[雙語翻譯]銀行盈利能力外文翻譯--轉(zhuǎn)型期國家銀行盈利能力的決定因素：什么最重要？（節(jié)選）

1、3400 英文單詞， 英文單詞，1.9 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 6000 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Djalilov K, Piesse J. Determinants of bank profitability in transition countries: What matters most?[J]. Research in International Business Bank profitability; Gove

2、rnment spending; Monetary freedom1. IntroductionIt has now been almost three decades since the collapse of the socialist system, and many previously centrally planned economies have established market-based economies. Mo

3、st countries have followed a similar approach to overcoming the legacy of the Soviet system. Although the speed and sequence of reform varied across countries, all were influenced by the World Bank and International Mone

4、tary Fund, the so called Washington consensus, which focused on liberalisation, stabilisation and privatisation. The soviet-style mono-banks were abolished and restrictions on the internal convertibility of money removed

5、, state control of interest rates was suspended, and the privatisation of state-owned banks took place very early although with varying degrees of success (Fries and Taci, 2002). In addition, transition countries complet

6、ed two major reforms. The first was the introduction of a two-tier banking system to separate the central bank from the commercial banking sector. This also included the division of large industrial banks into smaller or

7、ganisations to create competition in the sector. This resulted in a move away from a system where the primary goal of the banks was to transfer state funds to state- owned enterprises for investment projects approved by

8、central planning to a system appropriate to a market economy. The incumbent systems were inefficient in terms of resource allocation and the quality of banking supervision, and risk assessment was poor. The second was th

9、e establishment of a system of financial intermediation to increase saving and investment. The importance of these reforms was recognised by the governments of all the transition economies. However, while the countries o

10、f Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Baltic States (the early transition group) began structural reforms in the 1990’s, and have to a large extent created efficient banking sectors, in the former Soviet Union state

11、s (the late transition group) this process is still not complete.Although the share of bank domestic credit over GDP is relatively higher in the early authorities. The results show that the quality of asset allocation ne

12、eds further improvement in late transition countries. In addition, better capitalised banks are found to be more profitable in early transition countries. Moreover, indicators of economic freedom, such as government spen

13、ding and flexible monetary policy, still have a negative impact on bank profitability in late transition countries. This suggests that policy-makers need to consider further reform in these areas.The paper is structured

14、as follows. Section 2 highlights the difference between early and late transition countries and discusses the relevant empirical literature. Section 3 describes the data and methods used. Section 4 presents the findings

15、from the empirical analysis, and Section 5 concludes and suggests some policy recommendations.2. Theoretical background2.1. Economic transition in the countries of the former USSROver the last three decades, a plethora o

16、f studies have focused on the transition of countries of CEE from a system of central planning to a market economy (Fries and Taci, 2005; Kenjegalieva and Simper, 2011). However, the majority of the former Soviet countri

17、es have been largely ignored due to the paucity of reliable information (Djalilov and Piesse, 2011; Schobert, 2006). This is a serious omission as these countries are substantially different from the early transition cou

18、ntries in CEE in a number of important respects. Firstly, the former Soviet countries were controlled by the communist regime for more than seventy years. This resulted in a lack of a national collective memory of any ot

19、her form of economic organisation, and the institutions in these countries were largely impenetrable. Furthermore, the leadership had no experience of managing a domestic market economy prior to the collapse of the Sovie

20、t Union in 1991 as decisions were made centrally. When reforms to establish a market economy in the Baltic States and in several countries in CEE began during the Gorbachev era of the late 1980s, other countries of the f

21、ormer USSR did not follow suit. Thus, there existed a sharp contrast between countries such as Hungary, Poland and the former Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic States, which only had a system of central planning for the per

22、iod following the Second World War until the 1990s, and those in Central Asia. This historical legacy has had a significant impact on how quickly a market economy can be established, and emphasises the importance of the

23、initial conditions at the start of the transition on the direction and speed of financial sector development and its impact on financial development and economic growth.Secondly, many former Soviet countries are rich in

24、mineral and energy resources. This has implications for their economic growth, but also provides a source of potential internal conflict that is associated with the problem of resource allocation. Thirdly, some former US

25、SR countries, especially those located in Central Asia, are geographically extensive, and the political instability in neighbouring countries, such as Afghanistan, can be contagious. For these countries, maintaining econ

26、omic growth and ensuring financial stability are vital to retaining social cohesion and sustained development. Fourthly, early (CEE and the Baltic States) and late (former USSR) transition countries have taken significan

27、tly different approaches to the transition from a planned to a market economy. The first group pursued a revolutionary approach and most of them became EU members in 2004, while late transition countries took an evolutio

28、nary (step by step) approach, which has lasted for more than two decades. Therefore, research distinguishing these two groups of transition countries provides new empirical findings.2.2. The literature on the determinant