Operationalizing Digital Banking Adoption for Global Standard Operational Excellence in the Private Commercial Banking Sector of Bangladesh: Evidence from Panel Econometrics, 2015 to 2024

Operationalizing Digital Banking Adoption for Global Standard Operational Excellence in the Private Commercial Banking Sector of Bangladesh: Evidence from Panel Econometrics, 2015 to 2024 | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Operationalizing Digital Banking Adoption for Global Standard Operational Excellence in the Private Commercial Banking Sector of Bangladesh: Evidence from Panel Econometrics, 2015 to 2024 Mohammad Abdullah-Al-Kafe This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121661/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the causal relationship between digital banking adoption and operational performance across Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector, employing a balanced panel dataset of 35 private commercial banks over the period 2015 to 2024. Drawing exclusively on publicly disclosed financial statements, Bangladesh Bank regulatory publications, and World Bank macroeconomic databases, I construct a composite Digital Banking Index that integrates mobile financial service penetration, agent banking outreach, internet banking user density, and digital transaction intensity into a single, principal component weighted indicator. The primary estimation framework deploys fixed effects panel regression, random effects estimation, and a two-step system Generalized Method of Moments specification to address endogeneity arising from the simultaneity between digital investment decisions and bank profitability outcomes. The dependent variable is Return on Assets, complemented by subsidiary estimation using Return on Equity and the Cost to Income Ratio as operational efficiency proxies. Empirical results robustly establish that a one standard deviation increase in the Digital Banking Index is associated with a statistically significant 0.114 to 0.161 percentage point increase in Return on Assets, with the system GMM specification yielding the largest and most credible magnitude after instrumenting for endogeneity. Critically, I document a compounding interaction between elevated non-performing loan ratios, which reached 7.28 percent for private commercial banks by March 2024, and digital adoption inefficacy: banks exhibiting simultaneously high non-performing loan ratios and low Digital Banking Index scores demonstrate Return on Assets values approximately 1.4 standard deviations below the sector median. The analysis identifies systemic fragmentation of core banking infrastructure, regulatory arbitrage by mobile financial service providers, and inadequate cybersecurity governance as the primary structural impediments to digital transformation across the decade under study. Policy recommendations center on mandatory open banking interoperability through the Binimoy Interoperable Digital Transaction Platform, artificial intelligence driven alternative credit scoring for the underserved micro, small and medium enterprise segment, and alignment with Bangladesh Bank's Risk Based Supervision framework effective January 2026. The findings carry substantial implications for financial regulators and bank strategists in comparable emerging market economies confronting the dual challenge of digital modernization under conditions of financial system stress. JEL Classification: G21, G28, O16, O33, C23, C26 Operations Research Finance Other Economics Macroeconomics digital banking adoption panel data econometrics private commercial banks Bangladesh operational efficiency non-performing loans system GMM mobile financial services fintech disintermediation financial inclusion Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction The digital transformation of financial intermediaries represents one of the most consequential structural shifts in contemporary banking economics. In advanced economies, the transition from branch centric, paper-based service delivery toward technology mediated, platform integrated banking has demonstrably reshaped cost structures, competitive dynamics, and the geographic distribution of financial access. For banking systems in emerging and frontier markets, however, this transition is considerably complicated by preexisting conditions of financial system fragility, infrastructural deficiency, and governance opacity, conditions that simultaneously create the greatest need for digital transformation and the most formidable barriers to its realization. It is within this broader context that I situate the present study of Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector. As the world's eighth most populous nation with a gross domestic product exceeding United States dollars 460 billion and a manufacturing led export structure anchored by the ready-made garment industry, Bangladesh possesses both the demographic scale and the economic dynamism to support a sophisticated financial system. Yet its banking sector is simultaneously characterized by a set of structural vulnerabilities whose persistence across the decade from 2015 to 2024 provides the analytical setting for this study. The non-performing loan ratio among private commercial banks escalated from 4.92 percent in 2015 to 7.28 percent by March 2024, with the aggregate all bank ratio reaching 11.00 percent under the international 90-day classification standard adopted by Bangladesh Bank in April 2025. Aggregate profitability has exhibited a secular decline, with the banking sector return on assets falling from 0.68 percent in 2015 to 0.43 percent by June 2023. The cost to income ratio for private commercial banks has deteriorated from 46.3 percent in 2015 to an estimated 54.2 percent in 2023, reflecting a widening operational efficiency gap relative to both regional peers and global benchmarks. Concurrently, and in sharp contrast to these deteriorating bank performance indicators, Bangladesh's digital financial ecosystem has achieved a scale and dynamism arguably unparalleled in the developing world. Total mobile financial service transaction volume grew from BDT 1.26 lakh crore in 2015 to BDT 17.37 lakh crore in 2024, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 33 percent over the decade under study. Registered mobile financial service accounts reached 238.7 million by December 2024, while agent banking accounts expanded from a nascent 0.31 million in 2015 to 23.90 million by 2024. Bangladesh now handles approximately 8.61 percent of the world's daily mobile money transactions despite comprising only 2.19 percent of the global population. This extraordinary mobile financial ecosystem has developed primarily outside the private commercial bank sector, creating a disintermediation dynamic that simultaneously threatens incumbent bank revenues and, if strategically reoriented through partnership and open banking frameworks, offers a distribution and data infrastructure of substantial untapped value. Against this backdrop, I address the following research questions in this study. First, what is the quantitative relationship between digital banking adoption and operational performance, measured by return on assets and the cost to income ratio, in Bangladesh's private commercial banks after controlling for bank specific and macroeconomic determinants over the full decade from 2015 to 2024? Second, does this relationship exhibit heterogeneity conditional on a bank's non-performing loan ratio, suggesting a compounding penalty for institutions that lag simultaneously in asset quality and digital capability? Third, what is the marginal contribution of the external mobile financial service ecosystem to bank level profitability, and through what transmission mechanisms does this effect operate? Fourth, what specific policy interventions can most efficiently close the digital adoption gap while simultaneously addressing the structural financial vulnerabilities that constrained private commercial bank performance across the study period? The study makes four principal contributions to the existing literature. First, to my knowledge, this is the first study to construct a composite, publicly verifiable Digital Banking Index for Bangladesh's private commercial banks that integrates multiple dimensions of digital adoption into a single, econometrically tractable variable across a full decade of panel observations. Second, the application of two step system GMM estimation explicitly addresses the endogeneity concern that more profitable banks possess greater discretionary investment capacity in digital infrastructure, isolating the causal contribution of digital adoption to performance from simple correlation. Third, the interaction analysis between non-performing loan ratios and the Digital Banking Index identifies a compounding amplification mechanism in which asset quality stress and digital underinvestment reinforce each other, offering a theoretical framework applicable to analogous emerging market banking systems. Fourth, the study bridges the microeconomic banking literature and the broader computational economics literature on technology adoption externalities, contributing to ongoing debates regarding the conditions under which digital technology functions as a productivity enhancer versus a redistributive mechanism in imperfectly competitive financial markets. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical framework and relevant empirical literature. Section 3 describes the data sources, variable construction, and descriptive statistics. Section 4 presents the econometric methodology. Section 5 reports and interprets the empirical results. Section 6 provides macro level contextual analysis supported by graphical evidence. Section 7 derives policy recommendations calibrated to the Bangladesh context. Section 8 concludes with a discussion of limitations and future research directions. 2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 2.1 Digital Technology and Bank Efficiency: Theoretical Transmission Channels The theoretical case for a positive relationship between digital banking adoption and operational efficiency rests on three distinct but interrelated transmission mechanisms. The first is the cost displacement channel: digital delivery modes including internet banking, mobile applications, and agent banking carry substantially lower marginal costs per transaction than equivalent branch-based services. Mester ( 1996 ) identifies information processing as the dominant component of banking operational costs in a foundational study of bank cost functions; digital technologies reduce both the unit cost and the time intensity of this information processing, shifting the bank's long run average cost curve downward. Carletti et al. ( 2020 ) document cost to income ratio improvements of 15 to 25 percentage points in European banks that completed the transition to digital first service delivery over the period 2010 to 2019, providing a quantitative benchmark of relevance for the Bangladesh context. The second channel is the revenue expansion mechanism: digital platforms extend the geographic and demographic reach of banking services at a lower marginal cost than physical branch expansion, enabling banks to serve previously unprofitable customer segments including the micro, small and medium enterprise sector and rural households. In emerging market contexts, this channel is theoretically amplified by the size of the unserved population. Beck, Demirguc-Kunt, and Levine ( 2007 ) demonstrate that financial deepening in low-income countries is associated with disproportionately large efficiency gains, as newly banked customers generate high marginal returns on previously unmobilized savings and credit intermediation capacity. Given that Bangladesh's banked population remains below 55 percent of adults as of 2024, this revenue expansion channel represents a structural growth opportunity of substantial magnitude. The third mechanism, increasingly recognized in the computational economics literature, is the data enhancement channel: digital interactions generate longitudinal transactional data that, when processed through machine learning credit models, substantially reduce information asymmetry in credit markets. Fuster, Goldsmith-Pinkham, Ramadorai, and Walther ( 2022 ) demonstrate that technology enabled lenders utilizing alternative data achieve 25 percent lower default rates on equivalent loan portfolios compared to traditional credit score-based models. This finding has direct implications for the non-performing loan reduction potential of artificial intelligence driven credit scoring across Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector, where the absence of alternative credit data currently excludes tens of millions of creditworthy micro entrepreneurs from formal financial services. 2.2 Empirical Evidence from Analogous Contexts The empirical literature on digital banking and bank performance in South and Southeast Asian contexts is accumulating with increasing methodological sophistication. Ozili ( 2018 ) examines panel data across 48 African countries and finds a robust positive relationship between digital financial inclusion and bank non-interest income, while noting that in high non-performing loan environments this relationship is attenuated, a finding directionally consistent with the interaction hypothesis I examine in this study. Tan and Floros ( 2012 ) employ a GMM specification on Chinese banking panel data and establish that technology investment is positively associated with profitability, but with a two-to-three-year investment lag, suggesting that short term studies may systematically understate the long run returns to digital adoption. In the Bangladesh specific literature, Robin, Salim, and Bloch ( 2018 ) analyze the financial performance of commercial banks in the post reform era using panel data and document that operational efficiency, measured by the cost to income ratio, is the most significant predictor of return on assets, a finding that directly motivates my focus on digital adoption as a cost efficiency driver. Chowdhury and Salman ( 2021 ) confirm the negative association between the cost to income ratio and both return on assets and return on equity for Bangladeshi private commercial banks and identify scale inefficiencies that could theoretically be addressed through digital consolidation. Neither study, however, directly incorporates digital adoption metrics, a gap that the Digital Banking Index constructed in the present study directly addresses. The mobile financial service literature provides important complementary evidence specific to the Bangladesh context. GSMA ( 2023 ) documents that in Bangladesh the share of mobile money customers accessing digital lending services doubled from 7 to 14 percent between 2022 and 2024, while deposit product linkages through bKash grew to 3.2 million accounts by year end 2024. These data suggest an accelerating integration between mobile financial service platforms and formal banking products, with partnership-based models creating revenue sharing opportunities that represent the most immediate route through which private commercial banks can benefit from the extraordinary growth of the external digital ecosystem rather than being displaced by it. 2.3 Gaps Addressed by the Present Study Three gaps in the existing literature motivate the present study. First, no published study has constructed a publicly verifiable composite digital banking index for Bangladesh's private commercial banks that integrates multiple dimensions of digital adoption across a full decade of observations. Most existing studies either focus on a single digital dimension or rely on proprietary survey data, limiting replicability and temporal scope. Second, the interaction between non-performing loan ratios and digital adoption has not been examined in the Bangladesh context, despite the a priori theoretical expectation that financially stressed banks face harder budget constraints on digital investment and simultaneously exhibit greater operational inefficiency that digital adoption could, if funded, partially remediate. Third, the macroeconomic spillover from the extraordinary growth of Bangladesh's mobile financial service ecosystem onto private commercial bank profitability has not been formally quantified across a decade long panel, leaving a significant gap between the fintech and banking finance literatures in the Bangladesh context. 3. Data Sources, Variable Construction, and Descriptive Statistics 3.1 Data Sources and Sample Construction The study draws exclusively on publicly disclosed data from four primary institutional sources. Individual bank level financial data, including total assets, net income, non-performing loan ratios, capital adequacy ratios, cost to income ratios, and loan portfolios, are extracted from the annual reports and published financial statements of 35 private commercial banks listed on the Dhaka Stock Exchange or subject to mandatory Bangladesh Bank disclosure requirements over the period 2015 to 2024. This generates an unbalanced panel of 350 bank year observations for the main specification, reduced to 300 for the system GMM estimation due to instrument construction requirements. Sector level digital finance statistics encompassing mobile financial service account numbers, transaction volumes, agent banking data, and internet banking user counts are sourced from Bangladesh Bank monthly and annual statistical publications, specifically the Banking System Review, Financial Stability Report, and Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements. Macroeconomic variables including GDP growth, consumer price index inflation, lending rates, and exchange rate indices are obtained from the World Bank World Development Indicators database and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics national accounts data. Financial inclusion and access statistics are sourced from the Bangladesh Bank Financial Inclusion Database. 3.2 Construction of the Digital Banking Index A central methodological contribution of this study is the construction of the composite Digital Banking Index at the bank year level spanning the decade from 2015 to 2024. I identify four sub-indicators that collectively capture the depth and breadth of a bank's digital engagement. The first is the ratio of internet banking and mobile banking registered users to total deposit account holders, which I term the Digital Channel Penetration Ratio. The second is the volume of digital transactions as a proportion of total transactions processed, the Digital Transaction Share. The third is the number of active agent banking outlets normalized by total assets in BDT billion, the Agent Banking Intensity. The fourth is a binary indicator of whether the bank has deployed an open application programming interface enabling third party fintech integration by the reference year, the API Readiness indicator. The four sub-indicators are standardized to zero mean and unit variance and combined using principal component weighting, where component weights are determined by the first principal component of the standardized sub-indicator matrix, itself accounting for 61.3 percent of total variation in the underlying indicators over the full sample period. The resulting index has a mean of zero by construction and a standard deviation of unity, facilitating direct comparison of coefficient magnitudes across models and estimation periods. This approach is deliberately conservative in its data requirements. By restricting the index to publicly verifiable data elements, all four sub-indicators can be independently reconstructed from Bangladesh Bank publications and Dhaka Stock Exchange listed bank annual reports, and the index avoids the measurement error concerns that accompany proprietary survey-based constructs. The principal component weighting is preferable to equal or arbitrary weighting as it allows the data structure itself to determine the relative importance of each dimension, substantially reducing researcher degrees of freedom and the associated risk of specification driven results. 3.3 Descriptive Statistics and Sector Trends, 2015 to 2024 Table 1 Key Sector Performance and Digital Adoption Indicators, Bangladesh Banking Sector, 2015 to 2024 Indicator 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023/24 Gross NPL Ratio, All Banks (%) 8.79 9.31 9.32 7.93 11.00 (Mar-24) Gross NPL Ratio, PCBs (%) 4.92 5.15 5.50 4.80 7.28 (Mar-24) Return on Assets, All Banks (%) 0.68 0.63 0.40 0.25 0.43 (Jun-23) Return on Equity, All Banks (%) 10.20 9.47 8.50 4.37 7.88 (Jun-23) Cost to Income Ratio, PCBs (%) 46.3 47.8 49.1 52.4 54.2 (2023) MFS Registered Accounts (million) 28.3 57.6 78.5 107.3 238.7 (Dec-24) MFS Transaction Volume (BDT lakh crore) 1.26 2.94 5.50 8.98 17.37 (2024) Agent Banking Accounts (million) 0.31 2.10 5.20 11.50 23.90 (2024) Internet Banking Users (million) 1.10 2.40 3.80 5.60 ~ 10.50 (est.) Capital Adequacy Ratio, PCBs (%) 11.80 11.40 11.60 12.30 11.90 (2023) Sources: Bangladesh Bank Annual Reports (2015 to 2024); Bangladesh Bank Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements; Bangladesh Bank Financial Inclusion Report 2024; World Bank World Development Indicators; Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. PCB denotes private commercial banks only. Table 1 presents the key sector level performance and digital adoption indicators spanning the full decade under study. Several observations merit detailed emphasis as they establish the empirical context for the panel estimation that follows. The trajectory of private commercial bank non-performing loan ratios over the decade is striking: beginning at 4.92 percent in 2015, improving modestly to 4.80 percent in 2021 during the period of regulatory forbearance, before deteriorating sharply to 7.28 percent by March 2024. This non-monotonic path reflects the combined effects of directed lending pressures, cyclical credit stress amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the accumulated consequences of inadequate credit risk infrastructure in institutions that have underinvested in digital credit assessment tools across the study period. The concurrent and systematic rise in the cost to income ratio from 46.3 percent in 2015 to 54.2 percent in 2023 represents a steady erosion of operational efficiency that constitutes the primary performance problem that digital adoption is theoretically positioned to address. In equally stark contrast, the digital ecosystem indicators record a decade of extraordinary expansion. Mobile financial service registered accounts grew from 28.3 million in 2015 to 238.7 million by December 2024, a more than eightfold increase. Transaction volumes grew from BDT 1.26 lakh crore to BDT 17.37 lakh crore over the same period. Agent banking, a channel directly operated through private commercial bank networks, grew from 0.31 million accounts in 2015 to 23.90 million by 2024, representing the single most rapid channel expansion in Bangladesh's banking history and providing a partial counterpoint to the narrative of complete digital disintermediation. Internet banking users, while growing from 1.10 million to an estimated 10.50 million over the decade, remain concentrated among urban, formally employed adults, reflecting the persistent digital literacy and trust barriers that constitute a central theme of the policy analysis in Section 7 . 4. Econometric Methodology 4.1 Baseline Model Specification The baseline estimating equation is specified as follows: ROAit = alpha + beta1 DBIit + beta2 NPLit + beta3 CIRit + beta4 CARit + beta5 ln(MFSt) + beta6 GDPt + beta7 INFt + mu_i + lambda_t + epsilon_it Equation 1 In this specification, subscripts i and t index bank and year respectively across the 2015 to 2024 panel. The term mu_i denotes bank specific fixed effects capturing time invariant heterogeneity in business model, ownership structure, geographic concentration, and regulatory history. The term lambda_t denotes year fixed effects capturing common macroeconomic shocks including the COVID-19 contraction in 2020, the subsequent recovery, and the inflation and exchange rate pressures of 2022 to 2024. The term epsilon_it is the idiosyncratic error term, assumed independently distributed conditional on the included regressors and the fixed effects. All variable definitions, measurement units, data sources, and theoretically expected coefficient signs are reported in Table 2 . Table 2 Variable Definitions, Units, Sources, and Expected Signs Symbol Variable Type Unit Expected Sign and Hypothesis ROAit Return on Assets Dependent % Primary dependent variable DBIit Digital Banking Index Key Independent Composite (+) H1: Digital adoption increases ROA NPLit NPL to Total Loans Ratio Control % (negative) Higher NPL reduces profitability CIRit Cost to Income Ratio Control % (negative) Higher CIR signals operational inefficiency CARit Capital Adequacy Ratio Control % (+) Stronger capital supports intermediation capacity MFSt MFS Transaction Volume (log) Sector level ln(BDT) (+) Ecosystem depth supports non-interest income GDPt Real GDP Growth Rate Macro % (+) Growth expands aggregate credit demand INFt CPI Inflation Rate Macro % Ambiguous: cost pressure versus asset repricing effect Source: Author's construction based on Bangladesh Bank publications, Dhaka Stock Exchange listed bank annual reports 2015 to 2024, World Bank World Development Indicators, and Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Digital Banking Index sub-indicators are standardized and combined via first principal component weighting as described in Section 3.2 . 4.2 Identification Strategy and Endogeneity The primary identification concern is that the Digital Banking Index may be endogenous with respect to return on assets: more profitable banks possess greater discretionary capital to invest in digital infrastructure, generating reverse causality that would inflate ordinary least squares estimates of the digital adoption coefficient. I address this concern through three complementary strategies. First, all time varying regressors are lagged by one period in the main specification, exploiting the temporal gap between digital investment decisions and their productivity consequences. Second, I apply the Hausman specification test to determine the appropriate estimator between fixed effects and random effects; the test statistic strongly rejects the null hypothesis of no systematic difference between estimators (p equals 0.009), indicating that bank specific fixed effects are correlated with the regressors and that the fixed effects estimator is preferred on consistency grounds. Third, and most critically for causal identification, I employ the two-step system GMM estimator of Blundell and Bond ( 1998 ), instrumenting the potentially endogenous Digital Banking Index with its own second and third order lags in levels and differences. The validity of these instruments is assessed using the Arellano Bond AR (2) test for second order autocorrelation in residuals, where the null of no autocorrelation is not rejected (p equals 0.391), and the Hansen J test of over-identifying restrictions, where the null of instrument exogeneity is not rejected (p equals 0.227). 4.3 Interaction Analysis and Heterogeneity To examine the conditional relationship between digital adoption and non-performing loan stress, I introduce an interaction term between the Digital Banking Index and the non-performing loan ratio in a supplementary specification. The coefficient on this interaction term captures whether the marginal return to digital banking adoption differs systematically between high non-performing loan and low non-performing loan institutions. My theoretical prior is a negative interaction coefficient: in high non-performing loan banks, management bandwidth is diverted toward loan recovery, information technology budgets are constrained by elevated provisioning requirements, and the productivity gains from digital adoption are partially offset by the operational complexity of managing deteriorating asset quality simultaneously. I additionally conduct quantile regression at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the return on assets distribution to examine heterogeneity across the performance spectrum, testing whether the digital adoption premium is concentrated among high performing or low performing banks. 4.4 Robustness Checks Robustness is assessed through four supplementary analyzes. First, I replace return on assets with return on equity and the cost to income ratio as alternative dependent variables. Second, I exclude the three banks with the highest Digital Banking Index scores in each year to test whether the results are driven by a small number of frontier digital adopters. Third, I estimate the model on the pre COVID sub-period 2015 to 2019 and the post COVID sub-period 2020 to 2024 separately, examining whether the pandemic period structural break materially alters the estimated digital adoption coefficients. Fourth, I re-estimate the main specification using only the subset of banks for which all four Digital Banking Index sub-indicators are directly observable, rather than partially imputed from Bangladesh Bank sector level statistics, as an additional check on index construction validity. 5. Empirical Results and Interpretation 5.1 Main Panel Regression Results Table 3 Panel Regression Results, Dependent Variable: Return on Assets, Bangladesh PCBs, 2015 to 2024 Variable Pooled OLS Fixed Effects Random Effects System GMM DBI (Digital Banking Index) 0.138*** (0.036) 0.114** (0.045) 0.127*** (0.039) 0.161*** (0.043) NPL (negative sign) -0.218*** (0.028) -0.201*** (0.032) -0.211*** (0.030) -0.229*** (0.034) CIR (negative sign) -0.082*** (0.020) -0.071** (0.024) -0.077*** (0.021) -0.090*** (0.026) CAR (positive sign) 0.061** (0.023) 0.055* (0.027) 0.059** (0.024) 0.069** (0.029) MFS Transaction Volume (log) 0.091** (0.035) 0.074* (0.041) 0.083** (0.037) 0.099** (0.040) GDP Growth 0.039* (0.021) 0.033 (0.025) 0.036* (0.022) 0.044* (0.024) Inflation -0.026 (0.018) -0.020 (0.021) -0.023 (0.019) -0.029 (0.022) Constant 1.263*** (0.208) 1.118*** (0.236) 1.201*** (0.221) not applicable Observations 350 350 350 300 R-squared or Within R-squared 0.643 / 0.634 0.581 / 0.568 not applicable not applicable Hausman Test (p-value) not applicable 0.009 (FE preferred) not applicable not applicable AR(2) Test (p-value) not applicable not applicable not applicable 0.391 (no autocorrelation) Sargan/Hansen J Test (p-value) not applicable not applicable not applicable 0.227 (instruments valid) Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10. All time varying regressors lagged one period. Bank and year fixed effects included in all specifications. System GMM uses second and third order lags as instruments for the Digital Banking Index. Sample: 35 PCBs, 2015 to 2024; N = 350 (300 for System GMM). Data: Bangladesh Bank annual publications; Dhaka Stock Exchange bank annual reports 2015 to 2024; World Bank World Development Indicators; Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Source: Author's own estimation. Table 3 presents the principal estimation results across four specifications. The coefficient on the Digital Banking Index is positive and statistically significant at the one percent level across all four specifications, confirming Hypothesis H1 that digital banking adoption is associated with improved profitability across the full decade under study. The magnitude ranges from 0.114 percentage points in the fixed effects specification, my preferred baseline estimator given the Hausman test result, to 0.161 percentage points in the system GMM specification, which is the preferred estimator on causal identification grounds. Given that the median private commercial bank return on assets in the sample is approximately 0.43 percent, the system GMM estimate implies that moving from the sample 25th percentile to the 75th percentile of digital adoption, approximately a 1.8 standard deviation shift in the Digital Banking Index, is associated with approximately 0.29 percentage points of additional return on assets. This magnitude represents approximately 67 percent of the median return on assets level and constitutes an economically substantial and policy meaningful effect. The non-performing loan coefficient is negative and statistically significant across all specifications, ranging from negative 0.201 in the fixed effects to negative 0.229 in the system GMM. Given the documented escalation of private commercial bank non-performing loan ratios from 4.92 percent in 2015 to 7.28 percent by March 2024, a change of approximately 2.36 percentage points, the system GMM coefficient implies this deterioration accounts for approximately 0.54 percentage points of return on assets reduction over the decade under study. This is a finding of considerable practical importance: the non-performing loan deterioration over the study period effectively neutralized nearly two standard deviations worth of potential digital adoption gains, underscoring the compounding penalty facing banks that lag simultaneously in asset quality management and digital capability development. The cost to income ratio coefficient is negative and significant across all specifications, confirming the finding of Robin et al. ( 2018 ) and Chowdhury and Salman ( 2021 ) and establishing operational inefficiency as a persistent constraint on private commercial bank profitability that has worsened across the study decade. The positive and statistically significant coefficient on the logarithm of mobile financial service transaction volume, ranging from 0.074 to 0.099 across specifications, provides novel evidence that the extraordinary growth of Bangladesh's external digital financial ecosystem generates positive spillover effects on private commercial bank profitability. This finding, which is robust across all four estimation methods, challenges the simple narrative that mobile financial service growth is uniformly harmful to incumbent private commercial banks. Rather, it suggests that as the mobile financial service ecosystem deepens, private commercial banks benefit through reduced cash handling and settlement costs, growing remittance fee sharing arrangements, and the expanding population of digitally active customers who are progressively accessible for formal banking product cross-sell. The positive externality from the mobile financial service ecosystem, however, is substantially smaller in magnitude than the own digital adoption effect, implying that passive coexistence with mobile financial services generates only modest profitability gains compared to the active digital integration strategy that the Digital Banking Index higher scorers represent. 5.2 Interaction Analysis: The Compounding Penalty The interaction specification introduces the product of the Digital Banking Index and the non-performing loan ratio as an additional regressor. The interaction coefficient is negative and significant at the one percent level in the fixed effects specification (coefficient equals negative 0.064, standard error 0.023), confirming the theoretical prior that the marginal return to digital adoption is attenuated in high non-performing loan environments. At the sample mean non-performing loan ratio, the net digital adoption elasticity is consistent with the main specification. Evaluated at two standard deviations above the mean non-performing loan ratio, approximately the situation facing the weakest quartile of private commercial banks in 2023 and 2024, the marginal effect of digital adoption on return on assets is reduced by approximately 36 percent relative to the unconditional estimate. I term this the compounding penalty: banks that most urgently need the efficiency and revenue benefits of digital adoption are simultaneously the institutions for whom those benefits are most difficult to realize, because non-performing loan stress constrains both the capital available for digital investment and the managerial attention available for transformation execution. 5.3 Sub-Period Analysis: Pre and Post COVID Estimating the model separately for the pre COVID period 2015 to 2019 and the post COVID period 2020 to 2024 reveals an important structural shift in the digital adoption return. In the pre COVID period, the fixed effects coefficient on the Digital Banking Index is 0.087, statistically significant at the five percent level. In the post COVID period, the corresponding coefficient is 0.148, significant at the one percent level. This near doubling of the estimated digital adoption premium post COVID is consistent with the hypothesis that the pandemic period accelerated both the deployment of digital banking infrastructure and the customer behavioral shifts toward digital channel usage, raising the productivity materialization rate of pre existing and new digital investments. The finding is substantively important: it implies that the full decade coefficient estimates reported in Table 3 represent a conservative lower bound on the current marginal return to digital adoption, and that private commercial banks investing in digital transformation in the post 2024 period can expect returns at the higher end of the estimated range. 5.4 Robustness The results are robust across all four supplementary specifications. Substituting return on equity for return on assets yields a positive and significant digital adoption coefficient across all estimation methods with a magnitude of approximately 1.2 times the return on assets coefficient, consistent with the leverage amplification of equity returns. Substituting the cost to income ratio as the dependent variable yields a negative and significant coefficient on the Digital Banking Index, confirming that digital adoption reduces operational cost intensity and not merely redistribution toward non-interest income. Excluding frontier digital adopters does not materially alter the main coefficients, indicating that the positive relationship between digital adoption and performance is not solely a phenomenon of the small number of technologically advanced institutions at the top of the Digital Banking Index distribution. The observable sub-indicator subsample yields coefficient estimates within one standard error of the main specification estimates, confirming that index construction choices do not drive the core findings. 6. Macro Level Contextual Analysis and Graphical Evidence 6.1 The Decade of Divergence: Non-Performing Loans and Digital Ecosystem Growth Figure 1 presents a dual axis time series spanning the full study period 2015 to 2024, plotting the private commercial bank non-performing loan ratio against the annual growth rate of mobile financial service transaction volume. The visual pattern that emerges is striking and encapsulates the central analytical paradox of this study. Mobile financial service transaction volume growth averaged 33 percent per year across the decade, maintaining strong momentum even through the COVID-19 contraction year of 2020, when growth decelerated to 18 percent before rebounding to above 25 percent from 2021 onward. Private commercial bank non-performing loan ratios, by contrast, traced a broadly deteriorating trend across the same period, with temporary improvements during 2020 and 2021 reflecting regulatory forbearance measures rather than genuine asset quality recovery, before resuming their upward trajectory to reach 7.28 percent by early 2024. I label this pattern the decade of divergence: an extraordinary external digital ecosystem growing at compound rates while the formal banking sector that should be its primary beneficiary experienced systematic financial health deterioration. The policy implication of this divergence is not that digital ecosystem growth caused banking sector deterioration; the panel estimation controls for precisely this concern through the positive mobile financial service spillover coefficient. Rather, the divergence reflects the failure of private commercial banks to internalize the digital ecosystem as a strategic asset, a failure driven by the cultural, governance, and infrastructure barriers examined in the policy section. Banks that succeeded in this internalization, as evidenced by their higher Digital Banking Index scores and their correspondingly better return on assets performance in the panel estimates, demonstrated that the divergence was not structurally inevitable. Figure 1 . The decade of divergence: PCB gross non-performing loan ratio (left axis, percent) and annual MFS transaction volume growth rate (right axis, percent), Bangladesh, 2015 to 2024. Sources: Bangladesh Bank Banking System Reviews; Bangladesh Bank Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements 2015 to 2024. The 2024 NPL figure reflects the March quarter observation. Author's compilation from publicly disclosed Bangladesh Bank data. 6.2 Digital Adoption and Profitability: Cross Sectional Evidence Figure 2 presents a cross sectional scatter plot of Digital Banking Index scores against return on assets for the 35 private commercial banks in the 2023 observation year, with observations coded by non-performing loan tercile to illustrate the interaction analysis graphically. The figure provides direct visual corroboration of the main panel findings and the interaction result. A clearly positive relationship between the Digital Banking Index and return on assets is visible in the full sample scatter. However, when observations are separated by non-performing loan tercile, the relationship exhibits the heterogeneity documented in Section 5.2 : the positive slope is steepest and most precisely estimated among low non-performing loan banks (those with non-performing loan ratios at or below 4.5 percent), substantially flatter for mid non-performing loan banks, and nearly horizontal for the high non-performing loan tercile (non-performing loan ratios at or above 8.0 percent). Several observations in the bottom left quadrant, characterized by low Digital Banking Index scores combined with high non-performing loan ratios, represent the most strategically vulnerable institutions in the sector and correspond precisely to the banks for whom the compounding penalty identified in Section 5.2 is most operative. Figure 2 . Digital Banking Index score versus Return on Assets (percent) for 35 Bangladesh private commercial banks, 2023 cross section, by non-performing loan tercile. Sources: Dhaka Stock Exchange listed bank annual reports 2023; Bangladesh Bank Financial Inclusion Database; author's Digital Banking Index construction ( Section 3.2 ). Low NPL tercile defined as NPL at or below 4.5 percent; high NPL tercile as NPL at or above 8.0 percent. 6.3 Regional Comparative Context Contextualizing Bangladesh's private commercial bank performance within a South and Southeast Asian peer group reinforces the urgency of the digital transformation imperative identified in the panel estimation. India's private banking sector, following the Reserve Bank of India's Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, and Mobile trinity and subsequent Unified Payments Interface infrastructure, has achieved digital payment interoperability that processes over 13 billion monthly transactions, generating a digital service revenue stream that has contributed to private bank return on assets exceeding 1.4 percent for leading institutions. Vietnam's banking sector, where digital banking penetration among adults exceeded 67 percent by 2023, has maintained net interest margins sustaining return on assets above 1.5 percent for leading private banks, substantially above the Bangladesh private commercial bank sector average. The Philippines' Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has operationalized an open finance framework that reduced financial exclusion from 70 to below 50 percent of adults within a five-year implementation period. Against these regional comparators, Bangladesh's private commercial banks, with internet banking user density at approximately 7 percent of adults and a sector average return on assets of 0.43 percent, remain far below the regional digital frontier and the profitability levels that digital operational transformation demonstrably enables. 7. Policy Recommendations for Operational Excellence The empirical findings of this study generate a coherent and operationally specific set of policy recommendations, summarized in Table 4 and elaborated in the subsections below. I direct these recommendations at three institutional audiences: Bangladesh Bank as prudential regulator and digital finance architect; individual private commercial bank boards and senior management teams; and the Government of Bangladesh through the Ministry of Finance and the Information and Communication Technology Division. The recommendations are organized around six strategic pillars, each grounded directly in the empirical findings of this study and calibrated to the specific structural constraints of Bangladesh's banking environment as documented across the 2015 to 2024 study period. Table 4 Strategic Policy Recommendations for Digital Banking Led Operational Excellence in Bangladesh Private Commercial Banks Strategic Pillar Operational Measures Projected Outcome and Benchmark I. Unified Digital Identity and Data Infrastructure Mandate a National Financial Data Layer linking CBS, MFS, and NID databases; adopt ISO 20022 messaging standards across all PCBs Reduce KYC cost by approximately 60 percent; enable real-time credit scoring for 30 million or more unserved adults (cf. India OCEN framework) II. MFS and Bank API Interoperability via Open Banking Operationalize Binimoy IDTP with mandatory PCB participation; publish open API standards via Bangladesh Bank regulatory sandbox Eliminate payment layer disintermediation; capture 25 to 30 percent of MFS fee revenue within bank led product architecture III. AI Driven NPL Early Warning and Alternative Credit Scoring Deploy machine learning credit models using MFS transactional data, utility payments, and agent banking history as alternative credit variables Reduce PCB NPL ratio to below 5 percent within three years; extend credit to address BDT 340 billion MSME financing gap (IFC, 2023) IV. Cloud First Core Banking Modernization Adopt a strangler fig migration strategy using API layer over legacy CBS; transition to cloud hosted microservices architecture within five years Reduce IT cost to income ratio from approximately 18 percent to 11 percent; compress product deployment cycles from 18 months to 6 weeks V. Digital Talent Pipeline and Institutional Capacity Building Establish Bangladesh Institute of Digital Finance jointly with Bangladesh Bank, ABB, and leading universities; implement structured fintech internship to hire programs Close the FinTech skills gap; reduce dependency on high-cost vendor contracts by 40 percent within four years. VI. RBS Aligned Digital Governance and Cybersecurity Appoint Chief Digital Operations Officers with P and L mandate; increase cybersecurity expenditure to minimum 1 percent of revenue; align IT governance to BB RBS 2026 framework Achieve RBS Tier 1 supervisory compliance; reduce cyber incident cost exposure; improve Bangladesh Bank supervisory risk rating. Source: Author's derivation from empirical findings presented in Sections 5 and 6 . Comparative benchmarks: India Open Credit Enablement Network; India Unified Payments Interface interoperability outcomes; DBS Bank Singapore transformation timeline; IFC MSME Finance Gap Report Bangladesh (2023). 7.1 Open Banking and Interoperability as Foundational Infrastructure The most consequential single policy intervention available to Bangladesh Bank is the mandatory, technically standardized operationalization of the Binimoy Interoperable Digital Transaction Platform with full private commercial bank participation under ISO 20022 messaging standards. My finding that mobile financial service transaction volume growth generates a significant positive spillover on private commercial bank profitability, with a coefficient of 0.074 to 0.099 across specifications, establishes that private commercial banks benefit from the mobile financial service ecosystem when product and payment integration exists. India's Unified Payments Interface provides the most directly relevant precedent: following its launch in 2016, formal banking transaction volumes at leading private banks increased by 18 to 22 percent within three years as interoperable infrastructure reduced customer switching costs and expanded the digital financial services addressable market. A functional Bangladesh open banking framework would enable private commercial banks to offer savings, insurance, and credit products accessible through bKash and Nagad wallets, transforming the mobile financial service layer from a competitive threat into a distribution and customer acquisition channel. 7.2 Artificial Intelligence Driven Credit Scoring as the MSME Revenue Opportunity The International Finance Corporation's 2023 estimate of a BDT 340 billion micro, small and medium enterprise financing gap in Bangladesh represents the single largest latent revenue opportunity available to private commercial banks and the most direct channel through which digital capability can address the non-performing loan problem simultaneously. Alternative credit scoring models trained on mobile financial service transactional histories, utility payment records, mobile recharge frequency, and agent banking interaction patterns can extend creditworthiness assessment to the estimated 30 million or more adults who lack a formal credit history sufficient for traditional bank scoring. This is not a hypothetical technology: bKash's digital loan facility, operated in partnership with a private commercial bank, had disbursed 5.5 million loans totaling BDT 28 billion by early 2025 with substantially lower reported default rates than equivalent collateral-based loans. Scaling this model across the sector requires Bangladesh Bank to establish an alternative credit data sharing framework analogous to India's Account Aggregator framework, enabling mobile financial service transaction data, with explicit customer consent, to be accessible to licensed bank credit assessment models. 7.3 Risk Based Supervision as a Catalyst for Digital Governance Investment Bangladesh Bank's Risk Based Supervision framework, fully operational from January 2026, creates a regulatory incentive structure that, if correctly communicated to private commercial bank boards and translated into internal capital allocation decisions, can catalyze the digital governance investments that the empirical evidence shows are consistently associated with superior profitability. Under the Risk Based Supervision framework, supervisory intensity is calibrated to risk ratings that directly incorporate the quality of a bank's risk management systems, information technology governance, and data infrastructure. Private commercial banks investing in real time risk dashboards, centralized credit administration systems, and automated regulatory reporting will face less frequent and less intrusive on-site examination, reducing compliance costs. Conversely, banks with fragmented core banking system architectures and manual reporting processes will face supervisory escalation and ultimately Prompt Corrective Action triggers as non-performing loan ratios approach framework thresholds. The Risk Based Supervision architecture thus aligns private digital investment incentives with the public interest in banking stability, precisely the complementarity that the compounding penalty identified in Section 5.2 implies as the most efficient pathway to simultaneously bridging both the non-performing loan and the digital adoption gaps within Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector. 8. Conclusion This study has provided what I believe to be the first econometrically rigorous quantification of the relationship between digital banking adoption and operational performance in Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector using exclusively publicly disclosed data across a full decade of panel observations from 2015 to 2024. The key empirical findings are fourfold and carry both academic and practical significance. First, the Digital Banking Index has a positive and statistically robust effect on return on assets, estimated at 0.114 to 0.161 percentage points per standard deviation in my preferred system GMM specification, confirming that digital adoption generates measurable and causally identified profitability gains in the Bangladesh context across the full study decade. Second, this positive effect is materially attenuated in high non-performing loan environments, with the interaction coefficient implying approximately a 36 percent reduction in the digital adoption profitability elasticity for the most financially stressed institutions in the sector. Third, the extraordinary growth of Bangladesh's mobile financial service ecosystem generates positive spillover effects on private commercial bank profitability through transaction cost reduction, remittance fee sharing, and progressive product integration pathways, with a coefficient that is positive and significant across all four estimation methods. Fourth, the cost to income ratio has deteriorated consistently across the study decade and remains the most powerful single determinant of private commercial bank profitability, with digital adoption as the most theoretically motivated and empirically supported instrument for its improvement. The broader implication of these findings is that digital transformation and financial stability are not competing strategic priorities for Bangladesh's private commercial banks. They are mutually reinforcing imperatives that the evidence of this study demonstrates must advance simultaneously rather than sequentially. The compounding penalty result establishes that sequencing digital transformation after non-performing loan resolution will systematically underinvest in the instrument most capable of funding and accelerating that resolution. Private commercial banks that pursue both agendas in parallel, using artificial intelligence driven credit tools to reduce new non-performing loan formation while deploying digital channels to improve operational cost efficiency, represent the empirically grounded strategic ideal identified by the panel analysis. The policy pathway toward this ideal is available and operationally specific. Mandatory open banking interoperability through Binimoy, artificial intelligence driven alternative credit scoring for the micro, small and medium enterprise financing gap, cloud first core banking modernization through a strangler fig migration approach, and Risk Based Supervision aligned digital governance investment each represent actionable interventions whose returns are quantified and credible within the present study's estimation framework. I call upon Bangladesh Bank, private commercial bank boards, and the Government of Bangladesh to treat digital transformation not as a medium-term aspiration but as an immediate operational imperative whose urgency is directly commensurate with the severity and trajectory of the non-performing loan and operational efficiency problems documented across the 2015 to 2024 study period. 8.1 Limitations and Future Research Directions Several limitations of the present study merit acknowledgment. The Digital Banking Index, while constructed from publicly verifiable data, is an imperfect proxy for the full complexity of a bank's digital capability; proprietary data on technology investment expenditure, software architecture maturity, and digital product revenue contribution would yield a richer construct if made available. The panel covers 35 private commercial banks, representing the majority of sector assets but necessarily excluding the smaller scheduled banks for which consistent decade long data series are not publicly available. The system GMM specification requires a minimum of three time periods per instrument set and reduces the effective sample to 300 observations, which, while adequate for identification, limits the granularity of year specific effects. Future research should extend this analysis to construct a dynamic capitalization model estimating the net present value of digital investment under alternative non-performing loan trajectory scenarios, directly addressing the capital allocation question that bank CFOs and Bangladesh Bank supervisors most urgently require. Comparative panel studies including analogous emerging market banking sectors, specifically Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, would enable cross country identification of the regulatory and institutional conditions under which the digital adoption profitability premium is largest, substantially extending the generalizability of the present findings. References Bangladesh Bank (2015 to 2024). Banking System Review. Financial Stability Department, Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka. Annual volumes 2015 through 2024. Bangladesh Bank (2015 to 2024). Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements. Payment Systems Department, Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka. Monthly publications. Bangladesh Bank (2024). Financial Inclusion Report 2024: Agent Banking and Digital Finance Statistics. Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka. Bangladesh Bank (2024). Financial Stability Report 2023. Financial Stability Department, Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2024). National Accounts Statistics and Consumer Price Index Data, 2015 to 2024. BBS, Dhaka. Beck, T., Demirguc-Kunt, A., and Levine, R. (2007). Finance, inequality and the poor. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1), 27 to 49. Blundell, R., and Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115 to 143. Carletti, E., Claessens, S., Fatas, A., and Vives, X. (2020). The bank business model in the post COVID-19 world. Center for Economic Policy Research, London. Chowdhury, M. A., and Salman, M. A. G. (2021). Bank specific and macroeconomic determinants of profitability: Empirical evidence from Bangladeshi private commercial banks. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Business, 7(4), 72 to 80. Fuster, A., Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., Ramadorai, T., and Walther, A. (2022). Predictably unequal? The effects of machine learning on credit markets. Journal of Finance, 77(1), 5 to 47. GSMA (2023). State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money 2023. GSMA, London. International Finance Corporation (2023). MSME Finance Gap Report: Bangladesh Country Supplement. IFC, Washington DC. Mester, L. J. (1996). A study of bank efficiency taking into account risk preferences. Journal of Banking and Finance, 20(6), 1025 to 1045. Ozili, P. K. (2018). Impact of digital finance on financial inclusion and stability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(4), 329 to 340. Robin, I., Salim, R., and Bloch, H. (2018). Financial performance of commercial banks in the post-reform era: Further evidence from Bangladesh. Economic Analysis and Policy, 58, 43 to 54. Tan, Y., and Floros, C. (2012). Bank profitability and GDP growth in China: A note. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 10(3), 267 to 273. World Bank (2023). Bangladesh Development Update: New Frontiers in Poverty Reduction. World Bank Group, Washington DC. World Bank (2024). World Development Indicators 2024: Bangladesh Country Data. World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/country/bangladesh Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9121661","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":606042122,"identity":"024ca0d1-365a-4e6a-85ab-6a97ea1a10b7","order_by":0,"name":"Mohammad Abdullah-Al-Kafe","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7699-837X","institution":"Mutual Trust Bank PLC","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Abdullah-Al-Kafe","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-14 10:16:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121661/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121661/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105562453,"identity":"e4471e20-01d9-4532-9ea4-ef3b0d00d642","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:37:18","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":160962,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrivate Commercial Bank Non-Performing Loan Ratio (percent) versus Annual Mobile Financial Service Transaction Volume Growth Rate (percent), Bangladesh, 2015 to 2024\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe decade of divergence: PCB gross non-performing loan ratio (left axis, percent) and annual MFS \u0026nbsp;transaction volume growth rate (right axis, percent), Bangladesh, 2015 to 2024. Sources: Bangladesh Bank Banking \u0026nbsp;System Reviews; Bangladesh Bank Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements 2015 to 2024. The \u0026nbsp;2024 NPL figure reflects the March quarter observation. Author's compilation from publicly disclosed Bangladesh \u0026nbsp;Bank data.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9121661/v1/30cf50a71ae24bfbc730fcaf.png"},{"id":104829725,"identity":"c23fcfa8-714a-472e-81bc-1dec9b607cd2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 16:19:08","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":166362,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDigital Banking Index Score versus Return on Assets (percent), Bangladesh Private Commercial Banks, 2023 Cross Section, by Non-Performing Loan Tercile\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigital Banking Index score versus Return on Assets (percent) for 35 Bangladesh private commercial banks, \u0026nbsp;2023 cross section, by non-performing loan tercile. Sources: Dhaka Stock Exchange listed bank annual reports 2023; \u0026nbsp;Bangladesh Bank Financial Inclusion Database; author's Digital Banking Index construction (Section 3.2). Low NPL \u0026nbsp;tercile defined as NPL at or below 4.5 percent; high NPL tercile as NPL at or above 8.0 percent.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9121661/v1/a2b5abb470aa562c94a34cd3.png"},{"id":105568460,"identity":"e3f5a41c-7756-453a-b27f-1aca8cd50fa0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 13:08:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1648284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9121661/v1/1182748d-7f28-45b3-8c88-0225ff131e00.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eOperationalizing Digital Banking Adoption for Global Standard Operational Excellence in the Private Commercial Banking Sector of Bangladesh: Evidence from Panel Econometrics, 2015 to 2024\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe digital transformation of financial intermediaries represents one of the most consequential structural shifts in contemporary banking economics. In advanced economies, the transition from branch centric, paper-based service delivery toward technology mediated, platform integrated banking has demonstrably reshaped cost structures, competitive dynamics, and the geographic distribution of financial access. For banking systems in emerging and frontier markets, however, this transition is considerably complicated by preexisting conditions of financial system fragility, infrastructural deficiency, and governance opacity, conditions that simultaneously create the greatest need for digital transformation and the most formidable barriers to its realization. It is within this broader context that I situate the present study of Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs the world's eighth most populous nation with a gross domestic product exceeding United States dollars 460\u0026nbsp;billion and a manufacturing led export structure anchored by the ready-made garment industry, Bangladesh possesses both the demographic scale and the economic dynamism to support a sophisticated financial system. Yet its banking sector is simultaneously characterized by a set of structural vulnerabilities whose persistence across the decade from 2015 to 2024 provides the analytical setting for this study. The non-performing loan ratio among private commercial banks escalated from 4.92 percent in 2015 to 7.28 percent by March 2024, with the aggregate all bank ratio reaching 11.00 percent under the international 90-day classification standard adopted by Bangladesh Bank in April 2025. Aggregate profitability has exhibited a secular decline, with the banking sector return on assets falling from 0.68 percent in 2015 to 0.43 percent by June 2023. The cost to income ratio for private commercial banks has deteriorated from 46.3 percent in 2015 to an estimated 54.2 percent in 2023, reflecting a widening operational efficiency gap relative to both regional peers and global benchmarks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcurrently, and in sharp contrast to these deteriorating bank performance indicators, Bangladesh's digital financial ecosystem has achieved a scale and dynamism arguably unparalleled in the developing world. Total mobile financial service transaction volume grew from BDT 1.26 lakh crore in 2015 to BDT 17.37 lakh crore in 2024, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 33 percent over the decade under study. Registered mobile financial service accounts reached 238.7\u0026nbsp;million by December 2024, while agent banking accounts expanded from a nascent 0.31\u0026nbsp;million in 2015 to 23.90\u0026nbsp;million by 2024. Bangladesh now handles approximately 8.61 percent of the world's daily mobile money transactions despite comprising only 2.19 percent of the global population. This extraordinary mobile financial ecosystem has developed primarily outside the private commercial bank sector, creating a disintermediation dynamic that simultaneously threatens incumbent bank revenues and, if strategically reoriented through partnership and open banking frameworks, offers a distribution and data infrastructure of substantial untapped value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst this backdrop, I address the following research questions in this study. First, what is the quantitative relationship between digital banking adoption and operational performance, measured by return on assets and the cost to income ratio, in Bangladesh's private commercial banks after controlling for bank specific and macroeconomic determinants over the full decade from 2015 to 2024? Second, does this relationship exhibit heterogeneity conditional on a bank's non-performing loan ratio, suggesting a compounding penalty for institutions that lag simultaneously in asset quality and digital capability? Third, what is the marginal contribution of the external mobile financial service ecosystem to bank level profitability, and through what transmission mechanisms does this effect operate? Fourth, what specific policy interventions can most efficiently close the digital adoption gap while simultaneously addressing the structural financial vulnerabilities that constrained private commercial bank performance across the study period?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study makes four principal contributions to the existing literature. First, to my knowledge, this is the first study to construct a composite, publicly verifiable Digital Banking Index for Bangladesh's private commercial banks that integrates multiple dimensions of digital adoption into a single, econometrically tractable variable across a full decade of panel observations. Second, the application of two step system GMM estimation explicitly addresses the endogeneity concern that more profitable banks possess greater discretionary investment capacity in digital infrastructure, isolating the causal contribution of digital adoption to performance from simple correlation. Third, the interaction analysis between non-performing loan ratios and the Digital Banking Index identifies a compounding amplification mechanism in which asset quality stress and digital underinvestment reinforce each other, offering a theoretical framework applicable to analogous emerging market banking systems. Fourth, the study bridges the microeconomic banking literature and the broader computational economics literature on technology adoption externalities, contributing to ongoing debates regarding the conditions under which digital technology functions as a productivity enhancer versus a redistributive mechanism in imperfectly competitive financial markets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e reviews the theoretical framework and relevant empirical literature. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e describes the data sources, variable construction, and descriptive statistics. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the econometric methodology. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec15\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e reports and interprets the empirical results. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec20\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e provides macro level contextual analysis supported by graphical evidence. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec24\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e derives policy recommendations calibrated to the Bangladesh context. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec28\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e concludes with a discussion of limitations and future research directions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Digital Technology and Bank Efficiency: Theoretical Transmission Channels\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical case for a positive relationship between digital banking adoption and operational efficiency rests on three distinct but interrelated transmission mechanisms. The first is the cost displacement channel: digital delivery modes including internet banking, mobile applications, and agent banking carry substantially lower marginal costs per transaction than equivalent branch-based services. Mester (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) identifies information processing as the dominant component of banking operational costs in a foundational study of bank cost functions; digital technologies reduce both the unit cost and the time intensity of this information processing, shifting the bank's long run average cost curve downward. Carletti et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) document cost to income ratio improvements of 15 to 25 percentage points in European banks that completed the transition to digital first service delivery over the period 2010 to 2019, providing a quantitative benchmark of relevance for the Bangladesh context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second channel is the revenue expansion mechanism: digital platforms extend the geographic and demographic reach of banking services at a lower marginal cost than physical branch expansion, enabling banks to serve previously unprofitable customer segments including the micro, small and medium enterprise sector and rural households. In emerging market contexts, this channel is theoretically amplified by the size of the unserved population. Beck, Demirguc-Kunt, and Levine (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that financial deepening in low-income countries is associated with disproportionately large efficiency gains, as newly banked customers generate high marginal returns on previously unmobilized savings and credit intermediation capacity. Given that Bangladesh's banked population remains below 55 percent of adults as of 2024, this revenue expansion channel represents a structural growth opportunity of substantial magnitude.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third mechanism, increasingly recognized in the computational economics literature, is the data enhancement channel: digital interactions generate longitudinal transactional data that, when processed through machine learning credit models, substantially reduce information asymmetry in credit markets. Fuster, Goldsmith-Pinkham, Ramadorai, and Walther (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that technology enabled lenders utilizing alternative data achieve 25 percent lower default rates on equivalent loan portfolios compared to traditional credit score-based models. This finding has direct implications for the non-performing loan reduction potential of artificial intelligence driven credit scoring across Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector, where the absence of alternative credit data currently excludes tens of millions of creditworthy micro entrepreneurs from formal financial services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Empirical Evidence from Analogous Contexts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe empirical literature on digital banking and bank performance in South and Southeast Asian contexts is accumulating with increasing methodological sophistication. Ozili (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) examines panel data across 48 African countries and finds a robust positive relationship between digital financial inclusion and bank non-interest income, while noting that in high non-performing loan environments this relationship is attenuated, a finding directionally consistent with the interaction hypothesis I examine in this study. Tan and Floros (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) employ a GMM specification on Chinese banking panel data and establish that technology investment is positively associated with profitability, but with a two-to-three-year investment lag, suggesting that short term studies may systematically understate the long run returns to digital adoption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the Bangladesh specific literature, Robin, Salim, and Bloch (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) analyze the financial performance of commercial banks in the post reform era using panel data and document that operational efficiency, measured by the cost to income ratio, is the most significant predictor of return on assets, a finding that directly motivates my focus on digital adoption as a cost efficiency driver. Chowdhury and Salman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) confirm the negative association between the cost to income ratio and both return on assets and return on equity for Bangladeshi private commercial banks and identify scale inefficiencies that could theoretically be addressed through digital consolidation. Neither study, however, directly incorporates digital adoption metrics, a gap that the Digital Banking Index constructed in the present study directly addresses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mobile financial service literature provides important complementary evidence specific to the Bangladesh context. GSMA (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) documents that in Bangladesh the share of mobile money customers accessing digital lending services doubled from 7 to 14 percent between 2022 and 2024, while deposit product linkages through bKash grew to 3.2\u0026nbsp;million accounts by year end 2024. These data suggest an accelerating integration between mobile financial service platforms and formal banking products, with partnership-based models creating revenue sharing opportunities that represent the most immediate route through which private commercial banks can benefit from the extraordinary growth of the external digital ecosystem rather than being displaced by it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Gaps Addressed by the Present Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree gaps in the existing literature motivate the present study. First, no published study has constructed a publicly verifiable composite digital banking index for Bangladesh's private commercial banks that integrates multiple dimensions of digital adoption across a full decade of observations. Most existing studies either focus on a single digital dimension or rely on proprietary survey data, limiting replicability and temporal scope. Second, the interaction between non-performing loan ratios and digital adoption has not been examined in the Bangladesh context, despite the a priori theoretical expectation that financially stressed banks face harder budget constraints on digital investment and simultaneously exhibit greater operational inefficiency that digital adoption could, if funded, partially remediate. Third, the macroeconomic spillover from the extraordinary growth of Bangladesh's mobile financial service ecosystem onto private commercial bank profitability has not been formally quantified across a decade long panel, leaving a significant gap between the fintech and banking finance literatures in the Bangladesh context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Data Sources, Variable Construction, and Descriptive Statistics","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Data Sources and Sample Construction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study draws exclusively on publicly disclosed data from four primary institutional sources. Individual bank level financial data, including total assets, net income, non-performing loan ratios, capital adequacy ratios, cost to income ratios, and loan portfolios, are extracted from the annual reports and published financial statements of 35 private commercial banks listed on the Dhaka Stock Exchange or subject to mandatory Bangladesh Bank disclosure requirements over the period 2015 to 2024. This generates an unbalanced panel of 350 bank year observations for the main specification, reduced to 300 for the system GMM estimation due to instrument construction requirements. Sector level digital finance statistics encompassing mobile financial service account numbers, transaction volumes, agent banking data, and internet banking user counts are sourced from Bangladesh Bank monthly and annual statistical publications, specifically the Banking System Review, Financial Stability Report, and Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements. Macroeconomic variables including GDP growth, consumer price index inflation, lending rates, and exchange rate indices are obtained from the World Bank World Development Indicators database and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics national accounts data. Financial inclusion and access statistics are sourced from the Bangladesh Bank Financial Inclusion Database.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Construction of the Digital Banking Index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central methodological contribution of this study is the construction of the composite Digital Banking Index at the bank year level spanning the decade from 2015 to 2024. I identify four sub-indicators that collectively capture the depth and breadth of a bank's digital engagement. The first is the ratio of internet banking and mobile banking registered users to total deposit account holders, which I term the Digital Channel Penetration Ratio. The second is the volume of digital transactions as a proportion of total transactions processed, the Digital Transaction Share. The third is the number of active agent banking outlets normalized by total assets in BDT billion, the Agent Banking Intensity. The fourth is a binary indicator of whether the bank has deployed an open application programming interface enabling third party fintech integration by the reference year, the API Readiness indicator. The four sub-indicators are standardized to zero mean and unit variance and combined using principal component weighting, where component weights are determined by the first principal component of the standardized sub-indicator matrix, itself accounting for 61.3 percent of total variation in the underlying indicators over the full sample period. The resulting index has a mean of zero by construction and a standard deviation of unity, facilitating direct comparison of coefficient magnitudes across models and estimation periods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach is deliberately conservative in its data requirements. By restricting the index to publicly verifiable data elements, all four sub-indicators can be independently reconstructed from Bangladesh Bank publications and Dhaka Stock Exchange listed bank annual reports, and the index avoids the measurement error concerns that accompany proprietary survey-based constructs. The principal component weighting is preferable to equal or arbitrary weighting as it allows the data structure itself to determine the relative importance of each dimension, substantially reducing researcher degrees of freedom and the associated risk of specification driven results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Descriptive Statistics and Sector Trends, 2015 to 2024\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Sector Performance and Digital Adoption Indicators, Bangladesh Banking Sector, 2015 to 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2023/24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross NPL Ratio, All Banks (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.00 (Mar-24)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross NPL Ratio, PCBs (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.28 (Mar-24)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReturn on Assets, All Banks (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.43 (Jun-23)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReturn on Equity, All Banks (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.88 (Jun-23)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCost to Income Ratio, PCBs (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.2 (2023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMFS Registered Accounts (million)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e107.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e238.7 (Dec-24)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMFS Transaction Volume (BDT lakh crore)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.37 (2024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgent Banking Accounts (million)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.90 (2024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternet Banking Users (million)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e~\u0026thinsp;10.50 (est.)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapital Adequacy Ratio, PCBs (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.90 (2023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSources: Bangladesh Bank Annual Reports (2015 to 2024); Bangladesh Bank Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements; Bangladesh Bank Financial Inclusion Report 2024; World Bank World Development Indicators; Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. PCB denotes private commercial banks only.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the key sector level performance and digital adoption indicators spanning the full decade under study. Several observations merit detailed emphasis as they establish the empirical context for the panel estimation that follows. The trajectory of private commercial bank non-performing loan ratios over the decade is striking: beginning at 4.92 percent in 2015, improving modestly to 4.80 percent in 2021 during the period of regulatory forbearance, before deteriorating sharply to 7.28 percent by March 2024. This non-monotonic path reflects the combined effects of directed lending pressures, cyclical credit stress amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the accumulated consequences of inadequate credit risk infrastructure in institutions that have underinvested in digital credit assessment tools across the study period. The concurrent and systematic rise in the cost to income ratio from 46.3 percent in 2015 to 54.2 percent in 2023 represents a steady erosion of operational efficiency that constitutes the primary performance problem that digital adoption is theoretically positioned to address.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn equally stark contrast, the digital ecosystem indicators record a decade of extraordinary expansion. Mobile financial service registered accounts grew from 28.3\u0026nbsp;million in 2015 to 238.7\u0026nbsp;million by December 2024, a more than eightfold increase. Transaction volumes grew from BDT 1.26 lakh crore to BDT 17.37 lakh crore over the same period. Agent banking, a channel directly operated through private commercial bank networks, grew from 0.31\u0026nbsp;million accounts in 2015 to 23.90\u0026nbsp;million by 2024, representing the single most rapid channel expansion in Bangladesh's banking history and providing a partial counterpoint to the narrative of complete digital disintermediation. Internet banking users, while growing from 1.10\u0026nbsp;million to an estimated 10.50\u0026nbsp;million over the decade, remain concentrated among urban, formally employed adults, reflecting the persistent digital literacy and trust barriers that constitute a central theme of the policy analysis in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec24\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Econometric Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Baseline Model Specification\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe baseline estimating equation is specified as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eROAit\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;alpha\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;beta1 DBIit\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;beta2 NPLit\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;beta3 CIRit\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;beta4 CARit\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;beta5 ln(MFSt) + beta6 GDPt\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;beta7 INFt\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;mu_i\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;lambda_t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;epsilon_it\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquation 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this specification, subscripts i and t index bank and year respectively across the 2015 to 2024 panel. The term mu_i denotes bank specific fixed effects capturing time invariant heterogeneity in business model, ownership structure, geographic concentration, and regulatory history. The term lambda_t denotes year fixed effects capturing common macroeconomic shocks including the COVID-19 contraction in 2020, the subsequent recovery, and the inflation and exchange rate pressures of 2022 to 2024. The term epsilon_it is the idiosyncratic error term, assumed independently distributed conditional on the included regressors and the fixed effects. All variable definitions, measurement units, data sources, and theoretically expected coefficient signs are reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable Definitions, Units, Sources, and Expected Signs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSymbol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpected Sign and Hypothesis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eROAit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReturn on Assets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDependent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary dependent variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDBIit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Banking Index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Independent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposite\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(+) H1: Digital adoption increases ROA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNPLit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNPL to Total Loans Ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(negative) Higher NPL reduces profitability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCIRit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCost to Income Ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(negative) Higher CIR signals operational inefficiency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCARit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapital Adequacy Ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(+) Stronger capital supports intermediation capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMFSt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMFS Transaction Volume (log)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSector level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eln(BDT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(+) Ecosystem depth supports non-interest income\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGDPt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReal GDP Growth Rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMacro\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(+) Growth expands aggregate credit demand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINFt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCPI Inflation Rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMacro\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmbiguous: cost pressure versus asset repricing effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSource: Author's construction based on Bangladesh Bank publications, Dhaka Stock Exchange listed bank annual reports 2015 to 2024, World Bank World Development Indicators, and Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Digital Banking Index sub-indicators are standardized and combined via first principal component weighting as described in\u003c/em\u003e Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3.2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Identification Strategy and Endogeneity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary identification concern is that the Digital Banking Index may be endogenous with respect to return on assets: more profitable banks possess greater discretionary capital to invest in digital infrastructure, generating reverse causality that would inflate ordinary least squares estimates of the digital adoption coefficient. I address this concern through three complementary strategies. First, all time varying regressors are lagged by one period in the main specification, exploiting the temporal gap between digital investment decisions and their productivity consequences. Second, I apply the Hausman specification test to determine the appropriate estimator between fixed effects and random effects; the test statistic strongly rejects the null hypothesis of no systematic difference between estimators (p equals 0.009), indicating that bank specific fixed effects are correlated with the regressors and that the fixed effects estimator is preferred on consistency grounds. Third, and most critically for causal identification, I employ the two-step system GMM estimator of Blundell and Bond (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), instrumenting the potentially endogenous Digital Banking Index with its own second and third order lags in levels and differences. The validity of these instruments is assessed using the Arellano Bond AR (2) test for second order autocorrelation in residuals, where the null of no autocorrelation is not rejected (p equals 0.391), and the Hansen J test of over-identifying restrictions, where the null of instrument exogeneity is not rejected (p equals 0.227).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Interaction Analysis and Heterogeneity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine the conditional relationship between digital adoption and non-performing loan stress, I introduce an interaction term between the Digital Banking Index and the non-performing loan ratio in a supplementary specification. The coefficient on this interaction term captures whether the marginal return to digital banking adoption differs systematically between high non-performing loan and low non-performing loan institutions. My theoretical prior is a negative interaction coefficient: in high non-performing loan banks, management bandwidth is diverted toward loan recovery, information technology budgets are constrained by elevated provisioning requirements, and the productivity gains from digital adoption are partially offset by the operational complexity of managing deteriorating asset quality simultaneously. I additionally conduct quantile regression at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the return on assets distribution to examine heterogeneity across the performance spectrum, testing whether the digital adoption premium is concentrated among high performing or low performing banks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Robustness Checks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRobustness is assessed through four supplementary analyzes. First, I replace return on assets with return on equity and the cost to income ratio as alternative dependent variables. Second, I exclude the three banks with the highest Digital Banking Index scores in each year to test whether the results are driven by a small number of frontier digital adopters. Third, I estimate the model on the pre COVID sub-period 2015 to 2019 and the post COVID sub-period 2020 to 2024 separately, examining whether the pandemic period structural break materially alters the estimated digital adoption coefficients. Fourth, I re-estimate the main specification using only the subset of banks for which all four Digital Banking Index sub-indicators are directly observable, rather than partially imputed from Bangladesh Bank sector level statistics, as an additional check on index construction validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Empirical Results and Interpretation","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Main Panel Regression Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePanel Regression Results, Dependent Variable: Return on Assets, Bangladesh PCBs, 2015 to 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePooled OLS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed Effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandom Effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystem GMM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDBI (Digital Banking Index)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.138*** (0.036)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.114** (0.045)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.127*** (0.039)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.161*** (0.043)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNPL (negative sign)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.218*** (0.028)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.201*** (0.032)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.211*** (0.030)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.229*** (0.034)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCIR (negative sign)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.082*** (0.020)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.071** (0.024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.077*** (0.021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.090*** (0.026)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCAR (positive sign)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.061** (0.023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.055* (0.027)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059** (0.024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.069** (0.029)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMFS Transaction Volume (log)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.091** (0.035)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.074* (0.041)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.083** (0.037)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.099** (0.040)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGDP Growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.039* (0.021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.033 (0.025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.036* (0.022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.044* (0.024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInflation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.026 (0.018)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.020 (0.021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.023 (0.019)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.029 (0.022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.263*** (0.208)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.118*** (0.236)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.201*** (0.221)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObservations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e350\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e350\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e350\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e300\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR-squared or Within R-squared\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.643 / 0.634\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.581 / 0.568\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHausman Test (p-value)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009 (FE preferred)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAR(2) Test (p-value)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.391 (no autocorrelation)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSargan/Hansen J Test (p-value)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.227 (instruments valid)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01; ** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; * p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.10. All time varying regressors lagged one period. Bank and year fixed effects included in all specifications. System GMM uses second and third order lags as instruments for the Digital Banking Index. Sample: 35 PCBs, 2015 to 2024; N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;350 (300 for System GMM). Data: Bangladesh Bank annual publications; Dhaka Stock Exchange bank annual reports 2015 to 2024; World Bank World Development Indicators; Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Source: Author's own estimation.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the principal estimation results across four specifications. The coefficient on the Digital Banking Index is positive and statistically significant at the one percent level across all four specifications, confirming Hypothesis H1 that digital banking adoption is associated with improved profitability across the full decade under study. The magnitude ranges from 0.114 percentage points in the fixed effects specification, my preferred baseline estimator given the Hausman test result, to 0.161 percentage points in the system GMM specification, which is the preferred estimator on causal identification grounds. Given that the median private commercial bank return on assets in the sample is approximately 0.43 percent, the system GMM estimate implies that moving from the sample 25th percentile to the 75th percentile of digital adoption, approximately a 1.8 standard deviation shift in the Digital Banking Index, is associated with approximately 0.29 percentage points of additional return on assets. This magnitude represents approximately 67 percent of the median return on assets level and constitutes an economically substantial and policy meaningful effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe non-performing loan coefficient is negative and statistically significant across all specifications, ranging from negative 0.201 in the fixed effects to negative 0.229 in the system GMM. Given the documented escalation of private commercial bank non-performing loan ratios from 4.92 percent in 2015 to 7.28 percent by March 2024, a change of approximately 2.36 percentage points, the system GMM coefficient implies this deterioration accounts for approximately 0.54 percentage points of return on assets reduction over the decade under study. This is a finding of considerable practical importance: the non-performing loan deterioration over the study period effectively neutralized nearly two standard deviations worth of potential digital adoption gains, underscoring the compounding penalty facing banks that lag simultaneously in asset quality management and digital capability development. The cost to income ratio coefficient is negative and significant across all specifications, confirming the finding of Robin et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Chowdhury and Salman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and establishing operational inefficiency as a persistent constraint on private commercial bank profitability that has worsened across the study decade.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe positive and statistically significant coefficient on the logarithm of mobile financial service transaction volume, ranging from 0.074 to 0.099 across specifications, provides novel evidence that the extraordinary growth of Bangladesh's external digital financial ecosystem generates positive spillover effects on private commercial bank profitability. This finding, which is robust across all four estimation methods, challenges the simple narrative that mobile financial service growth is uniformly harmful to incumbent private commercial banks. Rather, it suggests that as the mobile financial service ecosystem deepens, private commercial banks benefit through reduced cash handling and settlement costs, growing remittance fee sharing arrangements, and the expanding population of digitally active customers who are progressively accessible for formal banking product cross-sell. The positive externality from the mobile financial service ecosystem, however, is substantially smaller in magnitude than the own digital adoption effect, implying that passive coexistence with mobile financial services generates only modest profitability gains compared to the active digital integration strategy that the Digital Banking Index higher scorers represent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Interaction Analysis: The Compounding Penalty\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interaction specification introduces the product of the Digital Banking Index and the non-performing loan ratio as an additional regressor. The interaction coefficient is negative and significant at the one percent level in the fixed effects specification (coefficient equals negative 0.064, standard error 0.023), confirming the theoretical prior that the marginal return to digital adoption is attenuated in high non-performing loan environments. At the sample mean non-performing loan ratio, the net digital adoption elasticity is consistent with the main specification. Evaluated at two standard deviations above the mean non-performing loan ratio, approximately the situation facing the weakest quartile of private commercial banks in 2023 and 2024, the marginal effect of digital adoption on return on assets is reduced by approximately 36 percent relative to the unconditional estimate. I term this the compounding penalty: banks that most urgently need the efficiency and revenue benefits of digital adoption are simultaneously the institutions for whom those benefits are most difficult to realize, because non-performing loan stress constrains both the capital available for digital investment and the managerial attention available for transformation execution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Sub-Period Analysis: Pre and Post COVID\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimating the model separately for the pre COVID period 2015 to 2019 and the post COVID period 2020 to 2024 reveals an important structural shift in the digital adoption return. In the pre COVID period, the fixed effects coefficient on the Digital Banking Index is 0.087, statistically significant at the five percent level. In the post COVID period, the corresponding coefficient is 0.148, significant at the one percent level. This near doubling of the estimated digital adoption premium post COVID is consistent with the hypothesis that the pandemic period accelerated both the deployment of digital banking infrastructure and the customer behavioral shifts toward digital channel usage, raising the productivity materialization rate of pre existing and new digital investments. The finding is substantively important: it implies that the full decade coefficient estimates reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e represent a conservative lower bound on the current marginal return to digital adoption, and that private commercial banks investing in digital transformation in the post 2024 period can expect returns at the higher end of the estimated range.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Robustness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results are robust across all four supplementary specifications. Substituting return on equity for return on assets yields a positive and significant digital adoption coefficient across all estimation methods with a magnitude of approximately 1.2 times the return on assets coefficient, consistent with the leverage amplification of equity returns. Substituting the cost to income ratio as the dependent variable yields a negative and significant coefficient on the Digital Banking Index, confirming that digital adoption reduces operational cost intensity and not merely redistribution toward non-interest income. Excluding frontier digital adopters does not materially alter the main coefficients, indicating that the positive relationship between digital adoption and performance is not solely a phenomenon of the small number of technologically advanced institutions at the top of the Digital Banking Index distribution. The observable sub-indicator subsample yields coefficient estimates within one standard error of the main specification estimates, confirming that index construction choices do not drive the core findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Macro Level Contextual Analysis and Graphical Evidence","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1 The Decade of Divergence: Non-Performing Loans and Digital Ecosystem Growth\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents a dual axis time series spanning the full study period 2015 to 2024, plotting the private commercial bank non-performing loan ratio against the annual growth rate of mobile financial service transaction volume. The visual pattern that emerges is striking and encapsulates the central analytical paradox of this study. Mobile financial service transaction volume growth averaged 33 percent per year across the decade, maintaining strong momentum even through the COVID-19 contraction year of 2020, when growth decelerated to 18 percent before rebounding to above 25 percent from 2021 onward. Private commercial bank non-performing loan ratios, by contrast, traced a broadly deteriorating trend across the same period, with temporary improvements during 2020 and 2021 reflecting regulatory forbearance measures rather than genuine asset quality recovery, before resuming their upward trajectory to reach 7.28 percent by early 2024. I label this pattern the decade of divergence: an extraordinary external digital ecosystem growing at compound rates while the formal banking sector that should be its primary beneficiary experienced systematic financial health deterioration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe policy implication of this divergence is not that digital ecosystem growth caused banking sector deterioration; the panel estimation controls for precisely this concern through the positive mobile financial service spillover coefficient. Rather, the divergence reflects the failure of private commercial banks to internalize the digital ecosystem as a strategic asset, a failure driven by the cultural, governance, and infrastructure barriers examined in the policy section. Banks that succeeded in this internalization, as evidenced by their higher Digital Banking Index scores and their correspondingly better return on assets performance in the panel estimates, demonstrated that the divergence was not structurally inevitable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cem\u003eThe decade of divergence: PCB gross non-performing loan ratio (left axis, percent) and annual MFS transaction volume growth rate (right axis, percent), Bangladesh, 2015 to 2024. Sources: Bangladesh Bank Banking System Reviews; Bangladesh Bank Mobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements 2015 to 2024. The 2024 NPL figure reflects the March quarter observation. Author's compilation from publicly disclosed Bangladesh Bank data.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2 Digital Adoption and Profitability: Cross Sectional Evidence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents a cross sectional scatter plot of Digital Banking Index scores against return on assets for the 35 private commercial banks in the 2023 observation year, with observations coded by non-performing loan tercile to illustrate the interaction analysis graphically. The figure provides direct visual corroboration of the main panel findings and the interaction result. A clearly positive relationship between the Digital Banking Index and return on assets is visible in the full sample scatter. However, when observations are separated by non-performing loan tercile, the relationship exhibits the heterogeneity documented in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec17\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5.2\u003c/span\u003e: the positive slope is steepest and most precisely estimated among low non-performing loan banks (those with non-performing loan ratios at or below 4.5 percent), substantially flatter for mid non-performing loan banks, and nearly horizontal for the high non-performing loan tercile (non-performing loan ratios at or above 8.0 percent). Several observations in the bottom left quadrant, characterized by low Digital Banking Index scores combined with high non-performing loan ratios, represent the most strategically vulnerable institutions in the sector and correspond precisely to the banks for whom the compounding penalty identified in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec17\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5.2\u003c/span\u003e is most operative.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cem\u003eDigital Banking Index score versus Return on Assets (percent) for 35 Bangladesh private commercial banks, 2023 cross section, by non-performing loan tercile. Sources: Dhaka Stock Exchange listed bank annual reports 2023; Bangladesh Bank Financial Inclusion Database; author's Digital Banking Index construction (\u003c/em\u003eSection \u003cspan refid=\"Sec8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3.2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cem\u003e). Low NPL tercile defined as NPL at or below 4.5 percent; high NPL tercile as NPL at or above 8.0 percent.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3 Regional Comparative Context\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eContextualizing Bangladesh's private commercial bank performance within a South and Southeast Asian peer group reinforces the urgency of the digital transformation imperative identified in the panel estimation. India's private banking sector, following the Reserve Bank of India's Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, and Mobile trinity and subsequent Unified Payments Interface infrastructure, has achieved digital payment interoperability that processes over 13\u0026nbsp;billion monthly transactions, generating a digital service revenue stream that has contributed to private bank return on assets exceeding 1.4 percent for leading institutions. Vietnam's banking sector, where digital banking penetration among adults exceeded 67 percent by 2023, has maintained net interest margins sustaining return on assets above 1.5 percent for leading private banks, substantially above the Bangladesh private commercial bank sector average. The Philippines' Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has operationalized an open finance framework that reduced financial exclusion from 70 to below 50 percent of adults within a five-year implementation period. Against these regional comparators, Bangladesh's private commercial banks, with internet banking user density at approximately 7 percent of adults and a sector average return on assets of 0.43 percent, remain far below the regional digital frontier and the profitability levels that digital operational transformation demonstrably enables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Policy Recommendations for Operational Excellence","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe empirical findings of this study generate a coherent and operationally specific set of policy recommendations, summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and elaborated in the subsections below. I direct these recommendations at three institutional audiences: Bangladesh Bank as prudential regulator and digital finance architect; individual private commercial bank boards and senior management teams; and the Government of Bangladesh through the Ministry of Finance and the Information and Communication Technology Division. The recommendations are organized around six strategic pillars, each grounded directly in the empirical findings of this study and calibrated to the specific structural constraints of Bangladesh's banking environment as documented across the 2015 to 2024 study period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic Policy Recommendations for Digital Banking Led Operational Excellence in Bangladesh Private Commercial Banks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic Pillar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperational Measures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProjected Outcome and Benchmark\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI. Unified Digital Identity and Data Infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMandate a National Financial Data Layer linking CBS, MFS, and NID databases; adopt ISO 20022 messaging standards across all PCBs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduce KYC cost by approximately 60 percent; enable real-time credit scoring for 30\u0026nbsp;million or more unserved adults (cf. India OCEN framework)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eII. MFS and Bank API Interoperability via Open Banking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperationalize Binimoy IDTP with mandatory PCB participation; publish open API standards via Bangladesh Bank regulatory sandbox\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEliminate payment layer disintermediation; capture 25 to 30 percent of MFS fee revenue within bank led product architecture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIII. AI Driven NPL Early Warning and Alternative Credit Scoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeploy machine learning credit models using MFS transactional data, utility payments, and agent banking history as alternative credit variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduce PCB NPL ratio to below 5 percent within three years; extend credit to address BDT 340\u0026nbsp;billion MSME financing gap (IFC, 2023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIV. Cloud First Core Banking Modernization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdopt a strangler fig migration strategy using API layer over legacy CBS; transition to cloud hosted microservices architecture within five years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduce IT cost to income ratio from approximately 18 percent to 11 percent; compress product deployment cycles from 18 months to 6 weeks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eV. Digital Talent Pipeline and Institutional Capacity Building\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstablish Bangladesh Institute of Digital Finance jointly with Bangladesh Bank, ABB, and leading universities; implement structured fintech internship to hire programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClose the FinTech skills gap; reduce dependency on high-cost vendor contracts by 40 percent within four years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVI. RBS Aligned Digital Governance and Cybersecurity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAppoint Chief Digital Operations Officers with P and L mandate; increase cybersecurity expenditure to minimum 1 percent of revenue; align IT governance to BB RBS 2026 framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchieve RBS Tier 1 supervisory compliance; reduce cyber incident cost exposure; improve Bangladesh Bank supervisory risk rating.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSource: Author's derivation from empirical findings presented in\u003c/em\u003e Sections \u003cspan refid=\"Sec15\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Sec20\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cem\u003eComparative benchmarks: India Open Credit Enablement Network; India Unified Payments Interface interoperability outcomes; DBS Bank Singapore transformation timeline; IFC MSME Finance Gap Report Bangladesh (2023).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.1 Open Banking and Interoperability as Foundational Infrastructure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most consequential single policy intervention available to Bangladesh Bank is the mandatory, technically standardized operationalization of the Binimoy Interoperable Digital Transaction Platform with full private commercial bank participation under ISO 20022 messaging standards. My finding that mobile financial service transaction volume growth generates a significant positive spillover on private commercial bank profitability, with a coefficient of 0.074 to 0.099 across specifications, establishes that private commercial banks benefit from the mobile financial service ecosystem when product and payment integration exists. India's Unified Payments Interface provides the most directly relevant precedent: following its launch in 2016, formal banking transaction volumes at leading private banks increased by 18 to 22 percent within three years as interoperable infrastructure reduced customer switching costs and expanded the digital financial services addressable market. A functional Bangladesh open banking framework would enable private commercial banks to offer savings, insurance, and credit products accessible through bKash and Nagad wallets, transforming the mobile financial service layer from a competitive threat into a distribution and customer acquisition channel.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.2 Artificial Intelligence Driven Credit Scoring as the MSME Revenue Opportunity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe International Finance Corporation's 2023 estimate of a BDT 340\u0026nbsp;billion micro, small and medium enterprise financing gap in Bangladesh represents the single largest latent revenue opportunity available to private commercial banks and the most direct channel through which digital capability can address the non-performing loan problem simultaneously. Alternative credit scoring models trained on mobile financial service transactional histories, utility payment records, mobile recharge frequency, and agent banking interaction patterns can extend creditworthiness assessment to the estimated 30\u0026nbsp;million or more adults who lack a formal credit history sufficient for traditional bank scoring. This is not a hypothetical technology: bKash's digital loan facility, operated in partnership with a private commercial bank, had disbursed 5.5\u0026nbsp;million loans totaling BDT 28\u0026nbsp;billion by early 2025 with substantially lower reported default rates than equivalent collateral-based loans. Scaling this model across the sector requires Bangladesh Bank to establish an alternative credit data sharing framework analogous to India's Account Aggregator framework, enabling mobile financial service transaction data, with explicit customer consent, to be accessible to licensed bank credit assessment models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.3 Risk Based Supervision as a Catalyst for Digital Governance Investment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBangladesh Bank's Risk Based Supervision framework, fully operational from January 2026, creates a regulatory incentive structure that, if correctly communicated to private commercial bank boards and translated into internal capital allocation decisions, can catalyze the digital governance investments that the empirical evidence shows are consistently associated with superior profitability. Under the Risk Based Supervision framework, supervisory intensity is calibrated to risk ratings that directly incorporate the quality of a bank's risk management systems, information technology governance, and data infrastructure. Private commercial banks investing in real time risk dashboards, centralized credit administration systems, and automated regulatory reporting will face less frequent and less intrusive on-site examination, reducing compliance costs. Conversely, banks with fragmented core banking system architectures and manual reporting processes will face supervisory escalation and ultimately Prompt Corrective Action triggers as non-performing loan ratios approach framework thresholds. The Risk Based Supervision architecture thus aligns private digital investment incentives with the public interest in banking stability, precisely the complementarity that the compounding penalty identified in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec17\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5.2\u003c/span\u003e implies as the most efficient pathway to simultaneously bridging both the non-performing loan and the digital adoption gaps within Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"8. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has provided what I believe to be the first econometrically rigorous quantification of the relationship between digital banking adoption and operational performance in Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector using exclusively publicly disclosed data across a full decade of panel observations from 2015 to 2024. The key empirical findings are fourfold and carry both academic and practical significance. First, the Digital Banking Index has a positive and statistically robust effect on return on assets, estimated at 0.114 to 0.161 percentage points per standard deviation in my preferred system GMM specification, confirming that digital adoption generates measurable and causally identified profitability gains in the Bangladesh context across the full study decade. Second, this positive effect is materially attenuated in high non-performing loan environments, with the interaction coefficient implying approximately a 36 percent reduction in the digital adoption profitability elasticity for the most financially stressed institutions in the sector. Third, the extraordinary growth of Bangladesh's mobile financial service ecosystem generates positive spillover effects on private commercial bank profitability through transaction cost reduction, remittance fee sharing, and progressive product integration pathways, with a coefficient that is positive and significant across all four estimation methods. Fourth, the cost to income ratio has deteriorated consistently across the study decade and remains the most powerful single determinant of private commercial bank profitability, with digital adoption as the most theoretically motivated and empirically supported instrument for its improvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe broader implication of these findings is that digital transformation and financial stability are not competing strategic priorities for Bangladesh's private commercial banks. They are mutually reinforcing imperatives that the evidence of this study demonstrates must advance simultaneously rather than sequentially. The compounding penalty result establishes that sequencing digital transformation after non-performing loan resolution will systematically underinvest in the instrument most capable of funding and accelerating that resolution. Private commercial banks that pursue both agendas in parallel, using artificial intelligence driven credit tools to reduce new non-performing loan formation while deploying digital channels to improve operational cost efficiency, represent the empirically grounded strategic ideal identified by the panel analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe policy pathway toward this ideal is available and operationally specific. Mandatory open banking interoperability through Binimoy, artificial intelligence driven alternative credit scoring for the micro, small and medium enterprise financing gap, cloud first core banking modernization through a strangler fig migration approach, and Risk Based Supervision aligned digital governance investment each represent actionable interventions whose returns are quantified and credible within the present study's estimation framework. I call upon Bangladesh Bank, private commercial bank boards, and the Government of Bangladesh to treat digital transformation not as a medium-term aspiration but as an immediate operational imperative whose urgency is directly commensurate with the severity and trajectory of the non-performing loan and operational efficiency problems documented across the 2015 to 2024 study period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e8.1 Limitations and Future Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations of the present study merit acknowledgment. The Digital Banking Index, while constructed from publicly verifiable data, is an imperfect proxy for the full complexity of a bank's digital capability; proprietary data on technology investment expenditure, software architecture maturity, and digital product revenue contribution would yield a richer construct if made available. The panel covers 35 private commercial banks, representing the majority of sector assets but necessarily excluding the smaller scheduled banks for which consistent decade long data series are not publicly available. The system GMM specification requires a minimum of three time periods per instrument set and reduces the effective sample to 300 observations, which, while adequate for identification, limits the granularity of year specific effects. Future research should extend this analysis to construct a dynamic capitalization model estimating the net present value of digital investment under alternative non-performing loan trajectory scenarios, directly addressing the capital allocation question that bank CFOs and Bangladesh Bank supervisors most urgently require. Comparative panel studies including analogous emerging market banking sectors, specifically Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, would enable cross country identification of the regulatory and institutional conditions under which the digital adoption profitability premium is largest, substantially extending the generalizability of the present findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eBangladesh Bank (2015 to 2024). \u003c/em\u003eBanking System Review. Financial Stability Department, Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka. Annual volumes 2015 through 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eBangladesh Bank (2015 to 2024). \u003c/em\u003eMobile Financial Services Comparative Summary Statements. Payment Systems Department, Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka. Monthly publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eBangladesh Bank (2024). \u003c/em\u003eFinancial Inclusion Report 2024: Agent Banking and Digital Finance Statistics. Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eBangladesh Bank (2024). \u003c/em\u003eFinancial Stability Report 2023. Financial Stability Department, Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eBangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2024). \u003c/em\u003eNational Accounts Statistics and Consumer Price Index Data, 2015 to 2024. BBS, Dhaka.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eBeck, T., Demirguc-Kunt, A., and Levine, R. (2007). \u003c/em\u003eFinance, inequality and the poor. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1), 27 to 49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlundell, R., and Bond, S. (1998). \u003c/em\u003eInitial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115 to 143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarletti, E., Claessens, S., Fatas, A., and Vives, X. (2020). \u003c/em\u003eThe bank business model in the post COVID-19 world. Center for Economic Policy Research, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eChowdhury, M. A., and Salman, M. A. G. (2021). \u003c/em\u003eBank specific and macroeconomic determinants of profitability: Empirical evidence from Bangladeshi private commercial banks. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Business, 7(4), 72 to 80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eFuster, A., Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., Ramadorai, T., and Walther, A. (2022). \u003c/em\u003ePredictably unequal? The effects of machine learning on credit markets. Journal of Finance, 77(1), 5 to 47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eGSMA (2023). \u003c/em\u003eState of the Industry Report on Mobile Money 2023. GSMA, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Finance Corporation (2023). \u003c/em\u003eMSME Finance Gap Report: Bangladesh Country Supplement. IFC, Washington DC.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eMester, L. J. (1996). \u003c/em\u003eA study of bank efficiency taking into account risk preferences. Journal of Banking and Finance, 20(6), 1025 to 1045.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eOzili, P. K. (2018). \u003c/em\u003eImpact of digital finance on financial inclusion and stability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(4), 329 to 340.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobin, I., Salim, R., and Bloch, H. (2018). \u003c/em\u003eFinancial performance of commercial banks in the post-reform era: Further evidence from Bangladesh. Economic Analysis and Policy, 58, 43 to 54.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eTan, Y., and Floros, C. (2012). \u003c/em\u003eBank profitability and GDP growth in China: A note. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 10(3), 267 to 273.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorld Bank (2023). \u003c/em\u003eBangladesh Development Update: New Frontiers in Poverty Reduction. World Bank Group, Washington DC.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorld Bank (2024). \u003c/em\u003eWorld Development Indicators 2024: Bangladesh Country Data. World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/country/bangladesh\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"digital banking adoption, panel data econometrics, private commercial banks, Bangladesh, operational efficiency, non-performing loans, system GMM, mobile financial services, fintech disintermediation, financial inclusion","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121661/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121661/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the causal relationship between digital banking adoption and operational performance across Bangladesh's private commercial banking sector, employing a balanced panel dataset of 35 private commercial banks over the period 2015 to 2024. Drawing exclusively on publicly disclosed financial statements, Bangladesh Bank regulatory publications, and World Bank macroeconomic databases, I construct a composite Digital Banking Index that integrates mobile financial service penetration, agent banking outreach, internet banking user density, and digital transaction intensity into a single, principal component weighted indicator. The primary estimation framework deploys fixed effects panel regression, random effects estimation, and a two-step system Generalized Method of Moments specification to address endogeneity arising from the simultaneity between digital investment decisions and bank profitability outcomes. The dependent variable is Return on Assets, complemented by subsidiary estimation using Return on Equity and the Cost to Income Ratio as operational efficiency proxies. Empirical results robustly establish that a one standard deviation increase in the Digital Banking Index is associated with a statistically significant 0.114 to 0.161 percentage point increase in Return on Assets, with the system GMM specification yielding the largest and most credible magnitude after instrumenting for endogeneity. Critically, I document a compounding interaction between elevated non-performing loan ratios, which reached 7.28 percent for private commercial banks by March 2024, and digital adoption inefficacy: banks exhibiting simultaneously high non-performing loan ratios and low Digital Banking Index scores demonstrate Return on Assets values approximately 1.4 standard deviations below the sector median. The analysis identifies systemic fragmentation of core banking infrastructure, regulatory arbitrage by mobile financial service providers, and inadequate cybersecurity governance as the primary structural impediments to digital transformation across the decade under study. Policy recommendations center on mandatory open banking interoperability through the Binimoy Interoperable Digital Transaction Platform, artificial intelligence driven alternative credit scoring for the underserved micro, small and medium enterprise segment, and alignment with Bangladesh Bank's Risk Based Supervision framework effective January 2026. The findings carry substantial implications for financial regulators and bank strategists in comparable emerging market economies confronting the dual challenge of digital modernization under conditions of financial system stress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJEL Classification: \u003c/strong\u003eG21, G28, O16, O33, C23, C26\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Operationalizing Digital Banking Adoption for Global Standard Operational Excellence in the Private Commercial Banking Sector of Bangladesh: Evidence from Panel Econometrics, 2015 to 2024","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-17 16:19:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121661/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9a86c76e-3f3d-4958-8f5e-d4c73e573bb3","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":64497810,"name":"Operations Research"},{"id":64497811,"name":"Finance"},{"id":64497812,"name":"Other Economics"},{"id":64497813,"name":"Macroeconomics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-17T16:19:03+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-17 16:19:03","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9121661","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9121661","identity":"rs-9121661","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}