trade, and government lending/borrowing correlated inconsistently (different for each model) across the models, with GDP and trade only identified as important variables in models lacking the geographical weighting matrix (Panel D in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Unemployment rate was never identified as important in any of the models.

    Total population correlated negatively with Y1 and Y2, but became insignificant for 1, 2, and Y0 (Panel E in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Population density, the proportion of the population over the age of 65, and the proportion of immigrants (people of international stock) consistently correlated positively and were important factors in 28.13%, 25%, and 31.25% of our models, though never in Y0 (Panel E in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Although rural population was identified as an important variable in all categories of models, the pattern of correlation was inconsistent, correlating negatively in Y1, Y2, and Y0 models and positively in 1 and 2 models (Panel E in Figures 16; Appendix S4).

    The number of airline passengers per year was nearly always important for Y1 and Y2 models, correlating positively in 100% and 75% of those models, respectively, though it never appeared in 1, 2, or Y0 models (Panel D in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Although the number of tourist arrivals was consistently positively correlated with 50% of Y1, Y2, and Y0 models, the direction of correlation was inconsistent in 1 and 2, despite being identified as a key determinant in each of those model categories (appearing in 75% and 100% of those models, respectively; Panel D in Figures 16; Appendix S4). The geographical weighting matrix was always present in models in which tourist arrivals correlated negatively, while the absence of this matrix in the models always coincided with tourist arrivals correlating positively.

    Ecological footprint was identified as an important variable in 25% of Y1, Y2, and Y0 models, in which it consistently correlated positively (Panel C in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Air pollution never appeared as an important determinant.

    The proportion of individuals with access to internet was identified as an important determinant in 28.13% of all our models; in 1, 2, and Y0 models, it correlated negatively, whereas in Y2 models it correlated positively (Panel F in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Government effectiveness and economic freedom score correlated negatively with Y0 and were identified as important in 75% of those models, but no other models (Panel F in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Personal freedom also correlated negatively with Y0 in 50% of those models, though it correlated positively in one Y1 model (Panel F in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Human freedom correlated positively in 50% of Y0 models, but negatively in 25% of 1 and 2 models (Panel F in Figures 16; Appendix S4). The average number of people per household appeared in 25% of 1 models, in which it correlated positively, but was not important in any of the other models (Panel F in Figures 16; Appendix S4). Education level, rule of law, and control of corruption never appeared among the top-10 variables in any of our models.

    The percentage of the population identifying as Christian appeared in 40.63% of models and was a consistently positive correlate in all model categories (Panel G in Figures 16; Appendix S4). In contrast, the percentage of the population identifying as Buddhist, appeared in 50% of Y1, Y2, and Y0 models and was a consistently negative correlate in those models (Panel G in Figures 16; Appendix S4). The remaining religious categories appeared rarely among the most important variables in our models, but when present, most correlated negatively (Panel G in Figures 16; Appendix S4).

    We divide our discussion into sections based on the category of socio-economic data. The relationships discussed here are all multivariate correlations, namely correlations occurring in models that contain all socio-economic data.

    In countries in which the population has greater access to essential healthcare services and in which the government invests more capital into healthcare, the results surprisingly showed an increase in the number of cases, number of deaths, and number of deaths/cases of COVID-19. In contrast, countries that have greater numbers of nurses and midwives and hospital beds per capita and in which diabetes is more prevalent have smaller numbers of cases, deaths, and deaths/cases. Interestingly, the number of physicians correlated positively with the number of cases and number of deaths, but negatively with the number of deaths/cases. Although seemingly contradictory, taken together, these data may provide indications that government healthcare spending needs to be allocated appropriately in order to effectively combat diseases like COVID-19. This explanation is still not satisfactory, as the possible inefficiencies in the healthcare system do not explain why countries with less capital investment in healthcare would not be struggling with the same inefficiencies. A further reason for this surprising result could be that the population of developed countries is more mobile, and some government epidemic prevention measures are not effective, resulting in higher number of cases and deaths. To narrow down this range of possible interpretations, we would need (among the others) more detailed data about resource allocation to hospitals (e.g. whether or not they experienced shortages of critical equipment). In addition to meeting basic space requirements in the form of hospital beds, access to medical personnel, like nurses and midwives, who interact for greater periods of time directly with patients, may facilitate the treatment of and recovery from both chronic conditions like diabetes and acute conditions like COVID-19. This may be a particularly important consideration for developing countries [6], which may have less effective medical infrastructure in place. The analysis seems also to caution against clustering doctors into large, centralized healthcare facilities when suitable care can be provided at home or in less dense facilities.

    Employment to population ratio and income distribution, as measured by the GINI index, were identified as important variables in 43.75% of models, and were consistently negatively correlated with number of cases, number of deaths, and number of deaths/cases of COVID-19, both with and without standardization by population. These data suggest that countries in which greater proportions of the population are employed, and where there is less economic disparity within the population, can be expected to feel the effects of COVID-19 less strongly. Indeed, these results appear to be corroborated by the current condition in the United States, a country in which concern about widening economic stratification and discrepancy is frequently discussed and the number of cases and deaths of COVID-19 are continuing to rise rapidly at the time of writing this article (First Trimester of 2021).

    Although the roles of GDP and trade were less prominent (appearing in only 12.5% and 6.25% of models, respectively) and were inconsistently correlated with COVID-19 variables, it is important to note that these variables only appeared in models in which there was no weighting by geographical distance. This is interesting given that [5] found that GDP was a strong positive predictor of both COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results may indicate an influence of geographical clustering of countries with similar economic strength/health, and could potentially be used as an indication of regions in which countries can be expected to exhibit similarities in vulnerability to diseases like COVID-19.

    Variables relating to demographic structure consistently played a bigger role in models of number of cases and number of deaths than in number of deaths/cases. Indeed, only a single demographic variable (rural population) appeared in only one out of eight of our models in which the number of deaths/cases was the outcome variable. Thus, although the percentage of the population aged 65+, population density, and the percentage of the population of international origin (immigrants) all positively correlated with the number of cases and number of deaths, they do not appear to have an influence in models of the death rate when standardized by the number of cases of COVID-19. Total population correlated negatively with number of COVID-19 cases and deaths (Y1 and Y2), but it was no longer identified as an important variable when these outcome variables were standardized by population (1 and 2) or in models using deaths/cases (Y0). This may suggest a sub-exponential growth of the number of infections [30].

    The degree of mobility, as indicated by the number of airline passengers, correlated positively with number of cases, number of deaths, and number of deaths/cases, though this effect seemed to disappear in models that were standardized by total population size. Although short-term travel restrictions play an important role in reducing the impact of COVID-19, the fact that the number of airline passengers does not appear in models with outcome variables scaled by population size (1 and 2) suggests that increased mobility does not increase COVID-19 cases or deaths to a level disproportionate with the total population of the country. Further, our other variable that directly measures mobility (number of tourist arrivals per year) showed an interesting reversal in correlation structure when weighting by geography was added to our models: tourist arrivals correlated positively in models without the geographical weighting structure, but switched to correlating negatively in all models weighted with geographical data. Interestingly, ecological footprint, which in part could be heavily influenced by domestic mobility (e.g. car travel), appeared in a few models and was consistently positively correlated with cases, deaths, and deaths/cases. Thus, it is clear that the relationship between international travel and COVID-19 is a complicated one, and blanket policies restricting travel may not accurately reflect the impact that such mobility may have on the impact of COVID-19 in national populations.

    In general, religion, or lack thereof, plays a very minor role in our models, the exceptions being the percentage of the population identifying as Christian, which consistently correlates positively with all our outcome variables, and the percentage of the population identifying as Buddhist, which consistently correlates negatively with all our outcome variables. This is interesting given the speculation early in the pandemic that religious gatherings could be sources of superspreading events [31].

    Societal characteristics consistently increase in importance in models in which the number of deaths are standardized by the number of cases compared to models with number of cases or number of deaths as the outcome variables. Further, the majority of the societal variables that correlated strongly in our models had a net negative correlation. In particular, countries in which a greater proportion of their population have greater economic freedom (freedom to voluntarily acquire and dispose of their property [19]), and to a lesser extent personal freedom (freedom of movement, assembly, religion etc. in addition to safety and security [19]), and in which the government is more effective, tend to have lower numbers of deaths/cases. Further, countries in which internet usage is more widespread tend to see a drop in the number of cases, number of deaths, and number of deaths/cases. In contrast, education level, control of corruption, and rule of law never appeared among the top-10 variables in any of our models. Together, these results may suggest that countries with governments capable and effective at enacting policies for the protection of their citizens, who in their turn have the resources to keep themselves informed and freedom to act in their own best interests, may fare better against COVID-19. Note that the implied association between internet access and a more informed public is somehow speculative, possibly non-obvious in the days of misinformation on social media, and certainly requires further attention on its own. It might be more plausible that countries with high levels of internet access are simply in a better position to have a larger number of people work from home, which may not be an option otherwise.

    Our study is static and photographs the situation at 2nd May 2020. Furthermore, looking at data collected at a single point in time does not take in consideration the fact that the pandemic did not begin to spread in every location simultaneously. For example, European countries began to be affected much earlier than the US. Thus, the strong association between investment into healthcare and number of cases may simply be a consequence of the fact that Europe, a region where healthcare investment is consistently high, was one of the earliest regions to be affected. Also, regions that are affected in the early stages of a pandemic may be hardest-hit even with high capital investment simply because, at that point in time, the medical community still lacks the data and expertise necessary to effectively treat patients. Finally, it may also be that countries with more developed health infrastructure are able to test and diagnose more patients and that COVID-19 deaths will then be more likely to be correctly attributed to the disease.

    All of these limitations suggest to follow up this analysis with the analysis of the time evolution of the disease, its relationship with socio-economic covariates, and to account for the possibility of time-lag between different countries.

    On another note, it has been shown that underreporting can influence the severity of the pandemic [2], [28], [29], [32]. A future work will incorporate estimates of underreporting in our models.

    In this paper, we have studied the relationship between socio-economic determinants and the reported number of cases, deaths, and the ratio of deaths/cases in each country during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, by means of machine learning methods. We analyzed a total of 32 interpretable models and built two importance indices (AII and SII) for the covariates. Our statistical models included linear regression with independent outcomes and geographically weighted outcomes, and variable selection methods such as LASSO. We analyzed the raw data and MICE-imputed datasets.

    Our analysis suggests that governments might need to allocate healthcare resources heterogeneously, with a possible benefit in decentralizing healthcare. This could be a problem for developing countries, where the means are limited. As of May 2nd, 2020, countries with more economic equity among their citizens seemed less hit by COVID-19, possibly indicating the importance of having a minimal baseline assistance across the whole population of a country. The analysis of the demographic structure mildly indicated that the disease grows sub-exponentially in the first months of the diffusion. The reduced degree of mobility across countries, for example the degree to which tourism is constrained, had a positive effect in reducing the number of cases, deaths, and death rate per cases. However, there is an indication that a smart and alternating policy could lead to further containment of the disease. Furthermore, our analysis highlighted the benefit of informing the population for government measures to be more effective.

    Together, our results seem to indicate that blanket policies are sub-optimal and government measures related to healthcare and immigration have the potential to both help and damage the population, as, if not appropriately taken, they can lead to an increase or reduced decrease of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and deaths/cases rate.



    [1] Acharya VV, Imbierowicz B, Steffen S, et al. (2020) Does the lack of financial stability impair the transmission of monetary policy? J Financ Econ 138: 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.06.011
    [2] Agur I, Demertzis M (2010) Monetary policy and excessive bank risk taking. 271. Available at SSRN http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1950167
    [3] Aiyar S, Calomiris CW, Hooley J, et al. (2014) The international transmission of bank capital requirements: Evidence from the UK. J Financ Econo 113: 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003
    [4] Aiyar S, Calomiris CW, Wieladek T (2016) How does credit supply respond to monetary policy and bank minimum capital requirements? Eur Econ Rev 82: 142–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003
    [5] Akhter N (2023) Determinants of commercial bank's non-performing loans in Bangladesh: An empirical evidence. Cogent Econ Financ 11: 2194128. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2194128 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2194128
    [6] Al‐Tamimi HAH (2008) Implementing Basel II: an investigation of the UAE banks' Basel II preparations. J Financ Regul Compl 16: 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980810869814 doi: 10.1108/13581980810869814
    [7] Altavilla C, Canova F, Ciccarelli M (2020) Mending the broken link: Heterogeneous bank lending rates and monetary policy pass-through. J Monetary Econ 110: 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2019.01.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2019.01.001
    [8] Altunbas Y, Gambacorta L, Marques-Ibanez D (2012) Do bank characteristics influence the effect of monetary policy on bank risk? Econ Lett 117: 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.106 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.106
    [9] Anani M, Owusu F (2023) Regulatory capital and bank risk-resilience amid the Covid-19 pandemic: How are the Basel reforms faring? Financ Res Lett 52: 103591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103591 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103591
    [10] Anwar CJ, Suhendra I, Purwanda E, et al. (2023) Investigating the relationship between monetary policy, macro-prudential policy and credit risk in Indonesia banking industry. Heliyon 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18229 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18229
    [11] Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58: 277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968 doi: 10.2307/2297968
    [12] Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econometrics 68: 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-d doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-d
    [13] Avery RB, Berger AN (1991) Risk-based capital and deposit insurance reform. J Bank Financ 15: 847–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(91)90103-s doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(91)90103-s
    [14] Bashir U, Yugang Y, Hussain M (2020) Role of bank heterogeneity and market structure in transmitting monetary policy via bank lending channel: empirical evidence from Chinese banking sector. Post-Communist Econ 32: 1038–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2019.1705082 doi: 10.1080/14631377.2019.1705082
    [15] Bekaert G, Hoerova M, Duca ML (2013) Risk, uncertainty and monetary policy. J Monetary Econ 60: 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2013.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2013.06.003
    [16] Berger AN, Bouwman CH (2017) Bank liquidity creation, monetary policy, and financial crises. J Financ Stabil 30: 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2017.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2017.05.001
    [17] Bernanke BS (2000) Japanese monetary policy: a case of self-induced paralysis? Japan's financial crisis and its parallels to US experience, 149–166. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 18313611.
    [18] Blundell R, Bond S, Windmeijer F (2001) Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator, 15. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2000.0012
    [19] Blunden T (2005) Global consumer initiatives: will Basel II work? Consum Policy Rev 15: 229.
    [20] Bond SR, Hoeffler A, Temple JR (2001) GMM estimation of empirical growth models. Available at SSRN 290522. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.253866
    [21] Borio C, Zhu H (2012) Capital regulation, risk-taking and monetary policy: a missing link in the transmission mechanism? J Financ Stabil 8: 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2011.12.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2011.12.003
    [22] Brana S, Campmas A, Lapteacru I (2019) (Un) Conventional monetary policy and bank risk-taking: A nonlinear relationship. Econ Modell 81: 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.07.005 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.07.005
    [23] Bui DT, Nguyen CP, Su TD (2021) Asymmetric impacts of monetary policy and business cycles on bank risk-taking: evidence from Emerging Asian markets. J Econ Asymmetries 24: e00221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2021.e00221 doi: 10.1016/j.jeca.2021.e00221
    [24] Chami R, Cosimano TF (2010) Monetary policy with a touch of Basel. J Econ Bus 62: 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2009.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jeconbus.2009.12.001
    [25] Chen M, Wu J, Jeon BN, et al. (2017) Monetary policy and bank risk-taking: Evidence from emerging economies. Emerg Mark Rev 31: 116–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2017.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2017.04.001
    [26] Chen TY, Kao LJ (2014) Dividend changes and information about future profitability: an application of difference GMM. Applied Econ Lett 21: 505–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.870648 doi: 10.1080/13504851.2013.870648
    [27] Čihák M, Schaeck K (2007) How well do aggregate bank ratios identify banking problems? International Monetary Fund Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451868388.001
    [28] Das Gupta A, Sarker N, Rifat Rahman M (2021) Relationship among cost of financial intermediation, risk, and efficiency: Empirical evidence from Bangladeshi commercial banks. Cogent Econ Financ 9: 1967575. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1967575 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2021.1967575
    [29] de Moraes CO, de Mendonça HF (2019) Bank's risk measures and monetary policy: Evidence from a large emerging economy. N Am J Econ Financ 49: 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2019.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.najef.2019.04.002
    [30] de Moraes CO, Montes GC, Antunes JAP (2016) How does capital regulation react to monetary policy? New evidence on the risk-taking channel. Econ Model 56: 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.03.025 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2016.03.025
    [31] Delis MD, Hasan I, Mylonidis N (2017) The risk‐taking channel of monetary policy in the US: Evidence from corporate loan data. J Money Credit Bank 49: 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12372 doi: 10.1111/jmcb.12372
    [32] Dell'Ariccia G, Laeven L, Suarez GA (2017) Bank leverage and monetary policy's risk‐taking channel: evidence from the United States. J Financ 72: 613–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12467 doi: 10.1111/jofi.12467
    [33] Demsetz RS, Strahan PE (1997) Diversification, size, and risk at bank holding companies. J Money Credit Bank 300–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2953695 doi: 10.2307/2953695
    [34] Djatche MJN (2019) Re-exploring the nexus between monetary policy and banks' risk-taking. Econ Model 82: 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.01.016 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2019.01.016
    [35] ElBannan MA (2015) Do consolidation and foreign ownership affect bank risk taking in an emerging economy? An empirical investigation. Manag Financ 41: 874–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-12-2013-0342 doi: 10.1108/mf-12-2013-0342
    [36] Fu B, Luo D (2021) Monetary policy uncertainty and bank leverage: Evidence from China. Econ Lett 203: 109866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109866 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109866
    [37] Furlong FT, Keeley MC (1989) Capital regulation and bank risk-taking: A note. J Bank Financ 13: 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(89)90008-3 doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(89)90008-3
    [38] Ge X, Liu Y, Zhuang J (2023) Monetary policy uncertainty, market structure and bank risk-taking: Evidence from China. Financ Res Lett 52: 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103599 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103599
    [39] Geng Z, Zhai X (2013) Monetary policy instruments and bank risks in China. Int J Asian Bus Inf Manag (IJABIM) 4: 57–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/jabim.2013040105 doi: 10.4018/jabim.2013040105
    [40] Gondwe S, Gwatidzo T, Mahonye N (2022) Bank regulation and risk-taking in sub-Sahara Africa. J Financ Regul Compl (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0104
    [41] Gopalakrishnan B, Jacob J, Mohapatra S (2021) Risk-sensitive Basel regulations and firms' access to credit: Direct and indirect effects. J Bank Financ 126: 106101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106101 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106101
    [42] Gropp R, Heider F (2007) What can corporate finance say about banks' capital structures. Eur Central Bank Work Pap. Available from: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1096.pdf.
    [43] Hakenes H, Schnabel I (2011) Bank size and risk-taking under Basel II. J Bank Financ 35: 1436–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.031
    [44] Haque F (2019) Ownership, regulation and bank risk-taking: evidence from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Corp Gov-Int J Bus Soc 19: 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-07-2017-0135 doi: 10.1108/cg-07-2017-0135
    [45] Haris M, Tan Y, Malik A, et al. (2020) A study on the impact of capitalization on the profitability of banks in emerging markets: A case of Pakistan. J Risk Financ Manag 13: 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13090217 doi: 10.3390/jrfm13090217
    [46] Hussain M, Bashir U, Bilal AR (2021) Effect of monetary policy on bank risk: does market structure matter? Int J Emerg Mark 16: 696–725. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-09-2019-0674 doi: 10.1108/ijoem-09-2019-0674
    [47] Jiang H, Yuan C (2022) Monetary policy, capital regulation and bank risk-taking: Evidence from China. J Asian Econ 82: 101512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101512 doi: 10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101512
    [48] Jung A (2023) Are monetary policy shocks causal to bank health? Evidence from the euro area. J Macroecon 75: 103494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2022.103494 doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2022.103494
    [49] Kabundi A, De Simone FN (2020) Monetary policy and systemic risk-taking in the euro area banking sector. Econ Model 91: 736–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.10.020 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2019.10.020
    [50] Kennedy P (2008) A guide to econometrics. John Wiley & Sons. Available from: https://masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/Econometrics%20Book%20-%20Intro, %20Ch%201%20and%202.pdf
    [51] Khan HH, Ahmad RB, Gee CS (2016) Bank competition and monetary policy transmission through the bank lending channel: Evidence from ASEAN. Int Rev Econ Financ 44: 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2016.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2016.03.003
    [52] Khan S (2022) The impact of capital structure on bank performance in emerging markets: Empirical evidence from GCC countries. Financ Int Q 18: 56–65. https://doi.org/10.2478/fiqf-2022-0005 doi: 10.2478/fiqf-2022-0005
    [53] Mahrous SN, Samak N, Abdelsalam MAM (2020) The effect of monetary policy on credit risk: evidence from the MENA region countries. Rev Econ Polit Sci 5: 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/reps-07-2019-0099 doi: 10.1108/reps-07-2019-0099
    [54] Malovaná S, Kolcunová D, Brož V (2019) Does monetary policy influence banks' risk weights under the internal ratings-based approach? Econ Syst 43: 100689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2018.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2018.10.003
    [55] Mateev M, Moudud-Ul-Huq S, Nasr T (2021) Capital regulation and market competition in the MENA region: policy implications for banking sector stability during COVID-19 Pandemic. Glob Bus Rev 09721509211064442. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509211064442 doi: 10.1177/09721509211064442
    [56] Mateev M, Sahyouni A, Tariq MU (2023) Bank regulation, ownership and risk taking behavior in the MENA region: policy implications for banks in emerging economies. Rev Manag Sci 17: 287–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00529-5 doi: 10.1007/s11846-022-00529-5
    [57] Matthys T, Meuleman E, Vander Vennet R (2020) Unconventional monetary policy and bank risk taking. J Int Money Financ 109: 102233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102233 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102233
    [58] Mohammed N, Ismail AG, Muhammad J (2015) Evidence on market concentration in Malaysian dual banking system. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 172: 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.351 doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.351
    [59] Moudud-Ul-Huq S (2021) Does bank competition matter for performance and risk-taking? Empirical evidence from BRICS countries. Int J Emerg Mark 16: 409–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-03-2019-0197 doi: 10.1108/ijoem-03-2019-0197
    [60] Naceur SB, Marton K, Roulet C (2018) Basel III and bank-lending: Evidence from the United States and Europe. J Financ Stabil 39: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2018.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2018.08.002
    [61] Naqvi H, Pungaliya R (2023) Bank size and the transmission of monetary policy: Revisiting the lending channel. J Bank Financ 146: 106688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106688 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106688
    [62] Ngambou Djatche MJ (2022) Monetary policy, prudential policy and bank's risk‐taking: A literature review. J Econ Surv 36: 1559–1590. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12485 doi: 10.1111/joes.12485
    [63] Nguyen VHT, Boateng A (2015) An analysis of involuntary excess reserves, monetary policy and risk-taking behaviour of Chinese banks. Int Rev Financ Anal 37: 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.11.013 doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2014.11.013
    [64] Ogunmola GA, Chien F, Chau KY, et al. (2022) The Influence of Capital Requirement of Basel III Adoption on Banks' Operating Efficiency: Evidence from US Banks. J Cent Bank Theor Pr 11: 5–26. https://doi.org/10.2478/jcbtp-2022-0011 doi: 10.2478/jcbtp-2022-0011
    [65] Olivero MP, Li Y, Jeon BN (2011) Consolidation in banking and the lending channel of monetary transmission: Evidence from Asia and Latin America. J Int Money Financ 30: 1034–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2011.06.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2011.06.006
    [66] Özşuca EA, Akbostancı E (2016) An empirical analysis of the risk-taking channel of monetary policy in Turkey. Emerg Mark Financ Trade 52: 589–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2015.1047300 doi: 10.1080/1540496x.2015.1047300
    [67] Rahman MM, Hamid MK, Khan MAM (2015) Determinants of bank profitability: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Int J Bus Manag 10: 135. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n8p135 doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v10n8p135
    [68] Ridwan R, Mayapada AG (2022) Does sharia governance influence corporate social responsibility disclosure in Indonesia Islamic banks? In (12: 299–318): Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1749819
    [69] Roy R, Bashar OH, Bhattacharya PS (2023) The cross-industry effects of monetary policy: New evidence from Bangladesh. Econ Model 106479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106479 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106479
    [70] Rubio M, Carrasco-Gallego JA (2016) The new financial regulation in Basel III and monetary policy: A macroprudential approach. J Financ Stabil 26: 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2016.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2016.07.012
    [71] Saif-Alyousfi AY, Saha A (2021) Determinants of banks' risk-taking behavior, stability and profitability: Evidence from GCC countries. Int J Islamic Middle 14: 874–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/imefm-03-2019-0129 doi: 10.1108/imefm-03-2019-0129
    [72] Sarkar S, Sensarma R (2019) Risk-taking channel of monetary policy: Evidence from Indian banking. Margin: J Appl Econ Res 13: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973801018800088 doi: 10.1177/0973801018800088
    [73] Sarkar S, Sensarma R, Sharma D (2019) The relationship between risk, capital and efficiency in Indian banking: Does ownership matter? J Financ Econ Policy 11: 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfep-05-2018-0074 doi: 10.1108/jfep-05-2018-0074
    [74] Siddique A, Khan MA, Khan Z (2021) The effect of credit risk management and bank-specific factors on the financial performance of the South Asian commercial banks. Asian J Account Res 7: 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-08-2020-0071 doi: 10.1108/ajar-08-2020-0071
    [75] VanHoose DD (2008) Bank capital regulation, economic stability, and monetary policy: what does the academic literature tell us? Atlantic Econ J 36: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-007-9100-z doi: 10.1007/s11293-007-9100-z
    [76] Veeramoothoo S, Hammoudeh S (2022) Impact of Basel III liquidity regulations on US Bank performance in different conditional profitability spectrums. N Am J Econ Financ 63: 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2022.101826 doi: 10.1016/j.najef.2022.101826
    [77] Wu J, Yan Y, Chen M, et al. (2022) Monetary policy, economic uncertainty and bank risk: Cross-country evidence. J Int Money Financ 122: 102580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2021.102580 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2021.102580
    [78] Zheng C, Moudud-Ul-Huq S, Rahman M, et al. (2017) The effects of ownership structure on banks' capital and risk-taking behavior: empirical evidence from developing country. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035
    [79] Zheng C, Moudud-Ul-Huq S, Rahman MM, et al. (2017) Does the ownership structure matter for banks' capital regulation and risk-taking behavior? Empirical evidence from a developing country. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035
    [80] Zhou S, Tewari DD (2019) Shadow banking, risk-taking and monetary policy in emerging economies: A panel cointegration approach. Cogent Econ Financ 7: 1636508. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1636508 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2019.1636508
    [81] Zins A, Weill L (2017) Islamic banking and risk: The impact of Basel II. Econ Model 64: 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2017.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2017.05.001
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Mohammad Javad Bordbari, Fuzhan Nasiri, Networked Microgrids: A Review on Configuration, Operation, and Control Strategies, 2024, 17, 1996-1073, 715, 10.3390/en17030715
    2. Mutiu Shola Bakare, Abubakar Abdulkarim, Aliyu Nuhu Shuaibu, Mundu Mustafa Muhamad, Energy management controllers: strategies, coordination, and applications, 2024, 7, 2520-8942, 10.1186/s42162-024-00357-9
    3. Kaka Sanaullah, Mingchao Xia, Arif Hussain, Kashif Hussain, Improving islanded distribution system stability with adaptive decision-making framework, 2024, 2194-5756, 10.1515/ijeeps-2024-0061
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1663) PDF downloads(100) Cited by(4)

Figures and Tables

Tables(7)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog