arbiter
JournalsAccount

Evaluating Subsidized Credit Policy in Kazakhstan with SME and Spatial Panel Data: First- and Second-Best Policy

Michael Beenstock

Comparative Economic Studies2025https://doi.org/10.1057/s41294-025-00257-1article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.41

Abstract

If financial intermediation margins were competitive, there would be no prima facie case for subsidized credit. Using a method that bounds default risk premia, we show that bank intermediation margins are uncompetitive in Kazakhstan. Two evaluations are carried out to determine whether subsidized credit policy in Kazakhstan increased SME value-added and profits. The first uses observational data on individual SMEs, which show that subsidized credit increased SME profits. The second uses regional panel data on SMEs, which shows that subsidized credit increased SME value-added. These evaluations serve as background to a discussion of capital market policy in transition countries such as Kazakhstan, where domestic capital markets are dominated by oligopolistic commercial banks. Second-best theory suggests that positive evaluations do not necessarily justify the continuation of subsidized credit policy. Paradoxically, second-best policy may be inimical to first-best policy, which seeks to remedy the problem of excessive margins of intermediation through capital market reform.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41294-025-00257-1

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{michael2025,
  title        = {{Evaluating Subsidized Credit Policy in Kazakhstan with SME and Spatial Panel Data: First- and Second-Best Policy}},
  author       = {Michael Beenstock},
  journal      = {Comparative Economic Studies},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41294-025-00257-1},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Evaluating Subsidized Credit Policy in Kazakhstan with SME and Spatial Panel Data: First- and Second-Best Policy

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.