Abstract
Evidence shows that GDP declines to positive bank concentration shocks. In addition, evidence from the counterfactual analysis shows that actual GDP declines more than the counterfactual suggests. The decline is accentuated by the slowdown in investment, reduction in employment, increased unemployment and reduced credit growth due to the unexpected increase in bank concentration. Therefore, it is important for policymakers to lower the entry barriers and introduce a sliding scale of capital adequacy ratios that rise with the size of the banks.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These small firms create most of the new jobs while the older and larger firms create few and destroy many jobs. As a consequence, a concentrated banking sector may lower employment and raise unemployment, especially by focusing on the latter type of firms.
References
Carlin, W., & Mayer, C. (2003). Finance, investment and growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 69(1), 191–226.
Cetorelli, N., & Gambera, M. (2001). Banking market structure, financial dependence and growth: International evidence from the industry data. Journal of Finance, 56(2), 617–648.
Feldmannn, H. (2013). Banking systems concentration and labour market performance in industrial countries. Contemporary Economic Policy, 31(4), 719–732.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ndou, E., Mokoena, T. (2019). Do Positive Bank Concentration Shocks Impact Economic Growth in South Africa?. In: Inequality, Output-Inflation Trade-Off and Economic Policy Uncertainty . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19803-9_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19803-9_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19802-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19803-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)