Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory

This paper theoretically evaluates why profit-loss sharing (PLS) contracts in Islamic banking fails and its potential for improvement within the scope of the New Institutional Economic Theory (NIE). The objective of the evaluation is to draw conclusive theoretical arguments of whether Islamic bankin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pacific Basin Finance Journal
Main Author: Abdul-Rahman A.; Abdul Latif R.; Muda R.; Abdullah M.A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2014
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901837019&doi=10.1016%2fj.pacfin.2014.01.004&partnerID=40&md5=3a9047b3cad9c9355355f08303cff55b
id 2-s2.0-84901837019
spelling 2-s2.0-84901837019
Abdul-Rahman A.; Abdul Latif R.; Muda R.; Abdullah M.A.
Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
2014
Pacific Basin Finance Journal
28

10.1016/j.pacfin.2014.01.004
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901837019&doi=10.1016%2fj.pacfin.2014.01.004&partnerID=40&md5=3a9047b3cad9c9355355f08303cff55b
This paper theoretically evaluates why profit-loss sharing (PLS) contracts in Islamic banking fails and its potential for improvement within the scope of the New Institutional Economic Theory (NIE). The objective of the evaluation is to draw conclusive theoretical arguments of whether Islamic banking institutions in Malaysia should act as either financial intermediaries or entrepreneurs. Further, we analyze this issue from the perspective of agency theory, financial intermediation theory and entrepreneurship theory with four economic agents in the Islamic banking sector, namely entrepreneurs, depositors, shareholders, and the Islamic banks. Specifically, the first three economic agents represent the asset (equity-based financing), liability, and equity of the Islamic banks, respectively; while the latter is the Islamic banks, which act as a separate legal entity. Finally, we suggest that PLS contracts would best be positioned if Islamic banks play the role of genuine entrepreneurs. © 2014 Elsevier B.V.
Elsevier
0927538X
English
Article

author Abdul-Rahman A.; Abdul Latif R.; Muda R.; Abdullah M.A.
spellingShingle Abdul-Rahman A.; Abdul Latif R.; Muda R.; Abdullah M.A.
Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
author_facet Abdul-Rahman A.; Abdul Latif R.; Muda R.; Abdullah M.A.
author_sort Abdul-Rahman A.; Abdul Latif R.; Muda R.; Abdullah M.A.
title Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
title_short Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
title_full Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
title_fullStr Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
title_full_unstemmed Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
title_sort Failure and potential of profit-loss sharing contracts: A perspective of New Institutional, Economic (NIE) Theory
publishDate 2014
container_title Pacific Basin Finance Journal
container_volume 28
container_issue
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.pacfin.2014.01.004
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901837019&doi=10.1016%2fj.pacfin.2014.01.004&partnerID=40&md5=3a9047b3cad9c9355355f08303cff55b
description This paper theoretically evaluates why profit-loss sharing (PLS) contracts in Islamic banking fails and its potential for improvement within the scope of the New Institutional Economic Theory (NIE). The objective of the evaluation is to draw conclusive theoretical arguments of whether Islamic banking institutions in Malaysia should act as either financial intermediaries or entrepreneurs. Further, we analyze this issue from the perspective of agency theory, financial intermediation theory and entrepreneurship theory with four economic agents in the Islamic banking sector, namely entrepreneurs, depositors, shareholders, and the Islamic banks. Specifically, the first three economic agents represent the asset (equity-based financing), liability, and equity of the Islamic banks, respectively; while the latter is the Islamic banks, which act as a separate legal entity. Finally, we suggest that PLS contracts would best be positioned if Islamic banks play the role of genuine entrepreneurs. © 2014 Elsevier B.V.
publisher Elsevier
issn 0927538X
language English
format Article
accesstype
record_format scopus
collection Scopus
_version_ 1820775478600925184