Risk and performance of Islamic and conventional banks under COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from MENA region

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis between Islamic and conventional banks in terms of whether Islamic banks was more or less resilient/risky than conventional counterparts to the pandemic shock. It also examines the role of capital in improving the performance and stability within the two banking systems. Design/methodology/approach This study uses 82 banks from MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region for periods across 2011–2020, and employs a dynamic panel data approach to examine the resilience within both banking systems during the Covid-19 pandemic. Findings The results show that the Covid-19 pandemic has a negative impact on conventional banks' stability. However, Islamic banks performed better and were less risky than conventional ones. Banks with high-quality capital are more effective at controlling their risks and improving their performance during the pandemic. Practical implications The results offer important financial observations and policy implications to many stakeholders engaging with banks. Actually, the findings of this study facilitate to the stakeholders and bankers to have an alluded picture about determinants of risk and performance. The results can be used by bankers’ policy decision-makers to improve and enhance their consideration for risk management, taking into consideration the type of banking systems. Originality/value Compared to the various studies on the stability of Islamic and conventional banks, researchers have not sufficiently addressed the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on risk and performance. Moreover, none of these studies has examined if Islamic banks was more or less resilient/risky than conventional counterparts to the pandemic shock. This leads the authors to identify the similarities and differences between two types of banks in the MENA region in a pandemic shock context.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.