No abstract

No abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We show that direct state ownership is gradually substituted by indirect ownership and control. It tends to be organized in corporate pyramids that dilute public property, take control away from government bodies, and underpin managerial opportunism. Statecontrolled banks blur the borderline between commercial banking and development banking. Dominance of public banks has a bearing on empirical studies whose results might suggest state-owned banks' greater (or lesser) efficiency or competitiveness compared to other forms of ownership. We tend to interpret such results as influenced by the choice of indicator, period of observations, sample selection, etc., in the absence of an equal playing field for all groups of players. We suggest that the government's planned retreat from the banking sector will involve non-core assets mainly, whereas control over core institutions will just become more subtle. Terms of use: Documents inKeywords: Russia, banks, government, state-owned banks, public sector JEL Classification: G21, G28, P31, P52

No abstract

We use statistical data from 2000 to 2013 to compare the macro-level structure and the core institutions of the banking systems in China and Russia. Our main hypothesis is that, differences in the absolute size and socio-cultural features notwithstanding, these two systems are typologically similar. We consider the institutional structure, the market structure and concentration, the industrial policy of the government, and the banks' involvement in the financing of the non-financial economy. We find both similarities and differences, however in dynamics the trend towards convergence prevails. In both countries, we see a hierarchical multi-tier banking system headed by a few core state-controlled banks. These combine commercial activities with the activity of a development institution. Regardless of the nominal form of bank ownership, the government exerts influence on the lending decisions and market behavior of banks. We argue that the case of banking in China and Russia provides empirical proof to the macrosociological theory of institutional matrices. We refer in particular to the needed proportion between the dominant and complementary institutions. Whereas China has been carefully seeking a sustainable balance, Russia in the 1990s grossly overshot with liberalization and now reverts to the underlying long-term trend. China has currently become Russia's donor for institutional innovations in the credit system design.