金融发展和经济增长之间的联系-英国代写assignment

英国代写assignment范文精选:“金融发展和经济增长之间的联系”，本文讲述的是金融发展与经济增长之间的关系和重要关系，即使文献提出了这些主题在各种情况下作者对这一课题的差异性问题和研究者用来研究金融发展与经济增长之间关系的变异模型进行了争论。本文将主要集中在金融发展和经济增长之间的影响。许多以前和现在的研究关注的金融发展和经济增长之间的关系。

 

Many theories have been proposed to explain what most important to financial development and economic growth. While the literature covers a wide variety of theories, this review will focus on three major themes which emerge repeatedly throughout the literature reviewed. These themes are: the important and relationship between financial development and economic growth, the difference issues were debated by authors about this topic and the variation models where used by researchers to examine the relationship between financial development and economic growth. Even though the literature presents these topics in a variety of contexts, this paper will primarily focus on their impact between financial development and economic growth. Many previous and current studies concern the relationship between financial development and economic growth. The question of whether financial development contributes to economic growth has been subject of particularly little empirical work in economic literature.

Earlier theories of financial development were described about its important to economic growth. Literature survey puts forward three views concerning the potential importance of financial development in economic growth. While the first one of these considers finance as a critical element of growth (Schumpeter, 1911; Goldsmith, 1969; McKinnon, 1973; Shaw, 1973; Odedokun, 1996; King and Levine (1993a, 1993b), finance is regarded as a relatively unimportant factor in growth according to second view (Robinson, 1952; Lucas, 1988; Stern, 1989). Finally third view concentrates on the potential negative impact of finance on growth (Van Wijnbergen, 1983; Buffie, 1984). Similar to these views, empirical studies of the effects of financial development on economic growth have produces mixed evidences showing specially no role or positive relationship (Xu, 2000). 

Whether financial development influences economic growth is not just a matter of intellectual curiosity, it is a crucial policy issue as well. Financial development may be either of the bank based type or stock market-based type. It is a crucial policy question which type of development should the government actively promote. The relative importance of these two types of financial structures in economic growth has been debated for over a century (Allen and Gale 1999; Stiglitz 1985). The proponents of the bank-based type argue that banking development plays a crucial role in economic growth and can avoid the shortcomings of the market-based financial systems. The agency problem due to asymmetry of information between the actors in the bank-based system is less severe than in the market-based type. The stock market-based view, on the other hand, highlights that a well-functioning stock market fosters growth and profit incentives and helps in risk management more efficiently than the bank-based system does (Beck and Levine 2004; Levine 2002). The financial structure changes as a country goes through different stages of development and it is argued that, at the advanced stages of development, the stock market-based structures are more effective than the bank-based ones in fostering economic growth in a country (Boyd and Smith 1998). Bencivenga et al. (1996) demonstrate theoretically that a more developed stock market may provide liquidity that lowers the cost of the foreign capital essential for development, especially in low-income countries that cannot generate sufficient domestic savings.

The issue has been addressed empirically as well in some recent works. Several studies show that it is the bank-based financial structure that spurs economic growth (Boyd and Prescott 1986; King and Levine 1993). The other group of studies shows that stock market development has played a crucial role in some economies in promoting economic growth (Atje and Jovanovic 1993; Demirguc- Kunt and Levine 1996a; Levine and Zervos 1996, 1998). The latter group argues that a well-developed stock market should increase savings and efficiently allocate capital to productive investments, which would lead to an increase in the rate of economic growth. The stock market-based type, as the argument goes, play a key role in allocating capital to the corporate sector, which would have a real effect on the economy on aggregate. Finally, a third group of studies shows that causality runs in both the directions, that is, economic growth causes financial development and vice versa (Arestis et al. 2001; Demetriades and Hussein 1996; Luintel and Khan 1999). Thus, the finance-growth nexus has so far remained a rather contested issue. 

Government intervention also addressed as one of the issue was argued by some instigators. Mickinnon and Shaw (1973) examined the negative effect of government intervention on the development of the financial system and economic growth. The same issue was stated by King and Levine (1993) that government intervention in the financial system has a negative effect on the growth rate. Their main suggestion was that government restrictions on the banking system slow down the process of financial development and discourage the economic growth. For example, argued that low interest rates discourage financial saving will reduce the financial saving, thereby creating a shortage of investable funds, and reduces the efficiency of capital.

Liquidity increasing method involves dual effect on savings. It is assumed that higher liquidity brings along higher investment returns and lowers uncertainty (Levine 1997, p.692). Higher returns cause income and substitution effect, which means that agents can invest less to earn the same income because of the higher returns, but the opposite effect, is that consumption will be substituted with savings because of the higher productivity of the capital. Reduction of the uncertainty has also dual influence on the savings (Schumpeter, 1911). Lower variance of the earnings causes a drop of the risk premium in the agents required rate of return, which enables more projects to be accepted. This results in rise of investment demand, rise in interest rate and increased savings. At the same time agents considering lower risks may reduce precautionary savings and this can result in drop in overall savings. As we have shown here it is not certain whether savings rate will fall or rise as a result of the increase in liquidity. This argumentation undermines the credibility of the liquidity rising models. 

Even moreover, it has been argued that higher liquidity in the stock market may not encourage investment into higher return projects. Higher liquidity makes the sale of stocks easier and consequently stockowners do not have to engage in costly monitoring of the management. Problems with corporate governance endanger effective allocation of resources and reduce productivity (Levine, Zervos 1998, p. 538). 

The financial repressionists, led by, McKinnon (1973) and Shaw (1973) often referred to as the "McKinnonï€ Shaw" hypothesis compete that financial liberalization in the form of an appropriate rate of return on real cash balances is a vehicle of promoting economic growth. The essential theory of this hypothesis is that a negative real interest rate will discourage saving. This will reduce the availability of loanable funds for investment, which in turn will lower the rate of economic growth. Thus, the "McKinnonï€ Shaw" model posits that a more liberalized financial system will induce an increase in saving and investment and therefore, promote economic growth. Ahmed and Ansari (1995) investigated the "McKinnonï€ Shaw" hypothesis for Bangladesh and found some, although weak, support for their hypothesis. They focus on price variables as the relevant financial factors for growth. Khan and Hasan (1998) in a recent study for Pakistan found strong support for the "McKinnonï€ Shaw" hypothesis. Further enhancements of this hypothesis were explored in the works of Galbis (1977); Mathieson (1980); Fry (1988) and Roubini and Sala-i-Martin (1992). However, the structuralists and the repressionists have a common underlying thread; that is, the efficient utilization of resources enhances economic growth. This is achieved via a highly organized, developed and liberated financial system.

Although there are considerable empirical and theoretical literatures that suggest a positive first order relationship between financial sector development and economic growth, it is somewhat surprising that empirical studies which attempt to establish causality by undertaking Granger-causality tests are few and far between. For example, Jung (1986) found bi-directional causality between financial and real variables using post-war data for 56 countries, of which 19 are developed industrial economies. Demetriades and Hussein (1996) conducted causality tests and found little evidence that financial development causes economic growth. They found that causality patterns varied across countries. Similarly, Wachtel and Rousseau (1995) and Giiryay et.al (2002) argued that financial development causes economic growth. It is also important to note that there are no empirical studies, that we are aware of, that undertake multivariate causality tests. Conversely Abu-Bader and Abu-Qarn (1998) argued that there is causal relationship between annual growth rates of real GDP, The ratio of domestic investment to GDP, and the ratio of loan to GDP which means that the economic growth causes financial development. But financial development does not cause economic growth. However, regarding the existence of causality running from financial intermediary development to economic growth, it is not possible to address the direction of causal relationship between two variables due to independent factors.

51Due英国论文代写平台作为专业的留学教育辅导机构，专业英国论文代写、英国代写assignment、 Research paper范文、留学essay范文 ，自2004年至今，坚持以学生为中心，全天候服务，为海外留学生完成了数万篇以上的论文，以优质的英国论文代写服务赢得留学生的信赖，有代写需求，有需要了解英文论文代写价格的，可以咨询QQ800020041哦。

51Due网站原创论文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。