经济增长与金融发展方向的因果关系【外文翻译】.doc

1、 外文翻译 原文 The direction of causality between financialDevelopment and economic growth Material Source: Journal of Development Economics Documentos de Trabajo del Banco Central de Chile Working Papers of the Central Bank of Chile Hurfanos 1175, primer piso. 2002(10). Author: Csar Caldern Lin Liu Abstr

2、act This paper employs the Geweke decomposition test on pooled data of 109 developing and industrialcountries from 1960 to 1994 to examine the direction of causality between financial developmentand economic growth. The paper finds that (1) financial development generally leads to economicgrowth; (2

3、) the Granger causality from financial development to economic growth and the Grangercausality from economic growth to financial development coexist; (3) financial deepeningcontributes more to the causal relationships in the developing countries than in the industrialcountries; (4) the longer the sa

4、mpling interval, the larger the effect of financial development oneconomic growth; (5) financial deepening propels economic growth through both a more rapidcapital accumulation and productivity growth, with the latter channel being the strongest. Introduction Ever since Schumpeter (1911), and more r

5、ecently McKinnon (1973) and Shaw (1973), the relationship between financial development and economic growth has been extensivelystudied.It is now well recognized that financial development is crucial for economic growth.Furthermore, thedirection of causality between financial development and economi

6、c growth iscrucial because it has significantly different implications for development policy. However, this causal relationship remains unclear. This paper employs an innovative econometric technique, new financial measures, and new data to gain insight into this issue. Does financial development p

7、romote economic growth, or does economic growth propel development? These possible directions of causality between financial development andgrowth are labeled by Patrick (1966) as the supply-leading and demand-following hypothesis. The supply-leading hypothesis posits a causal relationship from fina

8、ncial development toeconomic growth, which means deliberate creation of financial institutions and markets increases supply of financial services and thus leads to real economic growth. Numerous theoretical and empirical writings on this subject have shown that financial development is important and

9、 causes economic growth. McKinnon (1973), King and Levine (1993a, b), Neusser and Kugler (1998) and Levine, Loayza and Beck (2000) support the supply-leading phenomenon. On the other hand, the demand-following hypothesis postulates a causal relationship from economic growth to financial development.

10、 Here, an increasing demand for financial services might induce an expansion in the financial sector as the real economy grows (i.e.financial sector responds passively to economic growth). Gurley and Shaw (1967), Goldsmith (1969) and Jung (1986) support this hypothesis. Apart from these two competin

11、g hypotheses, Patrick (1966) proposes the stage of development hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, supply-leading financial development can induce real capital formation in the early stages of economic development. Innovation and development of new financial services opens up new opportunities

12、 for investors and savers and, in so doing, inaugurates self-sustained economic growth. Asfinancial and economic development proceed, the supply-leading characteristics of financial development diminish gradually and are eventually dominated by demand-following financial development. Surprisingly, t

13、here has been little empirical analysis of Patricks hypotheses, for either developed or developing countries. Early empirical studies focused on the role of financial development in economic growth. More recently attention has been shifted to the direction of causality between financial development

14、and economic growth. However, these studies are still scarce, and the causal relationship between financial and economic growth has not been empirically resolved. This paper improves upon theexisting literature by using an econometric technique that would allow us to test the hypothesesproposed by P

15、atrick and also to quantify the extent and statistical significance of each hypothesis. Many approaches have modeled causality in a temporal system (e.g. Granger, 1969; Sims, 1972; Geweke, 1982), however, most existing empirical studies use Granger causality modeling to investigate these competing h

16、ypotheses. Previous causality studies have failed to settle the issue of causality between financial development and economic growth, and their simultaneous causal relationship has not been tested. Moreover, when the causal relationship consists of several components, such as the Granger causality f

17、rom financial development to economic growth, the Granger causality from economic growth to financial development, and the instantaneous causality between them, the level of each component remains unclear. This paper uses an innovative econometric technique and new data to explore the direction of c

18、ausality between financial development and economic growth. It departs from earlier work and complements recent evidence in three aspects. First, better financial variables are constructed. Following Levine et al. (2000), we address the stock-flow problem in financial measurement (i.e. financial int

19、ermediary balance sheet items are stocks measured at the end of the year while GDP is an average flow over the year). Hence, we average the financial intermediary balance sheet items in year t and t - 1, and deflate end-of-year items by their corresponding end-of-year consumer price indices (CPI). S

20、econd, we conduct a panel analysis on data pooled from 109 industrial and developing countries for the 1960-94 period. Existing studies usually use Granger or Sims tests on time-series data for a single or small group of countries. In contrast, this paper analyzes pooled data from a large number of

21、countries and relatively long time periods to exploit both the cross-section and time-series dimensions of the data. To our best knowledge, panel analysis has just begun to be used in causality tests. Third, we apply the tests of linear dependence and feedback developed by Geweke (1982). The so-call

22、ed Geweke decomposition test has been recently applied by Chong and Caldern (2000), in the analysis of the relationship between institutions and economic growth. Recent evidence (Levine et al., 2000; Beck et al., 2000) uses panel techniques to support the existence of a causal relationship from fina

23、ncial development to economic growth (i.e. growth in real GDP per capita, and productivity growth). Using a panel of 77 countries for the 1960-95 period, they find that higher levels of banking sector development produce faster rates of economic growth and total factor productivity growth. Our contr

24、ibution to the literature relies on decomposing the association between financial intermediation (x) and growth (y) into three different causal relationships (causality from x to y, causality from y to x, and instantaneous causality between x and y). Using panel VAR techniques, we test the existence

25、 of causality for all the directions mentioned above (note that Levine et al. robustly tests only the relationship from x to y), and we calculate the importance of each causal direction in the global association between financial development and growth. In addition, we extend our analysis to the rel

26、ationship between financial development and the sources of growth. As noted by Beck et al. (2000), financial development might influence growth via improvements in technology (through better allocation of savings) or via a more rapid capital accumulation (by increasing domestic savings rates and att

27、racting foreign capital). There are five main findings in the paper. First, financial development generally leads to economic growth in 109 developing and industrial countries, which suggests that financial deepening in many countries has yielded the desired result a more prosperous economy. Second,

28、 when the sample is split into developing and industrial countries, the Granger causality from financial development to economic growth and the Granger causality from economic growth to financial development coexist in 87 of the developing countries and 22 of the industrial countries. This shows tha

29、t financial deepening stimulates economic growth and, simultaneously, economic growth propels financial development. Third, financial deepening contributes more to the causal relationships in the developing countries than in the industrial countries, which implies that the developing countries have

30、more room for financial and economic improvement. Fourth. the longer the sampling interval, the larger the effect of financial development on economic growth, which suggests that it takes time for financial deepening to impact the real economy. Fifth, we also find that financial development enhances

31、 growth through a more rapid capita accumulation and technological change. In addition, the causal relationship from financia development to total factor productivity growth (TFP) is stronger in developing countries, while the converse relationship is stronger in industrial economies. The same resul

32、t holds for capita accumulation. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the methodology and data. Empirical results are presented in Section 3. Section 4 draws policy implications and concludes the paper. Policy Implications and Conclusions The direction of causality betw

33、een financial deepening and economic growth is crucial because it has different implications for development policies. One could argue that, only in the case of supply-leading, policies should aim to financial sector liberalization; whereas in the case of demand-following, more emphasis should be pl

34、aced on other growth-enhancing policies. This paper improves upon the existing literature by using econometric techniques that allow us to test both hypotheses (supply-leading and demand-following) as well as to quantify their importance. Five interesting results are obtained from this study. First,

35、 financial development enhances economic growth for all countries. This suggests that financial deepening in many countries has yielded the desired result - a more prosperous economy. Second, we find evidence of bi-directional causality when we split the sample into developing and industrial countri

36、es. This implies that financial depth stimulates growth and, simultaneously, growth propels financial development. The expansion of the real sector can significantly influence development of the financial sector, although this is more the case in developed economies. Third, financial depth contribut

37、es more to the causal relationships in developing countries, thus, implying that financial intermediaries have larger relative effects in less-developed economies than in more developed ones. Hence, developing countries have more room for financial and economic improvement. Fourth, the longer the sa

38、mpling interval, the larger the effect of financial development on economic growth. This suggests that the impact of financial deepening on the real sector takes time. Fifth, we find that financial development may enhance economic growth through both more rapid capital accumulation and technological

39、 changes, though it appears that the productivity channel is stronger. In addition, the causal relationship from finance to TFP growth is stronger for developing countries, where as the converse is stronger for industrial economies. The same result holds for capital accumulation. Finally, this paper

40、 provides an empirical basis for promoting financial and economic development. It has two important policy implications, especially for developing countries. First, to gain sustainable economic growth, it is desirable to further undertake financial reforms. Second, to take advantage of the positive

41、interaction between financial and economic development, one should liberalize the economy while liberalizing the financial sector. In other words, strategies that promote development in the real economy should also be emphasized. 译文 经济增长与金融发展方向的因果关系 资料来源： 发展经济学杂志 , 2002(10) 作者：卡尔德隆塞萨尔 ，林柳 摘要 :用系统论中的

42、 Geweke分解的数据得出的 ,从 1960年到 1994年经济增长与金融发展方向存在因果关系。分析表明 :(1)经济增长通常会导致金融发展 ;(2)从格兰杰因果关系看出，金融发展和经济增长共存 ;(3)发展中国家比发达国家金融深化的因果关系更为突出 ;(4)抽样间隔的时间越长 ,金融发展就会更大的影响经济增长 ;(5) 金融推动经济增长以及资本积累率和生产率的增长 ,后者引导的更为强烈 . 介绍 熊彼特 (1911 年 ),还有麦金农和 肖 (1973),认为金融发展与经济增长之间关系已经证实 . 现在认识到金融发展对经济增长是至关重要的。此外 ,金融发展与经济增长两者之间的因果关系存在显

43、著差异。然而 ,这因果关系尚不清楚。本文运用一个创新的计量技术、新金融措施、新数据 ,清晰地认识到这一问题。 金融发展是促进经济增长 ,还是经济增长推动金融发展 ?帕特里克 (1966)和demand-following 假说说明一些问题。假设供给的因果关系是从假定一个金融发展的增长 ,这意味着金融机构为金融市场增加提供金融服务 ,从而导致真正的经济增长。大量的理论证实，在这个问题上 表明金融发展是造成经济增长的重要因素。另一方面 ,假设设定因果关系是从金融发展到经济增长。在此 ,就要增加需求 ,金融服务可能导致财政部门的实际经济增长 (即金融领域的经济增长被动反应 )。肖郑杭 (1967),

44、金 (1969)和容格 (1986)支持这个假设。 除了这两个相容的假说 ,帕特里克 (1966年 )提出发展阶段的假设。根据这一趋势 ,供给可诱发真正金融发展资本形成的早期阶段的经济发展。创新和发展新金融服务，开拓新的发展机遇 ,也对投资者和储户发出新的机遇 ,在这么做的时候 ,自我维持经济增长。由于金融和经济发展的特点 ,进 行金融发展供给逐渐减少 ,最终需求跟随主导的金融发展。令人惊讶的是 ,没有帕特里克的实证分析假设 ,无论是发达国家还是发展中国家。早期的实证研究焦点在于金融发展的作用在经济增长。最近的注意力已经被转移到金融发展与经济增长两者的因果关系之间。然而 ,这些研究还是很稀少

45、,金融和经济增长的因果关系并没有进行了实证分析解决。对现有文献进行了改进技术 ,利用计量经济学测试就可以让我们运用派崔克量化的范围和统计学意义的假设。 有多种途径模拟时间因果关系 ,然而 ,大多数现存的实证研究用格兰杰因果模型来研究这些相争的假说。以前的因果关 系研究没有解决该问题，金融发展与经济增长之间因果关系还没有经过测试。此外 ,因果关系由几种成分 ,例如格兰杰因果关系从金融发展经济同时增长 ,和从经济增长金融发展和瞬时因果关系的水平 ,他们每个部分仍不清楚。本文运用一种创新的计量技术和新的数据 ,探讨了金融发展与经济增长之间的因果关系。它背离了早期的工作研究 ,最近的证据在三个方面。

46、首先 ,一个更好的金融变量的构建。我们解决了金融测量 (即金融中介的测量资产负债表项目是股票 ,到今年年底 ,而国内生产总值 (GDP)平均流量在去年 )。因此 ,我们金融中介的平均年资产负债表项目为 t和 t - 1,年终物价、年终相应的物品价格指数（ CPI）。 其次 , 在 1960-94 时期，我们进行小组分析数据集中在工业发达国家和发展中国家。现有研究通常用格兰杰的测试时间序列数据 ,为一个单一的国家。相反 ,分析了大量的数据得出 ,这些国家相对较长时期都利用截面尺寸和长期性的数据。我们所知 ,小组分析才刚刚开始被应用在因果关系检验中。 第三 ,我们依赖 Geweke(1982)运用

47、试验研究 ,开发和反馈线性研究。所谓的Geweke 分解是分析制度之间的关系和经济增长。最近的证据显示存在从经济增长支持金融发展因果关系。 (即实际人均国内生产总值的增长 ,生产率增长 )。使用一组 77 个国家的 1960-95 时期数据研究 ,他们发现高水平的银行业发展恩那个更快的促进经济增长速率和全要素生产率的增长。我们的贡献是依赖分解金融中介的关系 (x)和生长 (y)为 3 个不同的因果关系 (因果关系 x y,因果关系从x,y和瞬时因果关系 x和 y)。采用平面变量 ,我们会测试技术的存在的所有方向因果关系 (注意列文上述苏达权等的关系只测试鲁 x y),我们计算每个随意方向在全球

48、金融发展之间的相关性和成长。此外 ,我们把我们的分析金融发展之间的关系和动力源的增长。值得 注意的是由贝克孙俐 (2000)提出的 ,金融发展增长可能会通过更快速地资本积累 (通过增加国内储蓄率和招商引资 )影响技术的进步(通过更好的配置或通过储蓄 )。 有 5个主要的发现。首先 ,金融发展的经济增长通常会导致发展中国家和工业化国家金融深化 ,这就意味着 ,在许多国家已经产生了想要的结果 一个更繁荣的经济。第二 ,当样品分成了发展中国家和工业化国家的时候 ,因果关系转变为从金融发展经济增长和经济增长带来的格兰杰因果关系 ,金融发展共存于发展中国家和 22个国家的工业国家。这说明 ,金融深化刺激

49、经济增长 ,同时 ,经济增长推动 金融发展。第三 ,金融深化在发展中国家比工业国家更具有因果关系 ,即发展中国家有更大的空间让金融和经济进步。第四节。采样间隔的时间越长 ,金融发展对经济增长影响更大 ,这表明金融深化对实体经济需要花较长的时间。第五 ,我们还会发现 ,金融发展能更快的提高人均积累和技术改变。此外 , 在发展中国家因果关系发展 financia 全要素生产率的增长 (TFP)较强 ,逆过来则工业国家经济力量更强大。 政策含义和结论 金融深化方向和经济增长的因果关系是至关重要的 ,因为它有多种影响发展的道路。有人会说 ,只有在供给的情况下 ,政策的目标应该是金融部门自由化的情况 ;而在 demand-following种 ,更强调其他政府增长政策。在进行了改进现有文献和利用经济学技术后 ,让我们来测试供给理论量化 ,以及它们的重要性。 5个有趣的结果得到了证实。首先 ,金融发展促进经济增长。这表明金融深化在许多国家已经产生了想要的结果 一个更繁荣的经济。其次 ,我们发现有证据证明双向水平因果关系，当我们运用到发展中国家和工业化国家中时，这意味着金融深化刺激经济增长的同时经济增长推动金融发展。真正的领域膨胀均显著地影