經(jīng)濟增長與金融發(fā)展方向的因果關(guān)系【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　The direction of causality between financialDevelopment and economic growth</p><p>　　Material Source: Jour

2、nal of Development Economics Documentos de Trabajo del Banco Central de Chile Working Papers of the Central Bank of Chile</p><p>　　Huérfanos 1175, primer piso. 2002(10).</p><p>　　Author: C&

3、#233;sar Calderón Lin Liu</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　This paper employs the Geweke decomposition test on pooled data of 109 developing and industrialcountries from 1960 t

4、o 1994 to examine the direction of causality between financial developmentand economic growth. The paper finds that (1) financial development generally leads to economicgrowth; (2) the Granger causality from financial de

5、velopment to economic growth and the Grangercausality from economic growth to financial development coexist; (3) financial deepeningcontributes more to the causal</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　

6、　Ever since Schumpeter (1911), and more recently McKinnon (1973) and Shaw (1973), the relationship between financial development and economic growth has been extensivelystudied.It is now well recognized that financial

7、development is crucial for economic growth.Furthermore, thedirection of causality between financial development and economic growth iscrucial because it has significantly different implications for development policy. H

8、owever, this causal relationship remains unclear. This paper</p><p>　　Does financial development promote economic growth, or does economic growth propel development? These possible directions of causality b

9、etween 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 financial development toeconom

10、ic growth, which means deliberate creation of financial institutions and markets increases supply of financial services and thus leads to real e</p><p>　　Apart from these two competing hypotheses, Patrick (1

11、966) 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 develop

12、ment of new financial services opens up new opportunities for investors and savers and, in so doing, inaugurates self-sustained economic growth. Asfinancial and economic development proceed, the supply-leading characteri

13、stics o</p><p>　　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 investi

14、gate these competing hypotheses. 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.

15、Moreover, when the causal relationship consists of several components, such as the Granger</p><p>　　First, better financial variables are constructed. Following Levine et al. (2000), we address the stock-f

16、low problem in financial measurement (i.e. financial intermediary 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 b

17、alance sheet items in year t and t - 1, and deflate end-of-year items by their corresponding end-of-year consumer price indices (CPI).</p><p>　　Second, we conduct a panel analysis on data pooled from 109

18、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 d

19、ata from a large number of 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

20、 tes</p><p>　　Third, we apply the tests of linear dependence and feedback developed by Geweke (1982). The so-called Geweke decomposition test has been recently applied by Chong and Calderón (2000), in

21、 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 financia

22、l development to economic growth (i.e. growth in real GDP per capita, and productivity growt</p><p>　　There are five main findings in the paper. First, financial development generally leads to economic growt

23、h in 109 developing and industrial countries, which suggests that financial deepening in many countries has yielded the desired result – a more prosperous economy. Second, when the sample is split into developing and ind

24、ustrial countries, the Granger causality from financial development to economic growth and the Granger causality from economic growth to financial development coexist in 87 of</p><p>　　The rest of the paper

25、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.</p><p>　　Policy Implication

26、s and Conclusions</p><p>　　The direction of causality between financial deepening and economic growth is crucial because it has different implications for development policies. One could argue that, only in

27、the case of supply-leading, policies should aim to financial sector liberalization; whereas in the case of demand-following, more emphasis should be placed on other growth-enhancing policies. This paper improves upon the

28、 existing literature by using econometric techniques that allow us to test both hypotheses (supply-l</p><p>　　Five interesting results are obtained from this study. First, financial development</p>&l

29、t;p>　　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 causali

30、ty when we split the sample into developing and industrial countries. This implies that financial depth stimulates growth and, simultaneously, growth propels financial development. The expansion of the real sector can si

31、gnificantly influence development of the financial sector, although t</p><p>　　Finally, this paper provides an empirical basis for promoting financial and economic development. It has two important policy im

32、plications, 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 interaction between financial

33、 and economic development, one should liberalize the economy while liberalizing the financial sector. In other words, strategies that promote developmen</p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p>　　經(jīng)

34、濟增長與金融發(fā)展方向的因果關(guān)系</p><p>　　資料來源：發(fā)展經(jīng)濟學(xué)雜志, 2002(10) 作者：卡爾德隆塞薩爾 ，林柳</p><p>　　摘要:用系統(tǒng)論中的Geweke分解的數(shù)據(jù)得出的,從1960年到1994年經(jīng)濟增長與金融發(fā)展方向存在因果關(guān)系。分析表明:(1)經(jīng)濟增長通常會導(dǎo)致金融發(fā)展;(2)從格蘭杰因果關(guān)系看出，金融發(fā)展和經(jīng)濟增長共存;(3)發(fā)展中國家比發(fā)達(dá)國家金融深化

35、的因果關(guān)系更為突出;(4)抽樣間隔的時間越長,金融發(fā)展就會更大的影響經(jīng)濟增長;(5) 金融推動經(jīng)濟增長以及資本積累率和生產(chǎn)率的增長,后者引導(dǎo)的更為強烈.</p><p><b>　　介紹</b></p><p>　　熊彼特(1911年),還有麥金農(nóng)和肖(1973),認(rèn)為金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長之間關(guān)系已經(jīng)證實. 現(xiàn)在認(rèn)識到金融發(fā)展對經(jīng)濟增長是至關(guān)重要的。此外,金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟

36、增長兩者之間的因果關(guān)系存在顯著差異。然而,這因果關(guān)系尚不清楚。本文運用一個創(chuàng)新的計量技術(shù)、新金融措施、新數(shù)據(jù),清晰地認(rèn)識到這一問題。</p><p>　　金融發(fā)展是促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟增長,還是經(jīng)濟增長推動金融發(fā)展?帕特里克(1966)和demand-following假說說明一些問題。假設(shè)供給的因果關(guān)系是從假定一個金融發(fā)展的增長,這意味著金融機構(gòu)為金融市場增加提供金融服務(wù),從而導(dǎo)致真正的經(jīng)濟增長。大量的理論證實，在這個問題

37、上表明金融發(fā)展是造成經(jīng)濟增長的重要因素。另一方面,假設(shè)設(shè)定因果關(guān)系是從金融發(fā)展到經(jīng)濟增長。在此,就要增加需求,金融服務(wù)可能導(dǎo)致財政部門的實際經(jīng)濟增長(即金融領(lǐng)域的經(jīng)濟增長被動反應(yīng))。肖鄭杭((1967),金(1969)和容格(1986)支持這個假設(shè)。</p><p>　　除了這兩個相容的假說,帕特里克(1966年)提出發(fā)展階段的假設(shè)。根據(jù)這一趨勢,供給可誘發(fā)真正金融發(fā)展資本形成的早期階段的經(jīng)濟發(fā)展。創(chuàng)新和發(fā)展新金

38、融服務(wù)，開拓新的發(fā)展機遇,也對投資者和儲戶發(fā)出新的機遇,在這么做的時候,自我維持經(jīng)濟增長。由于金融和經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的特點,進(jìn)行金融發(fā)展供給逐漸減少,最終需求跟隨主導(dǎo)的金融發(fā)展。令人驚訝的是,沒有帕特里克的實證分析假設(shè),無論是發(fā)達(dá)國家還是發(fā)展中國家。早期的實證研究焦點在于金融發(fā)展的作用在經(jīng)濟增長。最近的注意力已經(jīng)被轉(zhuǎn)移到金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長兩者的因果關(guān)系之間。然而,這些研究還是很稀少,金融和經(jīng)濟增長的因果關(guān)系并沒有進(jìn)行了實證分析解決。對現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)

39、行了改進(jìn)技術(shù),利用計量經(jīng)濟學(xué)測試就可以讓我們運用派崔克量化的范圍和統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義的假設(shè)。</p><p>　　有多種途徑模擬時間因果關(guān)系,然而,大多數(shù)現(xiàn)存的實證研究用格蘭杰因果模型來研究這些相爭的假說。以前的因果關(guān)系研究沒有解決該問題，金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長之間因果關(guān)系還沒有經(jīng)過測試。此外,因果關(guān)系由幾種成分,例如格蘭杰因果關(guān)系從金融發(fā)展經(jīng)濟同時增長,和從經(jīng)濟增長金融發(fā)展和瞬時因果關(guān)系的水平,他們每個部分仍不清楚。本文運

40、用一種創(chuàng)新的計量技術(shù)和新的數(shù)據(jù),探討了金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長之間的因果關(guān)系。它背離了早期的工作研究,最近的證據(jù)在三個方面。</p><p>　　首先,一個更好的金融變量的構(gòu)建。我們解決了金融測量(即金融中介的測量資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表項目是股票,到今年年底,而國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)平均流量在去年)。因此,我們金融中介的平均年資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表項目為t和t - 1,年終物價、年終相應(yīng)的物品價格指數(shù)（CPI）。</p><

41、;p>　　其次, 在1960-94時期，我們進(jìn)行小組分析數(shù)據(jù)集中在工業(yè)發(fā)達(dá)國家和發(fā)展中國家?，F(xiàn)有研究通常用格蘭杰的測試時間序列數(shù)據(jù),為一個單一的國家。相反,分析了大量的數(shù)據(jù)得出,這些國家相對較長時期都利用截面尺寸和長期性的數(shù)據(jù)。我們所知,小組分析才剛剛開始被應(yīng)用在因果關(guān)系檢驗中。</p><p>　　第三,我們依賴Geweke(1982)運用試驗研究,開發(fā)和反饋線性研究。所謂的Geweke分解是分析制度之間

42、的關(guān)系和經(jīng)濟增長。最近的證據(jù)顯示存在從經(jīng)濟增長支持金融發(fā)展因果關(guān)系。 (即實際人均國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的增長,生產(chǎn)率增長)。使用一組77個國家的1960-95時期數(shù)據(jù)研究,他們發(fā)現(xiàn)高水平的銀行業(yè)發(fā)展恩那個更快的促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟增長速率和全要素生產(chǎn)率的增長。我們的貢獻(xiàn)是依賴分解金融中介的關(guān)系(x)和生長(y)為3個不同的因果關(guān)系(因果關(guān)系x y,因果關(guān)系從x,y和瞬時因果關(guān)系x和y)。采用平面變量,我們會測試技術(shù)的存在的所有方向因果關(guān)系(注意列文上述蘇達(dá)

43、權(quán)等的關(guān)系只測試魯x y),我們計算每個隨意方向在全球金融發(fā)展之間的相關(guān)性和成長。此外,我們把我們的分析金融發(fā)展之間的關(guān)系和動力源的增長。值得注意的是由貝克孫俐 (2000)提出的,金融發(fā)展增長可能會通過更快速地資本積累(通過增加國內(nèi)儲蓄率和招商引資)影響技術(shù)的進(jìn)步(通過更好的配置或通過儲蓄)。</p><p>　　有5個主要的發(fā)現(xiàn)。首先,金融發(fā)展的經(jīng)濟增長通常會導(dǎo)致發(fā)展中國家和工業(yè)化國家金融深化,這就意味著,在

44、許多國家已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了想要的結(jié)果——一個更繁榮的經(jīng)濟。第二,當(dāng)樣品分成了發(fā)展中國家和工業(yè)化國家的時候,因果關(guān)系轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閺慕鹑诎l(fā)展經(jīng)濟增長和經(jīng)濟增長帶來的格蘭杰因果關(guān)系,金融發(fā)展共存于發(fā)展中國家和22個國家的工業(yè)國家。這說明,金融深化刺激經(jīng)濟增長,同時,經(jīng)濟增長推動金融發(fā)展。第三,金融深化在發(fā)展中國家比工業(yè)國家更具有因果關(guān)系,即發(fā)展中國家有更大的空間讓金融和經(jīng)濟進(jìn)步。第四節(jié)。采樣間隔的時間越長,金融發(fā)展對經(jīng)濟增長影響更大,這表明金融深化對實體經(jīng)

45、濟需要花較長的時間。第五,我們還會發(fā)現(xiàn),金融發(fā)展能更快的提高人均積累和技術(shù)改變。此外, 在發(fā)展中國家因果關(guān)系發(fā)展financia全要素生產(chǎn)率的增長(TFP)較強,逆過來則工業(yè)國家經(jīng)濟力量更強大。</p><p><b>　　政策含義和結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　金融深化方向和經(jīng)濟增長的因果關(guān)系是至關(guān)重要的,因為它有多種影響發(fā)展的道路。有人會說,只有在供給的情況下

46、,政策的目標(biāo)應(yīng)該是金融部門自由化的情況;而在demand-following種,更強調(diào)其他政府增長政策。在進(jìn)行了改進(jìn)現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)和利用經(jīng)濟學(xué)技術(shù)后,讓我們來測試供給理論量化,以及它們的重要性。</p><p>　　5個有趣的結(jié)果得到了證實。首先,金融發(fā)展促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟增長。這表明金融深化在許多國家已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了想要的結(jié)果——一個更繁榮的經(jīng)濟。其次,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)有證據(jù)證明雙向水平因果關(guān)系，當(dāng)我們運用到發(fā)展中國家和工業(yè)化國家中時，這意

47、味著金融深化刺激經(jīng)濟增長的同時經(jīng)濟增長推動金融發(fā)展。真正的領(lǐng)域膨脹均顯著地影響金融發(fā)展,但更多的是發(fā)生在發(fā)達(dá)國家。第三,金融深化對經(jīng)濟發(fā)展方向的因果關(guān)系更少的體現(xiàn)在發(fā)展中國家,因此,這意味著發(fā)達(dá)國家金融中間人比欠發(fā)達(dá)國家有更大的影響效果。因此,發(fā)展中國家有更大的空間讓金融和經(jīng)濟進(jìn)步。第四,時間越長,采樣間隔較大的金融發(fā)展對影響經(jīng)濟的增長作用越大。這表明金融深化程度的影響需要時間。第五,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)金融發(fā)展和經(jīng)濟發(fā)展,可以更加快速的提高資本積

48、累和技術(shù)的變化,因此看出生產(chǎn)力轉(zhuǎn)變較強。此外,因果關(guān)系顯示金融TFP增長而變得更強的發(fā)展中國家,在發(fā)展經(jīng)濟過程中也會變得更強。同樣的結(jié)果也會導(dǎo)致資本積累。</p><p>　　最后,本文提供了實證依據(jù),證實促進(jìn)金融和經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的因素。它有兩個重要的政策的影響,尤其是在發(fā)展中國家。首先,為了獲得可持續(xù)的經(jīng)濟增長,所以應(yīng)該承擔(dān)金融改革。第二,利用金融和經(jīng)濟的良性互動關(guān)系進(jìn)行發(fā)展,每個國家都應(yīng)該放開經(jīng)濟體制,金融自由化。