آسیب‌شناسی نقش نظام بانکی ایران در توسعه اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان با رویکرد سه‌شاخگی؛ مطالعه موردی بانک سپه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه مدیریت فناوری، موسسه تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران، ایران.

2 گروه تامین مالی علم، فناوری و نوآوری موسسه تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران، ایران.

3 گروه مدیریت، گرایش سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، دانشکده مدیریت و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین، تهران، ایران.

4 گروه مدیریت بازرگانى، واحد تهران مرکزى، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامى، تهران، ایران.

چکیده
هدف: گذار به اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان نیازمند نظام تامین مالی متناسب با ماهیت شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان است؛ شرکت‌هایی که با وجود تشکیل بیش از %11 بنگاه‌های اقتصادی فعال کشور، تنها %8/4 از تسهیلات شبکه بانکی (۱۴۰۲) را دریافت کرده‌اند و سهم بانک سپه (%2/2) به‌مراتب کمتر از بانک‌های همتراز است؛ امری که از یک «شکاف تامین مالی» پرده برمی‌دارد. هدف این پژوهش، آسیب‌شناسی نقش نظام بانکی ایران با تمرکز بر بانک سپه، شناسایی چالش‌های ساختاری، رفتاری و زمینه‌ای پیش‌روی آن در ایفای نقش موثر در توسعه اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان و ارایه راه‌کارهای سیاستی متناسب است.
روش‌شناسی پژوهش: پژوهش از حیث هدف، کاربردی‌-توسعه‌ای و از حیث روش، کیفی‌-تفسیری با راهبرد مطالعه موردی توصیفی‌-تحلیلی است. داده‌ها با تکیه بر اصل مثلث‌سازی از سه منبع مکمل (تحلیل اسنادی، مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختاریافته و جلسات گروه کانونی) گرد آمد و با روش تحلیل مضمون و در چارچوب «مدل سه‌شاخگی» میرزایی اهرنجانی (عوامل ساختاری، رفتاری و زمینه‌ای) تحلیل شد. نمونه‌گیری به‌صورت هدفمند انجام و اعتبار یافته‌ها از طریق مثلث‌سازی، بازبینی مشارکت‌کنندگان و کدگذاری مستقل تامین شد.
یافتهها: آسیب‌های نظام بانکی در حوزه دانش‌بنیان پدیده‌ای تک‌علتی نیست، بلکه برآیند شبکه‌ای علی‌-معلولی از سه دسته عامل است: عوامل ساختاری (ابهام راهبردی پساادغام، یکسانی رویه‌های اعتبارسنجی و محدودیت پذیرش دارایی فکری به‌عنوان وثیقه)، عوامل رفتاری (خطرگریزی نهادینه‌شده، انتظار بازدهی کوتاه‌مدت، تمایل به بنگاه‌داری و عدم‌تقارن اطلاعات) و عوامل زمینه‌ای (چارچوب قانونی سخت‌گیرانه، فاصله متن قانون با عمل بانکی، بی‌ثباتی اقتصاد کلان و تحریم‌ها). یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد چالش بنیادین «نهادی‌-فرایندی» است نه «منبع‌محور».
اصالت/ارزش افزوده علمی: این پژوهش نخستین آسیب‌شناسی نظام‌مند یک بانک خاص ایرانی (بانک سپه) در حوزه دانش‌بنیان با چارچوب سه‌شاخگی است که تحلیل کلان را به سطح خرد سازمانی می‌برد و با لحاظ‌کردن متغیر «ادغام بانک‌های نیروهای مسلح (۱۳۹۸)»، مجموعه‌ای از پیشنهادهای سیاستی هم‌زمان در سه لایه ساختاری، رفتاری و زمینه‌ای ارایه می‌دهد

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Pathology of Iran's banking system in the development of a knowledge-based economy using the three-branch approach: A case study of Bank Sepah

نویسندگان English

Abolfazl Bagheri 1
Marzieh Shaverdi 2
Sayyed Mohammad Amin Sayyed Mousavi 3
Seyed Mohammad Azimi 4
1 Department of Management of Technology, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of Science, Technology and Innovation Financing, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran.
3 Department of Management, Science and Technology Policy, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Department of Business Administration, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Purpose: This paper aimed to diagnose the role of Iran’s banking system focusing on Bank Sepah as a case in financing the knowledge-based economy. Although knowledge-based companies constitute more than 11% of the country’s active economic enterprises, they received only 4.8% of the banking network’s facilities in 2023, and Bank Sepah’s share (2.2%) lags well behind comparable banks, revealing a substantial financing gap. The study seeks to identify the structural, behavioral, and contextual challenges that hinder the banking system from playing an effective role in developing the knowledge-based economy and to propose corresponding policy solutions.
Methodology: The research is applied-developmental in purpose and qualitative-interpretive in method, employing a descriptive-analytical case-study strategy. Based on the principle of triangulation, data were gathered from three complementary sources documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, and focus-group sessions and analyzed through thematic analysis within the framework of Mirzaei Ahranjani’s “Three-Branch Model” (structural, behavioral, and contextual factors). Purposive sampling was applied, and the trustworthiness of the findings was ensured through methodological triangulation, member checking, and independent coding.
Findings: The pathologies of the banking system in the knowledge-based domain are not single-cause but stem from an interconnected causal network of three sets of factors: Structural factors (post-merger strategic ambiguity, uniform credit-evaluation procedures, and limited acceptance of intellectual property as collateral); behavioral factors (institutionalized risk aversion, short-term return expectations, the tendency toward enterprise ownership, and information asymmetry); and contextual factors (a stringent legal framework, the gap between legal text and banking practice, macroeconomic instability, and international sanctions). The findings indicate that the fundamental challenge is “institutional-procedural” rather than “resource-based”.
Originality/Value: This study provides the first systematic pathology of a specific Iranian bank (Bank Sepah) in the knowledge-based field using the Three-Branch Model, shifting macro-level analysis to the micro-organizational level. By incorporating the variable of the 2019 merger of the armed forces’ banks absent from prior research it offers a coherent set of policy recommendations applied simultaneously across the structural, behavioral, and contextual layers.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Bank Sepah
Banking System
Innovation Financing
Knowledge-Based Economy
Three-Branch Model
[1]     Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of political economy, 98(5), S71--S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
[2]     Adabi, B., & Garshasbi, A. (2022). Diagnosis of non-oil export finance in Iran using SBC approach. Interdisciplinary studies of strategic knowledge quarterly, 12(46), 61-88. (In Persian). https://smsnds.sndu.ac.ir/article_1891.html?lang=en
[3]     Shahbazi-Ghiyasi, M., & Torabifar, H. (2016). Pathology of the banking system: Challenges and macro-pathologies of weak corporate governance in the management of Iranian banks. (In Persian). https://report.mrc.ir/article_6475_c0db17c6772e2a26cb133ad3ba389cce.pdf
[4]     Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD). (2015). New approaches to SME and entrepreneurship financing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264240957-en
[5]     Mirzaei Ahrenjani, H., & Rahmati, M. H. (2006). Factors affecting organizational decline. Organizational culture management, 4(1), 49-74. (In Persian). https://jomc.ut.ac.ir/article_18302.html
[6]     Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD). (1996). The knowledge-based economy. https://one.oecd.org/document/OCDE/GD%2896%29102/En/pdf
[7]     Santacreu, A. M. (2014). Innovation, diffusion, and trade: Theory and measurement. http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2014/2014-042.pdf
[8]     Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). Knowledge as a global public good. In Global public goods: International cooperation in the 21st century (pp. 308–325). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195130529.003.0015
[9]     Archibugi, D., & Lundvall, B. . (2001). The globalizing learning economy. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-globalizing-learning-economy-9780199258178
[10]   Nazeman, H., & Eslamifar, A. (2011). Knowledge based economy and sustainable development. Monetary & financial economics, 17(33), 184-214. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/pm.v17i33.27316
[11]   Sobhani, H., & Rizvandi, M. A. (2012). A comparative investigation of knowledge-based economy in Iran and regional countries with an emphasis on intellectual property rights. Journal of economic essays: An islamic approach, 9(17), 87-106. (In Persian). https://iee.rihu.ac.ir/article_234.html?lang=en
[12]   KarGorouh-e arzyabi va tashkhis-e salahiyat-e sherkat-ha va moassesat-e danesh-bonyan. (2023). Regulation for the evaluation and support of knowledge-based companies and institutions. https://fidarbaspar.com/
[13]   Ghazinoori, S., Bamdad Soofi, J., & Radaei, N. (2017). A framework for selecting financing instruments based on knowledge-based firms clustering. Journal of science and technology policy, 10(2), 13-30. (In Persian). https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_12978.html?lang=en
[14]   Schumpeter, J. A. (1976). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-Socialism-and-Democracy/Schumpeter/p/book/9780415107624
[15]   Perez, C. (2011). Finance and technical change: A long-term view. African journal of science, technology, innovation and development, 3(1), 10–35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254512307
[16]   Arrow, K. J. (1972). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Readings in industrial economics: Volume two: Private enterprise and state intervention (pp. 219–236). London: Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15486-9_13
[17]   Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of political economy, 67(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1086/258177
[18]   Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings papers on economic activity, 1987(3), 783–831. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534454
[19]   Akerlof, G. A., Spence, A. M., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2001). Markets with asymmetric information. Nobel Foundation. https://www.kva.se/app/uploads/2001/10/globalassets-priser-nobel-2001-scibackeken01.pdf
[20]   Stiglitz, J. E., & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. The American economic review, 71(3), 393–410. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1802787
[21]   Mobini Dehkordi, A., & Keshtkar Haranaki, M. (2015). Analyzing the effects of three-dimensional model on social innovation: A case study of a company in Iran’s automotive industry. Innovation management journal, 3(4), 57-75. (In Persian). https://www.nowavari.ir/article_14738.html?lang=en
[22]   Hall, B. H., & Lerner, J. (2010). The financing of R&D and innovation. In Handbook of the economics of innovation, Vol. 1 (pp. 609–639). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01014-2
[23]   Heller, D., Leitzinger, L., & Walz, U. (2024). Intellectual property as business loan collateral: A taxonomy of institutional and economic determinants. GRUR international, 73(5), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae043
[24]   Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (2006). A more complete conceptual framework for SME finance. Journal of banking & finance, 30(11), 2945–2966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.05.008
[25]   Mazzucato, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Perseus Book LLC (Ingram). https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Entrepreneurial_State.html?id=QKd5cDPY_i4C
[26]   Romero Alvarez, Y. P., Salas-Navarro, K., Martínez, L. B., & Zamora-Musa, R. (2025). Financing innovation in SMEs: A systematic review of financing channels. International journal of innovation science, 18(2), 524–563. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-06-2024-0151
[27]   Shahidi Nasab, M. (2014). Pathology of micro-finance in the banks of Iran:Lessons for designing Islamic Micro-financing System in Iran. Journal of economic essays: An islamic approach, 11(21), 97-124. (In Persian). https://iee.rihu.ac.ir/article_522.html?lang=en
[28]   Soltani, B., & Shaverdi, M. (2019). Science, technology and innovation financing. Journal of science and technology policy, 12(2), 297-314. (In Persian). https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13701.html
[29]   Entezari, Y. (2018). Analysis of the impact of university on regional development in Iran. Quarterly journal of research and planning in higher education, 24(2), 1–25. (In Persian). https://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article_702948_b80991a61ea4da10518478ec27406330.pdf?lang=en
[30]   Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications.
[31]   Danaeifard, H., Alvani, S. M., & Azar, A. (2004). Qualitative research methodology in management: A comprehensive approach. Tehran: Saffar Pub. (In Persian). https://www.gisoom.com/book/1282235/
[32]   Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/qualitative-inquiry-and-research-design/book266033
[33]   Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE Publications. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/case-study-research-and-applications/book250150
[34]   Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE publications. https://books.google.com/books/about/Qualitative_Data_Analysis.html?id=p0wXBAAAQBAJ
[35]   Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134543
[36]   Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
[37]   Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.com/books/about/Constructing_Grounded_Theory.html?id=y0ooAwAAQBAJ
[38]   Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
[39]   Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[40]   Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
[41]   Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Interpretation_Of_Cultures.html?hl=id&id=BZ1BmKEHti0C
[42]   Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
[43]   Etemad Arzaafarin Credit Rating Company. (2023). Annual report of the knowledge-based ecosystem 2022. https://sinapress.ir
[44]   Hagendorff, J., Collins, M., & Keasey, K. (2007). Bank governance and acquisition performance. Corporate governance: an international review, 15(5), 957–968. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00601.x
[45]   Wong, R., & Eisenbach, T. M. (2023). The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank: A retrospective analysis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395397781