Advertisement

International Advances in Economic Research

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 328–336 | Cite as

The riegle-neal act and local banking market concentration

  • Daniel C. Giedeman
Articles

Abstract

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 greatly transformed the American banking system by allowing the widespread establishment of interstate bank branching networks. This paper examines possible effects on local banking market concentration that resulted from the provision in the Riegle-Neal Act that allowed states to opt-in to the establishment of de novo interstate branches. Regression analysis using data from more than seven hundred cities does not provide any evidence that allowing the establishment of de novo interstate branches caused increases in local banking market concentration. These results may help alleviate some concerns that passage of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act currently pending in Congress will result in lessened competition in local banking markets.

Keywords

Regression Analysis Economic Growth International Economic Financial Service Banking System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bryan, W. R. “To Branch or Not to Branch, An Issue That Finds Illinois Bankers Divided,”Illinois Issues, December 1975, pp. 364–66.Google Scholar
  2. Calomiris, C. W. “The Costs of Rejecting Universal Banking: American Finance in the German Mirror, 1870–1914,” in N. Lamoreaux and D. Raff, eds.,Coordination of Economic Activity Between and Within Firms, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp. 257–315.Google Scholar
  3. DeYoung, R.; Hasan, I.; Kirchhoff, B. “Out-of-State Entry and the Cost Efficiency of Local Commercial Banks,” Office of the Comptroller of Currency, Economics Working Paper 97–7, April 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Forgan, J. B. “Branch Banking,” in Walter Hull ed.,Practical Problems in Banking and Currency, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1907, pp. 238–54.Google Scholar
  5. Jayaratne, J.; Strahan, P. E. “The Benefits of Branching Deregulation,”Regulation, 22, 1, 1999, pp. 8–16.Google Scholar
  6. Johanns, M.; Googins, S.; McGreevey, J. E.; Stone, D. Letter to Spencer Bachus and Bernard Sanders regarding the NGA and NCSL Support Interstate Branching Amendment to H.R. 1375, April 8, 2003. Internet link: http://www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate/1,1169,C_LETTER%5ED_5303,00.html.Google Scholar
  7. Kane, E. J. “De Jure Interstate Banking: Why Only Now?”Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 28, 2, May 1996, pp. 141–61.Google Scholar
  8. Matasar, A. B.; Heiney, J. N. “Lemon or Lemonade?: Riegle-Neal and the Consolidation of American Banking,”International Advances in Economic Research, 6, No. 2, May 2000, pp. 249–58.Google Scholar
  9. Olson, M. W. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 14, 2002. Internet link: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2002/20020314/default.htmGoogle Scholar
  10. Strahan, P. E. “The Real Effects of U.S. Banking Deregulation,”Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 85, 4, July/August 2003, pp. 111–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel C. Giedeman
    • 1
  1. 1.Grand Valley State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations