Does digital banking adoption mediate the link between public-sector digital maturity and banking stability? Evidence from post-socialist transition economies, with a focus on Ukraine, Armenia, and Kazakhstan

  • 13 Views
  • 2 Downloads

Creative Commons License DMCA.com Protection Status
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Abstract
Whether digital transformation in the public sector and in financial services jointly contributes to banking stability – or whether the two strands proceed along parallel trajectories – remains an open empirical question for post-socialist economies undergoing both reforms simultaneously. This study addresses the question in three components. First, a cross-country mediation analysis covers up to 130 economies over 2018–2024 (853 country-year observations), drawing on the World Bank GovTech Maturity Index, the IMF Financial Access Survey, and the IMF Financial Soundness Indicators, with panel OLS, country-clustered standard errors, and bootstrap mediation tests. Second, the results are decomposed via fixed-effect deviations for three post-Soviet economies from distinct EBRD regions: Ukraine, Armenia, and Kazakhstan. Pre-shock GovTech maturity is positively associated with digital banking adoption (β = +2.91, p = 0.017); sub-pillars differ in channel: core government systems for transaction intensity, public service delivery for account ownership. Bootstrap mediation tests do not support the indirect path through digital banking adoption (six specifications, lowest p = 0.132). GovTech maturity instead shows a substantial direct association with the non-performing-loan ratio – a 13-percentage-point reduction per unit increase in GTMI (p = 0.037) – plausibly operating through institutional infrastructure such as property registries, e-courts, and tax-credit information systems. The two strands are linked but not chained: GovTech is associated with digital banking adoption, yet the route to lower non-performing loans runs through institutional infrastructure. Country-level decomposition reveals heterogeneous GTMI trajectories and identifies reform priorities across public service delivery and core government systems.

Acknowledgment
This article was prepared based on the results of a study funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine entitled “GovTech for Ukraine: A Digital, Secure, Transparent, and Equitable State in Times of War and Post-War Reconstruction” (registration number: 0126U000544).

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Country trajectories: GovTech, digital banking adoption, and bank stability, 2018–2024
    • Figure 2. Pairwise Pearson correlations among Stage 1 and Stage 2 variables, transition sub-sample (n = 28 economies, 2018–2024)
    • Table 1. Analytical sample composition
    • Table 2. Descriptive statistics by sub-sample, 2018–2024
    • Table 3. Stage 1 a-path estimates: log(M) on pre-shock GTMI
    • Table 4. Sub-pillar decomposition: log(M) on GTMI sub-pillars
    • Table 5. Cross-sectional Preacher-Hayes mediation: indirect effect of GTMI on bank stability through digital banking adoption
    • Table 6. Panel two-way fixed-effects mediation: indirect effect of GTMI on the NPL ratio
    • Table 7. Country-specific deviations from the panel two-way fixed-effects model
    • Table A1. Full country list and sample membership
    • Table B1. Pearson correlation matrix of principal regression variables (cross-country averages, 2018–2024)
    • Table C1. Country fixed-effects estimates and leapfrog/lagging classification, Sample A (FA37N)
    • Table D1. Country fixed-effects estimates and leapfrog/lagging classification, Sample B (FA30N)
    • Table E1. Full-sample and outlier-excluded coefficient comparison
    • Table E2. Sample sizes: full vs outlier-excluded
    • Table F1. Definitions and data sources for all model variables
    • Conceptualization
      Kalamkas Rakhimzhanova, Oxana Kirichok, Gaukhar Kodasheva, Ara Alyosha Mkrtchyan, Oksana Posadnieva, Serhiy Gryvko, Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Funding acquisition
      Kalamkas Rakhimzhanova, Oxana Kirichok, Gaukhar Kodasheva, Ara Alyosha Mkrtchyan, Oksana Posadnieva, Serhiy Gryvko
    • Project administration
      Kalamkas Rakhimzhanova, Oksana Posadnieva
    • Resources
      Kalamkas Rakhimzhanova, Oxana Kirichok, Gaukhar Kodasheva, Ara Alyosha Mkrtchyan, Oksana Posadnieva, Serhiy Gryvko, Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Writing – original draft
      Kalamkas Rakhimzhanova, Oxana Kirichok, Gaukhar Kodasheva, Ara Alyosha Mkrtchyan, Oksana Posadnieva, Serhiy Gryvko, Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Writing – review & editing
      Kalamkas Rakhimzhanova, Oxana Kirichok, Gaukhar Kodasheva, Ara Alyosha Mkrtchyan, Oksana Posadnieva, Serhiy Gryvko, Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Visualization
      Oxana Kirichok, Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Supervision
      Gaukhar Kodasheva
    • Software
      Ara Alyosha Mkrtchyan, Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Data curation
      Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Formal Analysis
      Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Investigation
      Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Methodology
      Liudmyla Zakharkina
    • Validation
      Liudmyla Zakharkina