完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位語言
dc.contributor.authorShen, Chung-Huaen_US
dc.contributor.authorHasan, Iftekharen_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, Chih-Yungen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-02T06:01:06Z-
dc.date.available2019-04-02T06:01:06Z-
dc.date.issued2014-06-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn0920-8550en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10693-013-0168-0en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/147681-
dc.description.abstractIn this study, we reinvestigate the question of whether government banks are inferior to private banks. We use cross country data from 1993 to 2007 to trace the different types of government banks. These types comprise banks that acquire distressed banks, normal banks, or no banks at all. Contrary to common belief, the evidence shows that unless government banks are required to purchase a distressed bank because of political factors (the government's role), their performances are at par with that of private banks. This fact particularly holds true in countries with poor records on political rights and governance.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectGovernment banksen_US
dc.subjectPolitical factoren_US
dc.subjectGovernment roleen_US
dc.subjectMergeren_US
dc.subjectDistressed banken_US
dc.subjectInstitutional factoren_US
dc.titleThe Government's Role in Government-owned Banksen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10693-013-0168-0en_US
dc.identifier.journalJOURNAL OF FINANCIAL SERVICES RESEARCHen_US
dc.citation.volume45en_US
dc.citation.spage307en_US
dc.citation.epage340en_US
dc.identifier.wosnumberWOS:000335171100003en_US
dc.citation.woscount12en_US
顯示於類別:期刊論文