金融结构和经济增长关系外文文献翻译中英文
毕业论文(设计)外文文献翻译及原文
金融体制、融资约束与投资——来自OECD的实证分析R．SemenovDepartment of Economics，University of Nijmegen，Nijmegen（荷兰内梅亨大学，经济学院）这篇论文考查了OECD的11个国家中现金流量对企业投资的影响.我们发现不同国家之间投资对企业内部可获取资金的敏感性具有显著差异,并且银企之间具有明显的紧密关系的国家的敏感性比银企之间具有公平关系的国家的低.同时，我们发现融资约束与整体金融发展指标不存在关系.我们的结论与资本市场信息和激励问题对企业投资具有重要作用这种观点一致，并且紧密的银企关系会减少这些问题从而增加企业获取外部融资的渠道。
一、引言各个国家的企业在显著不同的金融体制下运行。
金融发展水平的差别(例如，相对GDP的信用额度和相对GDP的相应股票市场的资本化程度），在所有者和管理者关系、企业和债权人的模式中，企业控制的市场活动水平可以很好地被记录.在完美资本市场,对于具有正的净现值投资机会的企业将一直获得资金。
然而，经济理论表明市场摩擦，诸如信息不对称和激励问题会使获得外部资本更加昂贵，并且具有盈利投资机会的企业不一定能够获取所需资本.这表明融资要素，例如内部产生资金数量、新债务和权益的可得性，共同决定了企业的投资决策.现今已经有大量考查外部资金可得性对投资决策的影响的实证资料（可参考，例如Fazzari（1998）、 Hoshi(1991)、 Chapman（1996）、Samuel(1998））.大多数研究结果表明金融变量例如现金流量有助于解释企业的投资水平。
这项研究结果解释表明企业投资受限于外部资金的可得性。
很多模型强调运行正常的金融中介和金融市场有助于改善信息不对称和交易成本，减缓不对称问题,从而促使储蓄资金投着长期和高回报的项目,并且提高资源的有效配置（参看Levine（1997)的评论文章）。
因而我们预期用于更加发达的金融体制的国家的企业将更容易获得外部融资.几位学者已经指出建立企业和金融中介机构可进一步缓解金融市场摩擦。
绿色金融对经济增长的影响英语作文
Green Finance and Its Impact on EconomicGrowthIn the contemporary era, the intersection of finance and sustainability has gained significant attention, leading to the emergence of green finance. Green finance, an innovative financial approach, aims to promote environmental protection and sustainable development by redirecting capital flows towards eco-friendly projects and initiatives. This shift not only addresses environmental concerns but also presents new opportunities for economic growth.The fundamental premise of green finance is to align financial decisions with environmental and social objectives. It involves the mobilization of private and public capital to finance projects that have positive environmental impacts, such as renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and waste management. By doing so, green finance not only reduces the environmental footprint of economic activities but also creates new jobs, industries, and technologies that contribute to economic growth.One of the most significant impacts of green finance on economic growth is its ability to drive innovation. As capital flows towards green projects, it encourages businesses and research institutions to invest in clean technologies and sustainable business models. This innovation, in turn, leads to the creation of new products, services, and markets that contribute to economic expansion. For instance, the development of renewable energy sources has created jobs in the manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of solar panels, wind turbines, and other clean energy technologies.Moreover, green finance can also enhance the resilience of the economy to environmental risks. As climate changeand environmental degradation pose increasing threats to economic stability, green finance can help mitigate these risks by financing projects that reduce carbon emissions, adapt to climate change, and protect ecosystems. Bybuilding resilience, green finance contributes to the long-term sustainability and growth of the economy.Another key aspect of green finance is its potential to attract foreign investment. As the world increasinglyrecognizes the importance of sustainability, investors are looking for opportunities in green projects and businesses. By developing a robust green finance framework, countries can attract foreign capital, which can provide additional funding for green projects and contribute to economic growth.However, it is worth noting that the implementation of green finance also poses certain challenges. Ensuring the effective allocation of capital towards sustainableprojects requires robust regulatory frameworks, transparent disclosure standards, and strong institutions. Additionally, the transition to a green economy may involve costs and adjustments for businesses and consumers, which need to be carefully managed to avoid any negative impacts on economic growth.In conclusion, green finance presents a unique opportunity to align economic growth with environmental sustainability. By redirecting capital flows towards eco-friendly projects, it can drive innovation, enhance economic resilience, and attract foreign investment. However, to fully harness its potential, it is essential toaddress the challenges associated with its implementation and ensure that green finance is integrated into national development strategies.**绿色金融对经济增长的影响**在当今时代，金融与可持续发展的交汇点引起了广泛关注，从而催生了绿色金融。
绿色金融对经济增长的影响英语作文
Green Finance: Its Impact on EconomicGrowthIn recent years, the concept of green finance has gained significant attention, as it offers a sustainable approach to financing economic activities. Green finance aims to channel financial resources towards environmentally friendly and climate-resilient projects, thereby promoting economic growth while mitigating environmental risks. This essay explores the impact of green finance on economic growth, analyzing the mechanisms through which it canfoster sustainable development.Firstly, green finance mobilizes capital towards green projects. By providing financial incentives and risk mitigation measures, green finance attracts private sector investment into renewable energy, energy-efficient technologies, and sustainable infrastructure. This investment spurs innovation and technological advancements, leading to increased productivity and economic growth.Secondly, green finance contributes to risk management and mitigation. Climate change and environmental degradation pose significant risks to economic stability.Green finance helps to identify and manage these risks, ensuring that economic activities are resilient to environmental shocks. By investing in adaptation measures and disaster risk reduction, green finance supports sustainable economic growth.Moreover, green finance promotes transparency and accountability in the financial sector. By requiring strict environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, green finance ensures that financial institutions and investors are held accountable for their environmental and social impacts. This transparency enhances trust and confidence in the financial system, leading to moreefficient capital allocation and economic growth.Additionally, green finance fosters cross-sectoral collaboration. By bridging the gap between the financial and real sectors, green finance encourages cooperation between different stakeholders, including governments, financial institutions, businesses, and communities. This collaboration leads to the development of innovative solutions that address both economic and environmental challenges, thus supporting sustainable growth.In conclusion, green finance has a profound impact on economic growth. By mobilizing capital towards green projects, managing and mitigating risks, promoting transparency and accountability, and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration, green finance supports sustainable development. As the world faces increasing environmental challenges, the role of green finance in driving economic growth becomes increasingly important.**绿色金融对经济增长的影响**近年来，绿色金融的概念受到了广泛关注，因为它为经济活动提供了一种可持续的融资方式。
经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文最新
经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文最新经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文2019-2020英文Does economic structure determine financial structure?Franklin Allen，Laura BartiloroAbstractIn this paper, we examine the relationship between the structure of the real economy and a country's financial system. We consider whether the development of the real economic structure can predict the direction of evolution of a country's financial structure. Using data for 108 countries, we find a significant relationship between real economic structure and financial structure. Next, we exploit shocks to the economies in India, Finland and Sweden, and South Korea and show that changes in the economic structure of a country influence the evolution of its financial system. This suggests that financial institutions and capital markets change in response to the structure of industries.Keywords：Financial system，Economic structureIntroductionThe structures of financial systems vary among industrial and developing countries. In some countries, financial systems are predominantly bank-based, while in others they are dominated by capital markets. Only fragmented theories exist in the literature that explain the prevailing differences in country financial structures, which are definedas the mix of financial markets, institutions, instruments, and contracts that prescribe how financial activities are organized at a particular date.The existing studies explain the prevailing differences in financial structures using legal origin and protection, politics, history, and culture as factors. This paper considers the link between the real economic structure and the financial system of a country. Such a relationship is influenced by the funding sources for corporate investment that differ depending on firm and project characteristics (Allen, 1993; Boot and Thakor, 1997; Allen and Gale, 1999). Consistent with this theory, banks are more appropriate for the financing of traditional asset-intensive industries, whereas capital markets favour innovative and risky projects. One implication of this theory is that the real economic structure of a country, whether it is asset intensive or service oriented, could determine its financial structure. For instance, financial systems in countries such as Germany and Japan would remain bank-based as long as their economies are dominated by manufacturing industries. Contrastingly, the financial system in the United States will continue to be market-oriented as long as service and highly innovative companies constitute a large share of the economy. Consequently, the financial systems of the United States, Germany, or Japan will remain at polar extremes because of their economic structures even though the countries are at a similar stage of development.Robinson (1952) argues that financial intermediaries and markets emerge when required by industries. Consequently, intermediaries and markets appear in response to economic structure. The idea that the form of financing, and thus the country's financial structure, depends on the type of activity that firms engage in has not yet been directly addressed in the literature. To provide evidence of the hypothesis that structure and changes in the real economy determine the direction ofevolution of a country's financial system, we first must distinguish the different financial structures across countries. However, although recent attention has shifted to a more systematic classification of financial systems, the literature provides only very broad measures and definitions for classification. Consistent with the literature this study classifies a country's financial system as either bank-based (the German or Japanese model) or market-based (the Anglo-Saxon model). In the bank-based financial system, financial intermediaries play an important role by mobilising savings, allocating credit, and facilitating the hedging, pooling, and pricing of risks. In the market-based financial system, capital markets are the main channels of finance in the economy (Allen and Gale, 2000).Our theory builds on Rajan and Zingales (2003a) who note that bank-based systems tend to have a comparative advantage in financing fixed-asset-intensive firms rather than high technology research and development-based firms. Rajan and Zingales (2003a) argue thatfixed-asset-intensive firms are typically more traditional and well understood, and the borrower has the collateral to entice fresh lenders if the existing ones prove overly demanding. As per Rajan and Zingales (2003a), loans are well collateralised by physical assets, and therefore are liquid; hence, the concentration of information in the system will not be a barrier to the financing of these assets. Conversely, the authors argue that market-based systems will have a comparative advantage in financing knowledge industries with intangible assets.Consequently, we suggest that countries with a majority of physical-asset-intensive firms, depending on external finance, will be more likely to possess a bank-oriented financial system.However, capital markets should develop more effectively in countries with firms that are based on knowledge and intangible assets. We test this hypothesis by identifying fixed-asset-intensive firms within the economic sector defined as industry by the standard classification system for economic activity. Conversely, in this study the service sector acts as a proxy for knowledge and intangible asset firms. The relative importance of the two types of firms in an economy will be represented by the relative volume of activity of the two different economic sectors. The standard system of classification for economic activity includes a third sector, agriculture. We classify agriculture as a physical-asset-intensive industry because land and agricultural machinery may be used as collateral and, therefore,we assume that firms in the agricultural sector will prefer bank financing over capital markets.We first present some historical evidence showing the nexus between real economic structure and financial system. In order to test our outlined hypothesis, we use a panel data set for 108 countries and employ both the panel OLS and a two-step generalised-method-of-moments (GMM) system. Additionally, we investigate the robustness of the results by introducing different additional control variables and testing the heterogenous effects. The results suggest that there is a negative and significant relationship between a country's economic structure (industry versus service sector) and financial system structure (stock market versus banking sector). In economies where the service sector carries more weight economically than industry and agriculture, the country tends to have a market-based financial system. In contrast, a bank-based financial system is more likely to emerge in economies with many fixed-asset-intensive firms.Next, we conduct event studies using the treatment effect estimation to isolate the endogeneity concerns. We analyse different types of exogenous shock to the structure of the real economy and its impact on financial structure. We employ three events that changed the economic structures of the countries and further investigate their impact on the financial structure using a difference-in-difference strategy. The firstevent is India's structural reforms in 1991 as a positive shock to the country's economy; the second one is the demise of the Soviet Union as a negative shock to the economy of Finland and Sweden; the third one is the economic reforms in the 1980s and early 1990s in South Korea. In India and South Korea we find that after the structural reforms of the economies, the service sector grew in relative terms and the stock markets in both countries experienced significantly faster growth than their banking systems, compared to the control countries. In Finland and Sweden we document that following the negative shock the service sector gained in relative importance, which was followed by the faster growth of the equity market in comparison to the banking system. Overall, the results of the three different event studies confirm our hypothesis that the relative importance of financial intermediaries and markets is determined by the industry needs of a country.The findings of this study are interesting from a regulatory perspective and lend insight into the development of financial structures worldwide. The main policy implications from this study are that financial structures should be evaluated in terms of whether they meet the requirements of the real economy and industries. Furthermore the financial structure cannot bechanged as long as the economic structure does not change. The results provide insight into the reasons for limited capital markets growth in developing countries despite officialstimulation efforts from governments and multilateral organisations (Schmukler et al., 2007). According to our study of many developing countries, as long as economies remain relatively agriculture- and industry-oriented, any government effort to create or further develop a capital market is likely to not to be very successful. Additionally, any regulation that attempts to force a change in the financial system may result in a discrepancy in the economic and financial structure. Therefore, such efforts or regulations may introduce financial constraints that can further stall economic growth because financial structure influences output levels and economic growth (Levine and Zervos, 1998; Luintel et al., 2008).The real economy and finance nexusA number of explanations for financial structure exist in the literature; however, none are able to provide a comprehensive account of the observations. The first explanation is based on legal origin and investor protection. Levine (1997) builds on the work of La Porta et al. (1997, 1998); henceforth LLSV) stating that legal systems originate from a limited number of legal traditions: English common law or French, German, and Scandinavian civil law. In his study on financial development and economic growth, the author employs measures of creditors' rights and demonstrates that they may explain the emergence of bank-based financial systems. Modigliani and Perotti (2000) argue that legal institutionsdetermine the degree of financial development and the financial structure of a country. They argue that market-based systems flourish in environments with stronginstitutions. Ergungor (2004) also attempts to explain differences in financial structure by examining legal origin across countries. His study presents evidence that countries with civil law financial systems are more likely to be bank-oriented than common law countries. In the author's opinion, this evolution is a result of effective rule of law in common law countries, which improves shareholder and creditor rights protection. A perspective has emerged in the literature that legal origin can be used to explain the structure of a financial system.However, Rajan and Zingales (2003a) argue that countries with a common law system did not rely on markets to a greater extent than civil law systems at the beginning of the last century. They report that in 1913, the ratio of France's stock market capitalisation to GDP was twice as high as that of the United States, which is a country that has an environment that favours capital market development according to the legal origin perspective. It is therefore problematic to argue that legal origin is the main determinant of financial structure. The view presented below is that both the structure of the financial system and the laws will adapt to the needs and demands of the economy. One example of this is branching regulation in the United States banking sector. Rajan and Zingales(2004) note that as technology improved the ability of banks to lend and borrow from customers at a distance, competition increased in the United States even when banks had no in-state branches. Politicians who could not prevent this competition because they lacked jurisdiction, withdrew the regulations that limited branching. Another example is the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had restricted banking activities in the United States since 1933. In this case, the introduction of the FinancialModernisation Act in 1999 followed the creation of the first financial holding company in the United States and removed past restrictions. Therefore, we argue that economic demand may enhance the evolution of the financial structures and of the legal system.The existing empirical results show also that legal investor protection may support financial development. For example, LLSV (1997) show that countries with poorer investor protection have less developed capital markets. Demirgü?-Kunt and Levine (2004) find that countries with stronger protection for shareholder rights tend to have a more market-based financial system. Djankov et al. (2007) investigate cross-country determinants of private credit and find that legal creditor rights are statistically significant and quantitatively important in determining private credit development, while there is no evidence showing that creditor rights are converging among legal origins. Moreover, Djankov et al. (2007) confirm that shareholder protection ispositively related to stock market development.The second explanation for financial structure is based on political factors. Biais and Perotti (2002) provide a theoretical model of government incentives to structure privatisation policy so that financial shareholders are diffused, which may be designed to ensure re-election. Additionally, Perotti and V olpin (2004)argue that established firms have an incentive to limit entry by retarding financial development, which may well impact the financial structure. Perotti and von Thadden (2006) use a theoretical model to demonstrate the effect of the distribution of income and wealth in democratic societies and their influence on the financial structure of an economy.Moreover, according to Rajan and Zingales (2003a, 2004) structures of the financial system are unstable and evolve over time. They argue that a financial system will develop toward the optimal structure but will be hindered by politics, which are often influenced by powerful, incumbent groups. Similarly, Cull and Xu (2013) argue that financial development is driven by political economy. In their opinion financial development may reflect the interests of the elite, rather than providing broad-based access to financial services. Song and Thakor (2012a, b) develop a theory of how a financial system is influenced by political intervention that is designed to expand credit availability. They show that the relationship between political intervention and financial system development isnonmonotonic. In the early stage of financial development, the size of markets is relatively small and politicians intervene by controlling some banks and providing capital subsidies, while in the advanced stage when the financial sector is most developed, political intervention returns in the form of direct-lending regulation.Industrial-level evidenceTo check the robustness of our main results we conduct a wide array of additional analyses; however, for brevity we do not report them in full. First, we check the consistency of the results after removing outliers. These outliers are eliminated after considering the scatter plot of the main financial and economic structure indicators. We eliminate those countries that fall particularly far from the regression line and then repeat the estimation on the new sample. After eliminating the extreme observations, we still find a significant and negative relationship between economic and financial structure. Second, we increasethe set of explanatory variables and add variables for country GDP, inflation, area, latitude, dummies for landlocked economies, transition economies, or developing countries. Including these variables does not affect either the significance level or the sign of the estimated coefficients. Third, we divide the countries in the sample into two groups based on their membership in the OECD. We assume that countries belonging to the OECD are on average more developed than non-OECD member countries. Using the two separatesamples we compute again the baseline regressions. The results indicate that the relationship between financial structure and economic structure is much stronger in industrial countries than in developing countries. One possible explanation for this result is the different development stage of the financial system itself. In developing countries, the financial structure is emerging and adjusting to the needs of the real economy at the same time. Moreover, rapid changes in the financial structure are often caused by additional factors such as liberalization or political transformation. Conversely, in most of the industrial countries, we may assume that the financial system may already have an optimal structure, whereas changes are only caused in case of significant changes in the economic structure, which takes substantial time.Fourth, in the case of the OECD countries the data availability on the composition of value added for most of the industries allows us to calculate an alternative measure of economic structures, where we control for the firm asset characteristics in the given industry. In this analysis, the primary data source is the OECD STAN database for industrial analysis, which enables retrieval of gross value added for 47 industries representing ninemain sectors of the economy in 25 countries. We divide the industries using firm specific characteristics from either an asset-intensive or knowledge sector, where we measured asset intensity as the ratio of tangible assets (property, plant and equipment) to total bookassets of the firm in the industry, whereas the company specific data was computed using data from the Bureau van Dijk's ORBIS database.According to our theory, asset-intensive firms with tangible assets may use the assets to collateralise their bank debt. Hence, in countries dominated by asset-intensive industries bank-based financial systems are more likely to emerge. In contrast, knowledge-based companies with a low level of tangible assets are often forced to use either equity or bonds to finance their needs. Therefore, countries dominated by industries with intangible assets are more likely to have a market-based financial system.Classifying industries as either asset or tangible asset intensive, where we distinguish industries using ratios calculated on firm level data, we again construct two alternative measures for economic structure and employ them in the basic regression. The results of those regressions are similar to those we have presented previously and the coefficients of the economic structure were again negative and statistically significant. Overall the robustness tests at the industry-level also confirm our findings on the link between economic structure and financial structure.ConclusionOur results provide new evidence concerning the causes and causality of the direction of evolution of the financial systemstructure. Using both OLS, dynamic panel techniques and event studies wedocument that the economic structure is closely linked to the shape of the financial system. We find that countries with asset-intensive sectors are more likely to have a bank-based system. Conversely, countries with sectors that are based on knowledge and intangible assets are likely to exhibit a market-based financial system. The results suggest that the structure of the real economy may influence the structure of the financial system. Additionally, even during systemic crises, such a relationship still holds. Moreover, we conduct event studies using a difference-in-difference strategy in order to address the problems of potential endogeneity. We use different shocks that alter the economic structures in India, Finland and Sweden, and South Korea. In all the countries the shocks resulted in significant development of the service sector relative to the industry sector. The changes in economic structure were followed by changes in the structure of financial system, where the stock market gained on importance relative to the banking sector. Consequently, the results of the event studies suggest a causal relation between economic structure and financial structure.In our opinion, these results present a missing link in the explanation as to why country financial structures still differ. The results, however, confirm that other factors may influence the structure of the financial system. Consequently, a financial system may not always have an optimal structure, which may be a result of political arrangements or the interestsof incumbent groups (Rajan and Zingales, 2003a,b). Therefore, we assume that financial systems may not always be able to reach their optimal structure. However, as existing barriersare removed the structure of a financial system may develop and gain ground, but it would be independent of further changes in the real economic structure. Finally, when the financial system has reached its optimal structure with respect to the characteristics of the real economy, our theory implies that any increase in the significance of fixed-asset-intensive sectors would lead to an increase in the role of banks with respect to the stock market.The main policy implications of the model are that despite efforts from governments and multilateral organisations, particular those from the emerging economies, country capital markets will not grow in size or activity as long as the economy remains asset-intensive. Therefore, governments should focus on improving the transparency or efficiency of the existing financial structure and less on the development of the stock market because the market will develop as soon as the economic structure changes. These results are consistent with Robinson (1952).Finally, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on the relative merits of bank-based versus market-based financial systems with respect to the promotion of economic growth. Our paper presents plausible explanations to Luintel et al. (2008), that financial structure matters with respect to economic growth.中文经济结构决定金融结构吗？富兰克林·艾伦，劳拉·巴蒂洛罗摘要在本文中，我们研究了实体经济结构与一国金融体系之间的关系。
金融发展与经济增长的关系国外文献综述
金融发展与经济增长的关系国外文献综述① 吉林大学经济学院 陈丽 李娇娇摘 要：本文旨在对国外学者关于金融发展与经济增长之间的关系的研究进行梳理和总结，重点分析金融结构对经济增长的影响，包括直接金融、间接金融的影响，在此基础上提出针对我国金融机制方面的政策建议。
关键词：金融发展 经济增长 直接金融 间接金融中图分类号：F830 文献标识码：A 文章编号：2096-0298(2016)03(c)-091-041 引言从Schumpeter(1911)以来有一大批文献都认为金融发展能促进经济增长，因为金融部门提供的服务可以最大限度地将资本和资源配置到发挥最大价值的地方，以此减少逆向选择、道德风险以及交易费用所带来的损失。
后来Goldsmith(1969)的实证研究也验证了这一观点。
同年，Goldsmith在其《金融结构与金融发展》一书中，对金融发展理论做了更加深入、系统的分析，这一著作夯实了金融发展理论的基础，也为后来的学者指明了金融发展与经济增长关系的研究方向。
与此相反，另一批在Robinson(1952)著名的论断“哪里有企业领导，金融紧随其后”之后的文献资料则认为，良好增长的经济才能促进金融市场提供资金，进而支持经济的良好增长前景，例如Lucas(1988)和以Levine(1997)为首的部分发展经济学家的相关研究。
在这些例子中，经济增长在前，金融发展在后。
2 金融发展与经济增长的关系2.1 理论研究在Schumpeter等人的思想基础之上，Gurley(1955)和Shaw(1955)独辟蹊径，以分析金融部门的作用为切入点，讨论金融结构对经济增长的影响。
这一思想开辟了金融结构比较研究的先河。
1973年，Mckinnon(1973)和Shaw突破性地将发展中国家纳入研究范围。
Mckinnon的金融抑制论，揭示出发展中国家由于进行利率管制而长期存在金融抑制和通货膨胀现象。
而Shaw的金融深化论，则从分析发展中国家的金融中介机制关系角度出发，主张实行金融自由化。
关于经济的外文文献
关于经济的外文文献1."Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty（《21世纪的资本》 - 托马斯·皮凯蒂）2."Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven D.Levitt and Stephen J.Dubner （《怪诞经济学：一个叛逆经济学家揭示一切的隐藏面》 - 史蒂文·D·列维特和斯蒂芬·J·邓纳）3."The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith（《国富论》 - 亚当·斯密）4."Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness" by Richard H.Thaler and Cass R.Sunstein （《推动力：关于健康、财富和幸福的决策改进》 - 理查德·H·塞勒和卡斯·R·桑斯坦）5."Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman（《思考，快与慢》 - 丹尼尔·卡尼曼）6."The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time" by Karl Polanyi（《伟大转型：我们时代的政治与经济起源》 - 卡尔·波兰尼）7."The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle" by Joseph A.Schumpeter（《经济发展理论：对利润、资本、信用、利息和商业周期的探究》 - 约瑟夫·A·熊彼特）8."The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time" by Jeffrey D.Sachs（《贫困的终结：我们时代的经济可能性》 - 杰弗里·D·萨克斯）9."Development as Freedom" by Amartya Sen（《自由发展》 - 阿马蒂亚·森）。
金融发展与经济增长国外文献综述
金融发展与经济增长国外文献综述作者：陈美兰来源：《中国市场》2015年第16期[摘要]本文回顾了金融发展与经济增长早期西方主流经济学家的理论观点，对该领域最具影响力的理论和实证研究进行归纳总结，集中讨论了三个方面：金融总量与经济增长关系、金融结构与经济增长、金融自由化与经济增长，并研究了金融发展与经济增长的主要关系和未来发展趋势。
[关键词]金融发展；经济增长；金融自由化；金融结构[DOI]10.13939/ki.zgsc.2015.16.0601 引言史密斯（Gold Smith，1969）曾指出：“金融领域最重要的研究课题之一，是金融结构和金融发展对经济增长的影响。
”金融发展理论研究的主要内容就是金融发展与经济增长的关系。
关于金融发展对于经济增长的功能，理论界有两大阵营，一部分学者持肯定态度，认为金融发展有利于经济增长，还有一部分学者持怀疑态度，认为金融发展会带来经济的不稳定，这不利于经济的平稳增长。
2 早期理论综述古典经济学家最早认识到与货币密切联系的各种金融活动对经济发展具有重要的促进作用。
亚当·斯密在《国富论》中肯定了审慎的银行活动能增进一国的产出，增进产出的方法在于使无用的资本变为有利，使不生利的资本生利。
这就是目前人们所普遍接受的“金融中介资本分配和再分配职能论”。
约翰·穆勒继承了金融信用媒介论，指出信用没有创造资本，但是促进了资本的流动，使资本在生产中得到更有效利用，有效资本的增加带来了社会总产出相应的增加。
熊彼特第一个将金融中介的发展置于经济发展的中心地位，强调金融交易在经济增长中的重要性，他认为银行的信用创造和信用之间的关系是理解资本主引擎的关键。
20世纪50年代至60年代，大量学者深入研究了金融与经济增长的关系。
其中格利（Gurley，1955）和索肖（Shaw，1960）分别发表了《经济发展中的金融方面》和《金融中介机构、储蓄与投资》两篇论文，通过建立一种由初始向高级、从简单向复杂逐步演进的金融发展模型，证明了经济发展阶段越高，金融的作用越强。
证券市场发展与经济增长外文文献翻译中英文2020
证券市场发展与经济增长外文文献翻译中英文2020英文The relationship of renewable energy consumption to stock marketdevelopment and economic growth in IranSeyedeh Razmi，Bahareh Bajgiran，etcAbstractThis paper investigates the relationship of two types of renewable energy consumption (total hydropower, wind, solar and nuclear energies, and total combustible renewable and waste) to stock market value and economic growth in Iran. An autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) model was used for data from 1990 to 2014 and results show that stock market value affects both groups of renewable energies in the long run. Growth rate significantly affects total hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear energies in both the short and long run, although it is only significant in the short run for combustible renewable and waste energies. Neither type of renewable energy consumption affects growth in either the short or long run.Keywords：Renewable energy consumption，Stock market，Growth，ARDLSustainable development, as one of the main goals of every economy, encourages policymakers to use energy sources that emit the fewest pollutants to the environment. Today, renewable energy resources havebecome increasingly more important due to the fact that they have fewer negative impacts on the environment than other sources of energies and the growing limitations of fossil fuels. Most developed countries that are in agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Kyoto Protocol have established a framework to encourage greater usage of renewable energy sources Maji. Consequently, countries that are rich in non-renewable energies should consider ways to offset the economic slowdown that would be caused due to the loss of demand from developed countries. Apart from environmental issues, substituting domestic renewable energies also protects countries against external economic crises. As countries reduce fuel imports, their economies become less vulnerable to external crises. The importance of economic growth as the main objective of all economies has led a lot of studies towards finding the impact of renewable energies on economic growth. For example, one study using the ARDL method discovered that renewable energy and economic growth have a negative relationship in the long run in Nigeria, although an insignificant relationship exists in the short run. A negative impact of renewable energy on economic growth was also found in Turkey, South Africa, and Mexico by Ocal and Aslan. However, Destek found a positive relationship between the two variables was discovered for India. Aïssa et al tried to discover the relationship among renewable energy, output, and trade by using panel cointegrationof 11 African countries. They did not find any causality between renewable energy with output and trade in the short run. However, in the long run, Jebli and Youssef discovered the impact of renewable energy on output.Apergis and Payne employed panel cointegration for investigating the casual relationship between renewable energy consumption and economic growth for OECD countries. They found bidirectional causality between variables both in the short and long run. Similar results were discovered for Central American countries by Apergis and Payne. Using panel data, Chang et al found bidirectional causality between economic growth and renewable energy for G7 countries. However, these results were not approved for individual countries. Tugcu et al also discovered similar results for G7 countries. Using the panel cointegration method, Pao et al investigated the causal effect of clean and non-clean energies on economic growth for Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey. They found one-way causality running from renewable energy to economic growth in the long-run and two-way causality in short-run.Apart from economic growth, financial market development indexes are among the variables of interest to economists in energy studies. Financial market development can affect energy demand by influencing economic growth as well as reducing households’ constraints. Financial markets affect economic growth by transferring funds, determiningcapital prices, facilitating transactions, as well as distributing risk management. Facilitating consumer lending is another impact of financial markets on energy consumption, as easier access to financing for energy purchases increases consumer demand for energy. In other words, financial market development may increase energy consumption by reducing financial risk and lending costs and increasing access to financial investments and advanced technologies. Financial market development can also reduce the risks to consumers and businesses and thereby become an important factor in generating wealth in the economy. Therefore, the existence of financial market development is considered as a reliable lever for consumers and businesses which increases economic activity and energy demand.Kakar et al considered the relationship between financial market development, economic growth, and energy consumption in Pakistan in the 1980s. Using Johansen cointegration and Granger causality, the results showed the long-run effects of the financial market development on energy consumption, however its impact in the short run was negligible. Several studies have confirmed the relationship between financial development, energy consumption and economic growth. Stock market developments also play an important role in allocating funds for clean energy projects. Sadorsky stated that stock market developments would increase the demand for energy in emerging economies, whileChang indicated that the development of market capitalism in emerging countries would stimulate investment and energy consumption. This study investigates the relationship between renewable energy consumption, the stock market value,1 and GDP growth in Iran. It must be noted that, to the best knowledge of the authors, there have not been any studies on financial market development and renewable energies thus far; therefore, this research has referred to studies on total energy consumption and financial market development.Renewable energies can play an important role in reducing emissions of pollutants, such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Features such as environmental compatibility, fewer pollutive effects, renewability, and global reliability have led these types of energies to play an important role in the world's energy supply system on a day-to-day basis. Nowadays, Iran is suffering from air pollution, and the impact on public health is a well-known problem. Therefore, consuming renewable energies can be effective in both achieving clean air and increasing the overall health and well-being of the society. According to recent changes in Iran's energy consumption laws, governmental units such as the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Oil have been obliged to support clean energy consumption.Iran has many capacities in which to use hydro, wind, solar and other kinds of renewable energies due to its geographic environment.Despite its high potential for employing renewable resources, renewable energies have not yet been properly exploited. Renewable energy consumption in Iran is still less than 4% of total energy consumption. Therefore, Iran needs to devote particular attention to the various aspects of renewable energies to maintain its position as an energy supplier. Regarding foreign sanctions that have reduced the speed of foreign investment in non-renewable energy, the Iranian government also needs to increase its support to the private sector to attract more investment in renewable energies. This research helps policymakers in Iran and other countries meet their goals for using renewable energies by investigating the relationships of the three aforementioned variables.This study differs from other research on this issue as most papers in this field study economic growth, non-renewable energy consumption, and pollution (CO2) by panel data models. For our research objective, we make three key contributions. First, financial markets, especially the stock market, can help developing industries to raise and circulate capital within the broader economic system. While many studies have examined the relationship between financial development and economic growth with non-renewable energies, there is a gap in research pertaining to renewable energies. The study covers this gap by focusing on of renewable energy that have largely been ignored in prior research. Second, in contrast to the studies applying cross-country panel causality testing,especially in developed countries, we apply an ARDL model as a robust methodology for Iran's economy. Third, studies on renewable energies typically use one type of renewable energy source, while this study compares two groups of renewable energies: total hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear energies and combustible renewable and waste energies. We examine the effect of economic growth on the two types of renewable energy consumption and conversely, the effect of the two types of renewable energy consumption on economic growth. This type of analysis has the potential to support future policy recommendations.For our estimation model we have carried out the following steps. First, after a thorough review of theoretical and empirical studies, we have selected our models. Next, we have verified the unit roots and integration tests for long-run relationships. Subsequently, we have applied two models for each of the long-run and short-run analyses. In each model, the dependent variables are: economic growth and renewable energy type. Finally, we have conducted diagnostic tests to confirm the reliability of the results.This paper examines the relationship between two types of renewable energy consumption, including consumption of hydro, solar, wind and nuclear energies as well as that of combustible renewables and waste energies, stock market value, and economic growth in Iran over the period 1990–2014 using the ARDL method. Such a study on Iran is verynecessary, as studies in this area are rare, and only small steps have been taken towards using renewable energies. The use of renewable energy in Iran is still less than 4% of the total energy consumption in the country. Therefore, more robust studies must be done regarding renewable energies. Results show the existence of short- and long-run relationships between variables in two models where the dependent variables are re (consumption of water, solar, wind and nuclear energies), gr (economic growth rate), and rec (consumption of combustible renewable and waste energies).The coefficient of st (stock market value) is insignificant for both re and rec as dependent variables in the short run, meaning that in the short run, financial markets have no effect on renewable energy consumption; however, it is positively significant in the long run for both groups. Therefore, the stock market value is an important positive factor affecting renewable energies in the long run. Growth rate significantly affects re in both the short and long run, although it is only significant in the short run for rec as a dependent variable. Neither type of renewable energy affects growth in the short run and long run. This result is similar to Dogan that found little effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth in Turkey. Destek found negative effect of renewable energy consumption for South Africa and Mexico. However, Adams et al discovered positive effect of renewable energy consumption on economicgrowth in 30 Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries.By examining the relationship among two groups of renewable energy consumption, stock market value, and economic growth, the results of this study highlight a few points for policymakers in Iran who are looking for ways to improve public health by using clean energies. First, stock market development in Iran has led to an increase in renewable energy consumption for total hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear energies, while has not affected the consumption of combustible renewable and waste energies. The positive effect of stock market value on long-run economic growth shows that stock market development can increase renewable energy consumption in the long run. Second, economic growth can also lead to an increase in renewable energy consumption of the first group so policies towards increasing economic growth also lead to renewable energy consumption of first group. Third, given Iran's recent investments in the development and use of renewable energy technologies, the results of this research show that the country should continue to develop its renewable energy infrastructure in order to reap the full benefits.Responses to the following questions can be a guide for policymakers to achieve sustainable development and to increase the health and well-being of the society.•Do renewable energies have a positive effect on economic growth?•Does the value of the stock market have a positive effect on economic growth?•Does the value of the stock market have a positive effect on renewable energy?If the value of the stock market affects both economic growth and renewable energy consumption, it can serve as a stimulus for using renewable energy and achieving sustainable development. Economic policymakers can increase renewable energy consumption by better understanding the nuances of the effects of stock market value and economic growth on each group of renewable energy and use this knowledge to facilitate the development of the applicable renewable energies for the improvement and spread of clean air.中文证券市场发展和经济增长的关系伊朗可再生能源消费Seyedeh Razmi，Bahareh Bajgiran等摘要本文研究了伊朗两类可再生能源消耗（水电，风能，太阳能和核能总量以及可燃可再生和废物总量）与证券市场价值和经济增长之间的关系。
金融发展、经济增长和金融创新外文翻译2019
金融发展、经济增长和金融创新外文翻译2019原文The Missing-Link between Financial Development and Economic Growth: FinancialInnovationEbubekir Mollaahmetoglu, Burcay YasarAkcalAbstractThe paper investigates the relationship between financial development, financial innovation, and economic growth using a panel data analysis. The sample covers fifteen countries for the period of 2003-2016. Financial development has been considered as a composite variable consisting of four components: financial access, financial depth, financial efficiency, and financial stability. The distinguishing feature of the paper is that it includes financial innovation as another component of financial development in addition to the cited four. We find statistically significant and positive relationship between financial innovation and economic growth (The higher the number of financial innovation, the higher the rate of economic growth). The paper concludes that both financial development and financial innovation have significant impact on economic growth.Keywords：Financial Development，Financial Innovation，Economic Growth，Panel Data1 IntroductionLiberalization movements and technological developments are a standout amongst the most significant components influencing the advancement of development of innovation. Along with the innovation and diversification of financial products has broadened the risk preferences, widespread use led to the growth of the market, especially in the 1960s. Many multidimensional studies have been carried out about relationship, and direction and boundaries of the relation, between financial development and economic growth on the basis of developing and advanced countries.Schumpeter (1912), in “The theory of Economic Development”, outlined that economic development is ginger up by innovation within financial intermediaries.Therewithal, Schumpeter (1912) highlighted the role of banks in promoting innovation due to banks identify and support the enterprises at implementing the innovations. Levine, (1997) and Mishra, (2008) stressed that a well- developed and functioning financial system can advance economic growth by enabling economic agents to diversify and expand their portfolios and meet their liquidity requirements. Financial innovations lead to a higher level of savings and capital accumulation, consequently, a higher level of economic growth. McKinnon and Shaw (1973) put forward the financial repression hypothesis and emphasized that the liberalization of capital flows, interest rates, and credit facilities will increase effective resource allocation and savings and this in turn will transform into investments. These changes will promote economic growth. With channelling financial resources from informal financial markets to formal financial markets, in other words, transferring of idle funds and internal savings to the financial sector will promote gross savings in the economies. According to Levine (1997), via technological change and capital accumulation, financial systems yield in economic growth. Affected capital accumulation by the financial system is due to alteration of the savings rate or re-allocation of savings. Better financial systems activate and mobilize savings and facilitate efficient allocation of resources (Greenwood et al., 2010, King and Levine, 1993). Also, different approach were put forward in these issues such as financial development may lead to high systemic risk. (Gai et al., 2008, Gennaioli et al., 2012).In a well-functioning financial system, thanks to new technologies and entrepreneurs, in a greater number of increased financial instruments and product diversity with financial institutions and organizations, widespread use of financial instruments and it’s channels, mobilization of improving resources through savings and ensuring the efficiency trigger off investments and the realization of economic growth and increase in productivity in real sector.Many variables are used in the previous literature as indicators of financial development. However, variables representing financial development need to be organized systematically. Cihak et.all, (2012), developed several measures of four characteristics of financial institutions and markets and financial developmentvariables were categorized as access (degree to which individuals can and do use financial institutions and markets), depth (size of financial institutions and markets), efficiency (efficiency of financial institutions and markets in providing financial services) and stability (stability of financial institutions and markets). Financial innovation was included by considering as a new internal dynamics of financial development in this analysis.Financial innovation defined as “the act of crafting and, then, popularizing new financial instruments, technologies, institutions, markets, processes and business models including the new application of existing ideas in a different market context” and concept of financial innovation used in the study, as an ongoing research and development for new products, services or ideas (Tufano, 2003), (Lerner and Tufano, 2011). When defining financial innovation, according to where innovation occur, the usual approach is to categorize it into three groups (Vargas, 2007), process innovation (new production processes that allow the provision of new or existing financial products and services), organizational innovation (establishing new institutions or organizational structures within institutions where the production process is held), product innovations (creation of new products or services to meet market needs) In view of the discussion in literature, this study investigates the new and existing links between financial development and economic growth. However, this paper differs from the existing literature because of using financial innovation as a new link between the relation financial development and growth. In this research, financial development was considered with four different dimensions categorized as financial depth, efficiency, stability and access shown on the Figure 1. There are several studies on research and development expenditure though they rarely focus on financial research and development expenditure. On that sense, this study is different from the previous studies by take into account of financial research and development expenditure by analysing impact on economic growth. By using the annual data accessed and collected from fourteen countries for the period of 2003-2016, functionality of the real sector and financial sector were analyzed through panel data analysis by including the financial innovation variable.This paper will proceed as follows. Literature review will be in Section II, Section III provides the data methodology and empirical works and results.2 Literature ReviewWith the evolvement of financial innovation in modern economies recently, discussions about pro and cons of financial innovation arouse in this field. Bara & Mudzingiri (2016) established the causal relationship between financial innovation and economic growth in Zimbabwe with financial time series data for the period 1980-2013, and find that financial innovation has a relationship to economic growth that varies depending on the variable used to measure financial innovation. A long-run, growth-driven financial innovation confirmed, with causality running from economic growth to financial innovation. Bi-directional causality also exists after conditionally netting-off financial development. Beck, Chen, Lin, & Song, (2016) use research and development expenditure data for financial intermediation industry as Financial Innovation proxy. OLS and also GMM estimators are used on bank, industry and country level data for 32 countries. They conclude that positive and significant relationship exists between, global growth opportunities of a country and higher level of financial innovation and GDP growth. As a result of study, they find evidence supporting pro and cons of financial innovation. Azimova & Mollaahmetoglu (2017) investigated the impact of financial innovation and services on savings and domestic savings building panel data analysis using twenty countries data for the period of 2005-2014. They conclude that level of financial innovation and financial access are important parameters affecting both gross savings and gross domestic savings. DeYounget al. (2007) noted evidence that financial innovation increases bank growth and in that way supports financial deepening. Laeven et. all, (2015) built Schumpeterian model where entrepreneurs earn profits by inventing better goods and profit-maximizing financiers arise to screen entrepreneurs. It predicts that technological innovation and economic growth eventually stop unless financiers innovate and suggest that regulations that stymie financial innovation can have an enduring, adverse impact on economic growth. On the other hand, Henderson and Pearson (2010) show that financial institutions engineered financial products thatexploited investors’ misunderstanding of the payoffs to these products. And, Allen and Carletti (2006) presciently warned that financial innovations such as securitization that transfer credit risk can hinder the effective screening of borrowers, boosting financial fragility. Financial innovations such as securitization change the ex-ante incentives of financial intermediaries to carefully screen and monitor the borrowers.The thought that research and development investments play an important role in the process of economic growth is extensive in literature. There are several studies on research and development expenditure though they rarely focus on financial research and development expenditure. Inekwe (2014), examined the role of research and development spending on economic growth for the period of 2000-2009 in the developping economies. By using dynamic system GMM, pooled mean group and three stage least square-GMM models, they found that the effect of research and development spending on growth is positive for upper middle-income economies while insignificant in lower income economies. Akcali and Sismanoglu (2015) analysed relation between research and development expenditures and economic growth using panel data analysis for 19 countries and from 1990 to 2013. Freimane and Baliņa (2016), investigated the empirical relationship between research and development research and development expenditures and economic growth in the European Union member states in the period of 2000–2013 with panel data regressions. The results show a statistically significant impact of research and development expenditures on the economic growth in the EU countries. Gumus and Celikay (2015) analysed the relation of research and development expenditure and contribution to the economic growth with comparing developed and developing countries. According to result; “research and development expenditure has a positive and significant effect on economic growth for all countries in the long run, but for developing countries the effect is weak in the short run but strong in the long run.” Some studies used patent data representing innovation. Hasan and Tucci (2010), using global patent data, investigated link innovation to economic growth based on a sample of 58 countries for the period 1980-2003. Their results indicate that countries hosting firms with higher quality patents also have higher economic growth and thosecountries that increase the level of patenting also witness a concomitant increase in economic growth.There are also many studies focus on relation between financial development and economic growth. Ductor & Grechyna (2015) analysed the interdependence between financial development and real sector output and the effect on economic growth. Using panel data for 101 developed and developing countries over the period 1970 to 2010, the effect of financial development on growth becomes negative, if there is rapid growth in private credit not accompanied by growth in real output. Pradhan et. All (2018) employed panel unit root and panel cointegration tests to determine the interactions between innovation, financial development, and economic growth in 49 European countries between 1961 and 2014. Their results indicate that there is the presence of a long-run equilibrium relationship between innovation, financial development, and per capita economic growth. Ciftci et all. (2016) is estimated long-run relationship for a panel of 40 countries over the period 1989–2011. They suggest that fostering the development of a country’s financial sector, economic growth will be accelerated.3 MethodologyWe employed panel data methodology to predict the effect of financial innovation on economic growth with financial development indicators. Panel data, have several advantages over cross-sectional or time-series data as it combines but it poses also a number of challenges. Main disadvantages of using panel data is difficulty of compiling the values of different units for the same variable and for the same time period. Cerna (2008) lists the the advantages of the panel data analysis as, “it reduces the multi-co-linearity phenomenon of the variables, increases the number of the freedom levels and, implicitly, the power of tests, therefore the trust level in the obtained outcomes, permits the construction and testing of certain behavioural templates more complex than the templates based on the analysis of the time serials or cross section structures, and permits a better analysis of the dynamics of the structural adjustments”.3.1Data and VariablesThe sample covers yearly data from 2003 to 2016 for a sample of 15 high-income and upper-income economies (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Czech, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and United States).The dependent variable is GDP growth (annual %) and explanatory variables are gross savings (% of GDP) and financial system deposits to GDP (%). The most challenging point in the paper was to find data related to financial innovation. We obtain financial research and development expenditure data from Analytical Business Enterprise Research and Development database (ANBERD) of the OECD. For the development of the financial sector, we use measure of domestic credit to private sector (% of GDP) variable represents financial depth, loans from non-resident banks (net) to GDP (%)variable represents financial access, bank overhead costs to total assets (%) variable represents financial efficiency and stock price volatility variable represents stability. Table 1 summarizes all variables and their sources.N is number of observations from 15 selected countries during period 2003–2016. Variable, financial system deposits to GDP (%) is, calculated using the deflation method, demand, time and saving deposits in deposit money banks and other financial institutions as a share of GDP. Another variable, bank overhead costs to total assets (%) is value of a bank's overhead costs as a share of its total assets. Stock price volatility is the variable that take average of the 360-day volatility of the national stock market index. Loans from nonresident banks (net) to GDP (%) is ratio of net offshore bank loans to GDP. And domestic credit to private sector variable refers to financial resources provided to the private sector (Global Financial Development Database, 2019).To decide between pooled OLS and fixed effects model or random effects model, we applied a LR and F test. LR test on the table 3 below shows that there is individual or time effects in the model. As we retest individual or time effect separately, According to LR Test result in the first column there is individual or time effects for both models. F test separately test the time and individual effects; second column shows that there is individual effect and third column test result shows that there is notime effect.3.2 FindingsThe fixed effects model with Driscoll and Kraay standard errors are appropriate for model due to models are heteroscedastic, auto-correlated up to a certain degree and possibly correlated with other groups. The robust estimation, fixed effects model with Driscoll and Kraay standard errors, presented table 2.We estimate a fixed effect model to analyse the interaction among variables. The empirical results on financial development are also consistent with the previous studies. According to the model the overall regression results are significant at 1 percent significance level (F test) and the R-squared coefficient indicates that financial development explains about 49% of the GDP growth in countries used in the model.We find statistically significant and positive relation between our new link financial innovations on the economic growth. This indicates that higher financial innovation is related with higher macroeconomic growth. The findings indicates that as a variable representing financial depth, domestic credit to private sector has a positive effect on economic growth while stock price volatility, represents financial stability, and volatility and Loans from non- resident banks (net) to GDP (%) has an negative effect. This findings are strongly parallel with former studies. Explanatory variables, financial system deposits to GDP and Gross Savings, are highly significant and positive effect on economic growth, which constitute the bridge between the financial development and economic growth as mentioned in the first section.4 ConclusionThis paper examines the effect of financial innovation on economic growth as another link alongside financial development represented with financial access, depth, efficiency and stability variable. By using the available data on the annual basis, collected from 15 countries for the period 2003-2016, the new and existing links between financial development and economic growth, have been analyzed through panel data analysis. Due to scarcity data of financial innovation time series for countries, this study could not extended a distinct model for each country and paneldata approach was employed.Unlike previous studies, financial development was considered with four different dimensions categorized as financial access, depth, efficiency and stability, and the financial innovation variable was included by considering as a new internal dynamics of financial development in the analysis.This paper empirically supports that financial innovation is another important link near financial development that leads economic growth. We find statistically significant and positive relation between our new link financial innovation and economic growth, indicates that higher financial innovation is related with higher macroeconomic growth. The results are mostly parallel with theoretical and empirical findings of previous studies.译文金融发展与经济增长之间的重要环节：金融创新Ebubekir Mollaahmetoglu，Burcay YasarAkcal摘要本文使用面板数据分析研究了金融发展，金融创新和经济增长之间的关系。
金融结构和经济增长关系外文文献翻译中英文
金融结构和经济增长关系外文文献翻译中英文2019-2020英文Financial structure and economic growth nexus revisitedLan KhanhAbstractThis paper empirically reassesses the long-debated relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Specifically, we examine whether the effect of financial structure on economic growth is affected by the occurrence of banking crisis and economic volatility, the level of financial development, and the financial structure disproportion. We employ the generalized method of moments estimation to a panel of 99 countries over the 1971–2015 period. Although the main result supports the market-based view, the positive effect of the securities market development relative to the banking system weakens significantly if the financial structure is unbalanced. Our findings are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks, including different measures of financial structure, time periods, and model specifications.Keywords: Financial structure, Unbalanced financial system, Economic growthIntroductionAlthough most empirical evidence demonstrates that financial development has a positive long-run impact on economic growth, there isno consensus in both theoretical and empirical evidence on the effect of financial structure on economic growth. Some theoretical models emphasize the benefits of bank-based financial system while others underline the advantages of financial system that rely more on securities markets. According to Levine (2003), the financial system as a whole has five functions to mitigate the problems caused by market frictions, including resource allocation, corporate governance monitoring, risk reduction, saving mobilization, and transaction facilitation. The four competing theories of financial structure, including bank-based, market-based, financial services, and law and finance view are constructed based on the role of banks and securities markets in providing such financial functions. We discuss them briefly below.The bank-based view criticizes the drawbacks of the securities market and stresses that banks can mitigate these drawbacks. A well-developed securities market quickly reveals information, reducing the individual investors' incentives to collect and analyze information. As a result, a well-developed securities market may hinder the process of identifying innovative projects that promote economic growth (Stiglitz, 1985). Uncoordinated market may be ineffective in monitoring managers due to asymmetric information, free-rider problem, and surreptitious relationship between boards of directors, large shareholders, and managers (Allen & Gale, 2000; Jensen, 1993; Stiglitz, 1985). Moreover,liquid securities markets may encourage myopic investment, leading to inefficient corporate governance and resource allocation (Bhidé, 1993).In contrast, the proponents of market-based view depreciate the role of banks in providing financial functions. A banking system with a huge influence over the firms and bias toward prudence can impede the firms from undertaking innovative, profitable projects (Hellwig, 1991; Morck & Nakamura, 1999; Rajan, 1992; Weinstein and Yafeh, 1998). A long-run relationship between banks and firms' managers can lead them to act against the interests of other stakeholders (Black and Moersch, 1998). Finally, a bank-based system may be only good in providing inexpensive, basic risk management for standardized situations, leaving the advanced services for flexible and complicated demand for the stock-based system (Levine, 2002).The financial services view argues that the issue is the overall development of financial system, not the particular institutional arrangements such as banks or securities markets. Banks and markets may act as complement rather than substitution in providing growth-enhancing financial services to the economy (Boyd & Smith, 1998; Levine & Zervos, 1998). La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, and Vinshy (1998) argue that legal system differences across countries determine the differences in the financial system. The legal rights and enforcement mechanism ensure the quantity and quality of servicesprovided by financial system, which then influence resource allocation and economic growth.In the early 21st centuries, a series of papers find that the financial structure is not relevant for economic growth (Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt, Levine, and Maksimovic, 2000; Beck & Levine, 2002; Demirguc-Kunt & Maksimovic, 2002; Levine, 2002; Ndikumana, 2005). However, recent papers with more technical econometric approach provide the contradicting evidence that financial structure does matter. Some of them are in favor of market-based view while the others claim that a bank-based financial system enhances economic growth (Demirgüç-Kunt, Feyen, and Levine, 2013; Castro, Kalatzis, & Martins-Filho, 2015; Liu & Zhang, 2018).In this paper, we re-examine the relationship between financial structure and economic growth, in terms of size, activity, and efficiency. However, our aims are different from the previous research and we make new contributions to the current literature in the following ways.First, we check whether the macro-economic volatility and banking instability affect the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999), Rousseau and Wachtel (2011), Schularick and Taylor (2012), and Ductor and Grechyna (2015) mention that macroeconomic volatility, financial, and banking crises caused by excessive financial deepening or rapid credit growthweaken the connection between the financial development and economic growth.Second, we propose that the relationship between financial structure and economic growth may vary according to the level of financial development. There has been a great number of research identifying that finance has a different impact on economic growth in different countries, regions, economic development levels, time periods, and financial development levels (Beck, Degryse, & Kneer, 2014; De Gregorio & Guidotti, 1995; Deidda & Fattouh, 2002; Huang & Lin, 2009; Rioja and Valev, 2004a, 2004b). De Gregorio and Guidotti (1995), Levine and Zervos (1998), Levine, Loayza, and Beck (2000), and Rioja and Valev (2004b) conclude that the impact of financial development on growth changes as the financial development level changes. They also point out several theoretical explanations for this relationship, including economies of scales, learning-by-doing effects, and the law of diminishing returns (Rioja & Valev, 2004b).Third, we investigate whether the effects of financial structure on economic growth in the balanced financial system are different from those in the unbalanced financial system. Previously, Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008)find that a more balanced financial structure is associated with higher economic growth. If there exists a difference, it can explain why some research concludes that the financial structure isirrelevant for economic growth.To achieve these objectives, we use a panel dataset of 99 countries over the period 1971–2015 and the system generalized method of moments (GMM) to estimate the impact of financial structure on economic growth. We employ two approaches of Levine (2002) and Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008) to measure financial structure and identify the unbalanced financial system. We allow for the interaction between the main variables of interest (financial structure indicators) and the variables that reflect macro-economic volatility, banking crisis, financial development, as well as the unbalancedness of the financial system.We obtain several interesting findings, which are stable in extensive robust analyses. First, financial structure activity and efficiency matter for economic growth but the size of financial structure does not. Second, banking crises and economic volatility do not significantly change the relationship between financial structure and economic growth. Third, the role of stock market over banks increases with the development of the financial sector. Fourth, the positive impact of higher stock market development relative to banking sector development is reverted if the country's financial structure is unbalanced toward stock markets. Although our result is in favor of the market-based view, it also implies that for a country to receive benefit from higher development in financialstructure, it must have a balanced financial system first.Literature reviewBased on four competing financial structure theories, there has been a growing number of literature on the effect of financial structure on economic activities. Overall, early research on the financial structure and growth nexus provide supporting evidence for the financial services and law. However, recent studies have verified that the financial structure, bank-based or market-based financial system, matters for economic growth.One of the pioneer studies on the financial structure and economic growth nexus is the seminar of Beck et al. (2000). In this paper, they use different methodologies for three cross-country-, industry-, and firm-level dataset to investigate the relationship between the financial structure and economic development. First, using a sample of 48 countries with data being averaged over the period 1980–1985, they find that the financial structure is not significantly related to economic growth while the financial development is positively correlated with economic growth. Second, the industry-level data of 34 countries and 36 industries indicate that the overall level of financial development, but not a specific structure of financial system, affects industry growth rate and the creation of new firms. Third, they use panel firm-level data from 1990 to 1995 to examine whether firms' access to external finance varies across financial systemwith different structures. Again, the result is similar to the above findings. Overall, firms do not grow faster in either market- or bank-oriented financial system. The financial development level and legal environment are critical determinants of economic growth. Demirguc-Kunt and Maksimovic (2002) use firm-level data from 40 countries to check whether firms' access to external funds for growth differs in bank-oriented and market-oriented financial systems. The result reveals that the effect of the financial development on firms' growth is associated with the development of a country's contracting environment. Moreover, the relative development of stock market over banking system is not a robust predictor of the firms' access to external financing. Their finding is consistent with the financial services and law views. A highly cited paper by Levine (2002) explores the financial structure and economic growth relationship under four competing theories, including bank-based, market-based, financial services, and law views. He proposes three measures of the financial structure, in terms of size, activity, and efficiency. Using a data set of 48 countries from 1980 to 1985, he finds that financial structure is not significantly associated with economic growth, capital allocation, and the individual sources of growth. This finding indicates that both bank-based and market-based theories are not relevant for economic growth but provides a strong support for the financial services view. Similarly, Ndikumana (2005) finds that thefinancial system development, not the financial structure, has a positive effect on the domestic investment. Beck and Levine (2002) investigate whether bank-based or market-based financial system has an impact on the growth, establishment of firms, and capital allocation efficiency across industries. The result does not support bank-based or market-based theory but the overall finance development and legal system efficiency are what matter for economic growth. Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008) criticize the common measurement of financial structure (proposed by Levine (2002)) and recommend a new measure of the financial structure's balancedness. The result indicates that a more balanced financial structure, in terms of the banking relative to the capital market, supports economic growth. Their finding implies the complementary rather than substitution relationship between banks and capital markets.In sharp contrast, recent studies employing the same data set, larger sample size, and longer period, indicate that the financial structure exerts a significant effect on economic growth. Pinno and Serletis (2007) investigate the potential for heterogeneity in the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth in Levine (2002)'s cross-country data set. They find evidence that developing countries benefit from the bank-based financial system while developed ones profit from the market-based financial system. Ergungor (2008)research on howthe financial system structure affects economic growth for 48 countries from 1980 to 1995, which are previously analyzed in Levine (2002). Ergungor (2008) employs a variety of financial structure, financial development, as well as economic, social, and political variables. The result indicates that the financial system structure matters for economic growth. Specifically, a bank-oriented financial system boots economic growth, especially the capital stock component, in countries with inflexible judicial systems. Baum, Schäfer, and Talavera (2011) study whether a country's financial structure affects the firm's obstacles in obtaining external funds. They follow Levine (2002) to use two measures of financial structure, size and activity. Employing the data of 5500 manufacturing firms from 35 countries over the period 1989–2006, they find that both financial structure activity and size play an important role in reducing obstacles to firm's access to external finance. Although the result supports the bank-based view, the authors emphasize that both banks and stock markets have their own pros and cons. Luintel, Khan, Arestis, and Theodoridis (2008) criticize the research, which employ multi-country, -industry, and –firm level dataset. They propose the use of time-series and dynamic heterogeneous panel method to overcome the problems of cross-country heterogeneity and unbalanced cross-country growth path. The result indicates that both financial structure and development are predictors of economic growth. Moreover,there is little support for Boyd and Smith (1998)'s prediction that the role of market based financial system rises as the economy grows.ConclusionThis paper re-examines the effect of financial structure on economic growth. We use a variety of financial structure indicators and macro-economic variables to examine the relationship between financial structure and economic growth under unbalanced financial system, economic volatility, banking crisis, and financial development level. We apply the system GMM estimation for a panel data set of 99 countries over the period 1971–2015.The main findings can be summarized as follows. First, a more market-based financial system, in terms of activity and efficiency, helps country to grow faster while a more market-based financial system in terms of size does not. Second, although banking crises and macro-economic volatility negatively affect economic growth, they do not affect the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Third, the role of stock market over banks strengthens with the development of financial sector. Fourth, although the results obtained are in favor of market-based view, the dominating role of stock markets over banks is deteriorated if the financial structure is unbalanced toward stock market. In other words, in a country with under-developed banks but well-developed stock markets, increase the development of the stockmarkets relative to banks do not significantly promote economic growth. Our results are robust to country groups, alternative model specifications, and other proxies for financial structure.Our results indicate that a more developed toward stock market financial system is definitely not always better for economic growth. Understanding the relationship between financial structure and economic growth in different economic and financial system conditions is very important to guarantee the effective role of financial sector in boosting economic activities. In the case of under-developed banking system, increasing the financial development toward stock market is harmful for economic growth. The policymaker should focus on the strategies to balance financial structure to maintaining the positive long-run economic growth. Our result also urges for future research that identifies the mechanisms though which the marginal effect of financial structure on economic growth changes from positive to negative.中文重新审视金融结构和经济增长关系Lan Khanh摘要本文从实证上重新评估了金融结构与经济增长之间长期存在的关系。
经济增长与金融发展方向的因果关系【外文翻译】
外文翻译原文The direction of causality between financialDevelopment andeconomic growthMaterial Source: Journal of Development Economics Documentos de Trabajo del Banco Central de Chile Working Papers of the Central Bank of ChileHuérfanos 1175, primer piso. 2002(10).Author: César Calderón Lin LiuAbstractThis 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) 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 sampling 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.IntroductionEver 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 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. 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 promote economic growth, or does economicgrowth 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 financial 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 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. 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 competing 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 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, there has been little empirical analysis of Patrick’s hypotheses, for eit her 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 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 Patrick 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 hypotheses. Previouscausality 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 from 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 causality 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 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 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).Second, 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 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-called Geweke decomposition test has been recently applied by Chong and Calderón (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 financial 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 contribution 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 V AR techniques, we test the existence of causality for all the directions mentionedabove (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 relationship 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 attracting 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, 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 that 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 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 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 result 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 ConclusionsThe 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 the case of supply-leading, policies should aim to financial sectorliberalization; whereas in the case of demand-following, more emphasis should be placed 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, financial developmentenhances 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 countries. 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 contributes 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 sampling 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 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 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 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。
金融危机对全球经济的影响中英文对照外文翻译文献
金融危机对全球经济的影响中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)金融危机对全球商业的影响目前，新的经济只是在部分工业化经济高度发达的国家初露端倪，在全球范围还属于萌芽状态。
不过这种经济的发展肯定对于世界政治和经济将产生越来越大的影响。
日本经济审议会1999年向日本政府提出对未来十年日本新经济计划的建议时说：“当前，世界文明正在发生变化，这一变化不是一般的‘进步’与“高度化”，而是要创造新的历史发展阶段的变化。
一直支撑战后增长的现代工业社会的规范已跟不上人类文明的巨大潮流。
在今后存在多种智慧的社会中，必须通过不断创造出新的智慧来搞活经济与文化。
为此，就必须能够更加容易地吸收世界的信息和知识，还要有更加容易向世界传递信息的环境。
同时，还必须拥有能够培养富于个性和创造性的组织和人才的计划和社会气氛”。
如果把上面所说的世界经济的变化加以概括，似乎可以说，未来经济有两大趋势：一个是经济知识化，表现为知识和信息成为经济发展最活跃、最重要的因素；另一个是经济全球化，表现为商品、劳务、资本、技术和人才在全球流动的加速。
这两大趋势相互联系、互相影响。
也可以说，新的经济将是以知识与技术创新为基础，以全球为市场的时代。
它将促使各国的增长模式、产业构成、经济体制、社会结构、教育制度、文化取向等产生深刻的变化，也将对各国的对内、对外政策提出新课题。
三、经济全球化的大趋势及其两重性经济全球化的发端似可溯源到二次世界大战后期布雷顿森林体制的创建。
世界银行、国际货币基金组织和关贸总协定三大机构的建立与发展，给全球金融、贸易与投资活动以极大的推动。
美元与黄金挂钩使美元成为国际流通与储备的手段，首先便利了美国企业向全球的拓展。
不过，冷战时期两个世界市场的划分又使经济全球化受到一定限制。
冷战结束后，经济全球化得到进一步发展。
主要有两股力量推动：一股力量是信息技术革命和高新技术成长的大大促进了商品、劳务、资本、人才、技术的全球交流。
经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文最新
经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文2019-2020英文Does economic structure determine financial structure?Franklin Allen，Laura BartiloroAbstractIn this paper, we examine the relationship between the structure of the real economy and a country's financial system. We consider whether the development of the real economic structure can predict the direction of evolution of a country's financial structure. Using data for 108 countries, we find a significant relationship between real economic structure and financial structure. Next, we exploit shocks to the economies in India, Finland and Sweden, and South Korea and show that changes in the economic structure of a country influence the evolution of its financial system. This suggests that financial institutions and capital markets change in response to the structure of industries.Keywords：Financial system，Economic structureIntroductionThe structures of financial systems vary among industrial and developing countries. In some countries, financial systems are predominantly bank-based, while in others they are dominated by capital markets. Only fragmented theories exist in the literature that explain the prevailing differences in country financial structures, which are definedas the mix of financial markets, institutions, instruments, and contracts that prescribe how financial activities are organized at a particular date.The existing studies explain the prevailing differences in financial structures using legal origin and protection, politics, history, and culture as factors. This paper considers the link between the real economic structure and the financial system of a country. Such a relationship is influenced by the funding sources for corporate investment that differ depending on firm and project characteristics (Allen, 1993; Boot and Thakor, 1997; Allen and Gale, 1999). Consistent with this theory, banks are more appropriate for the financing of traditional asset-intensive industries, whereas capital markets favour innovative and risky projects. One implication of this theory is that the real economic structure of a country, whether it is asset intensive or service oriented, could determine its financial structure. For instance, financial systems in countries such as Germany and Japan would remain bank-based as long as their economies are dominated by manufacturing industries. Contrastingly, the financial system in the United States will continue to be market-oriented as long as service and highly innovative companies constitute a large share of the economy. Consequently, the financial systems of the United States, Germany, or Japan will remain at polar extremes because of their economic structures even though the countries are at a similar stage of development.Robinson (1952) argues that financial intermediaries and markets emerge when required by industries. Consequently, intermediaries and markets appear in response to economic structure. The idea that the form of financing, and thus the country's financial structure, depends on the type of activity that firms engage in has not yet been directly addressed in the literature. To provide evidence of the hypothesis that structure and changes in the real economy determine the direction of evolution of a country's financial system, we first must distinguish the different financial structures across countries. However, although recent attention has shifted to a more systematic classification of financial systems, the literature provides only very broad measures and definitions for classification. Consistent with the literature this study classifies a country's financial system as either bank-based (the German or Japanese model) or market-based (the Anglo-Saxon model). In the bank-based financial system, financial intermediaries play an important role by mobilising savings, allocating credit, and facilitating the hedging, pooling, and pricing of risks. In the market-based financial system, capital markets are the main channels of finance in the economy (Allen and Gale, 2000).Our theory builds on Rajan and Zingales (2003a) who note that bank-based systems tend to have a comparative advantage in financing fixed-asset-intensive firms rather than high technology research and development-based firms. Rajan and Zingales (2003a) argue thatfixed-asset-intensive firms are typically more traditional and well understood, and the borrower has the collateral to entice fresh lenders if the existing ones prove overly demanding. As per Rajan and Zingales (2003a), loans are well collateralised by physical assets, and therefore are liquid; hence, the concentration of information in the system will not be a barrier to the financing of these assets. Conversely, the authors argue that market-based systems will have a comparative advantage in financing knowledge industries with intangible assets.Consequently, we suggest that countries with a majority of physical-asset-intensive firms, depending on external finance, will be more likely to possess a bank-oriented financial system. However, capital markets should develop more effectively in countries with firms that are based on knowledge and intangible assets. We test this hypothesis by identifying fixed-asset-intensive firms within the economic sector defined as industry by the standard classification system for economic activity. Conversely, in this study the service sector acts as a proxy for knowledge and intangible asset firms. The relative importance of the two types of firms in an economy will be represented by the relative volume of activity of the two different economic sectors. The standard system of classification for economic activity includes a third sector, agriculture. We classify agriculture as a physical-asset-intensive industry because land and agricultural machinery may be used as collateral and, therefore,we assume that firms in the agricultural sector will prefer bank financing over capital markets.We first present some historical evidence showing the nexus between real economic structure and financial system. In order to test our outlined hypothesis, we use a panel data set for 108 countries and employ both the panel OLS and a two-step generalised-method-of-moments (GMM) system. Additionally, we investigate the robustness of the results by introducing different additional control variables and testing the heterogenous effects. The results suggest that there is a negative and significant relationship between a country's economic structure (industry versus service sector) and financial system structure (stock market versus banking sector). In economies where the service sector carries more weight economically than industry and agriculture, the country tends to have a market-based financial system. In contrast, a bank-based financial system is more likely to emerge in economies with many fixed-asset-intensive firms.Next, we conduct event studies using the treatment effect estimation to isolate the endogeneity concerns. We analyse different types of exogenous shock to the structure of the real economy and its impact on financial structure. We employ three events that changed the economic structures of the countries and further investigate their impact on the financial structure using a difference-in-difference strategy. The firstevent is India's structural reforms in 1991 as a positive shock to the country's economy; the second one is the demise of the Soviet Union as a negative shock to the economy of Finland and Sweden; the third one is the economic reforms in the 1980s and early 1990s in South Korea. In India and South Korea we find that after the structural reforms of the economies, the service sector grew in relative terms and the stock markets in both countries experienced significantly faster growth than their banking systems, compared to the control countries. In Finland and Sweden we document that following the negative shock the service sector gained in relative importance, which was followed by the faster growth of the equity market in comparison to the banking system. Overall, the results of the three different event studies confirm our hypothesis that the relative importance of financial intermediaries and markets is determined by the industry needs of a country.The findings of this study are interesting from a regulatory perspective and lend insight into the development of financial structures worldwide. The main policy implications from this study are that financial structures should be evaluated in terms of whether they meet the requirements of the real economy and industries. Furthermore the financial structure cannot be changed as long as the economic structure does not change. The results provide insight into the reasons for limited capital markets growth in developing countries despite officialstimulation efforts from governments and multilateral organisations (Schmukler et al., 2007). According to our study of many developing countries, as long as economies remain relatively agriculture- and industry-oriented, any government effort to create or further develop a capital market is likely to not to be very successful. Additionally, any regulation that attempts to force a change in the financial system may result in a discrepancy in the economic and financial structure. Therefore, such efforts or regulations may introduce financial constraints that can further stall economic growth because financial structure influences output levels and economic growth (Levine and Zervos, 1998; Luintel et al., 2008).The real economy and finance nexusA number of explanations for financial structure exist in the literature; however, none are able to provide a comprehensive account of the observations. The first explanation is based on legal origin and investor protection. Levine (1997) builds on the work of La Porta et al. (1997, 1998); henceforth LLSV) stating that legal systems originate from a limited number of legal traditions: English common law or French, German, and Scandinavian civil law. In his study on financial development and economic growth, the author employs measures of creditors' rights and demonstrates that they may explain the emergence of bank-based financial systems. Modigliani and Perotti (2000) arguethat legal institutionsdetermine the degree of financial development and the financial structure of a country. They argue that market-based systems flourish in environments with strong institutions. Ergungor (2004) also attempts to explain differences in financial structure by examining legal origin across countries. His study presents evidence that countries with civil law financial systems are more likely to be bank-oriented than common law countries. In the author's opinion, this evolution is a result of effective rule of law in common law countries, which improves shareholder and creditor rights protection. A perspective has emerged in the literature that legal origin can be used to explain the structure of a financial system.However, Rajan and Zingales (2003a) argue that countries with a common law system did not rely on markets to a greater extent than civil law systems at the beginning of the last century. They report that in 1913, the ratio of France's stock market capitalisation to GDP was twice as high as that of the United States, which is a country that has an environment that favours capital market development according to the legal origin perspective. It is therefore problematic to argue that legal origin is the main determinant of financial structure. The view presented below is that both the structure of the financial system and the laws will adapt to the needs and demands of the economy. One example of this is branching regulation in the United States banking sector. Rajan and Zingales(2004) note that as technology improved the ability of banks to lend and borrow from customers at a distance, competition increased in the United States even when banks had no in-state branches. Politicians who could not prevent this competition because they lacked jurisdiction, withdrew the regulations that limited branching. Another example is the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had restricted banking activities in the United States since 1933. In this case, the introduction of the Financial Modernisation Act in 1999 followed the creation of the first financial holding company in the United States and removed past restrictions. Therefore, we argue that economic demand may enhance the evolution of the financial structures and of the legal system.The existing empirical results show also that legal investor protection may support financial development. For example, LLSV (1997) show that countries with poorer investor protection have less developed capital markets. Demirgüç-Kunt and Levine (2004) find that countries with stronger protection for shareholder rights tend to have a more market-based financial system. Djankov et al. (2007) investigate cross-country determinants of private credit and find that legal creditor rights are statistically significant and quantitatively important in determining private credit development, while there is no evidence showing that creditor rights are converging among legal origins. Moreover, Djankov et al. (2007) confirm that shareholder protection ispositively related to stock market development.The second explanation for financial structure is based on political factors. Biais and Perotti (2002) provide a theoretical model of government incentives to structure privatisation policy so that financial shareholders are diffused, which may be designed to ensure re-election. Additionally, Perotti and V olpin (2004)argue that established firms have an incentive to limit entry by retarding financial development, which may well impact the financial structure. Perotti and von Thadden (2006) use a theoretical model to demonstrate the effect of the distribution of income and wealth in democratic societies and their influence on the financial structure of an economy.Moreover, according to Rajan and Zingales (2003a, 2004) structures of the financial system are unstable and evolve over time. They argue that a financial system will develop toward the optimal structure but will be hindered by politics, which are often influenced by powerful, incumbent groups. Similarly, Cull and Xu (2013) argue that financial development is driven by political economy. In their opinion financial development may reflect the interests of the elite, rather than providing broad-based access to financial services. Song and Thakor (2012a, b) develop a theory of how a financial system is influenced by political intervention that is designed to expand credit availability. They show that the relationship between political intervention and financial system development isnonmonotonic. In the early stage of financial development, the size of markets is relatively small and politicians intervene by controlling some banks and providing capital subsidies, while in the advanced stage when the financial sector is most developed, political intervention returns in the form of direct-lending regulation.Industrial-level evidenceTo check the robustness of our main results we conduct a wide array of additional analyses; however, for brevity we do not report them in full. First, we check the consistency of the results after removing outliers. These outliers are eliminated after considering the scatter plot of the main financial and economic structure indicators. We eliminate those countries that fall particularly far from the regression line and then repeat the estimation on the new sample. After eliminating the extreme observations, we still find a significant and negative relationship between economic and financial structure. Second, we increase the set of explanatory variables and add variables for country GDP, inflation, area, latitude, dummies for landlocked economies, transition economies, or developing countries. Including these variables does not affect either the significance level or the sign of the estimated coefficients. Third, we divide the countries in the sample into two groups based on their membership in the OECD. We assume that countries belonging to the OECD are on average more developed than non-OECD member countries. Using the two separatesamples we compute again the baseline regressions. The results indicate that the relationship between financial structure and economic structure is much stronger in industrial countries than in developing countries. One possible explanation for this result is the different development stage of the financial system itself. In developing countries, the financial structure is emerging and adjusting to the needs of the real economy at the same time. Moreover, rapid changes in the financial structure are often caused by additional factors such as liberalization or political transformation. Conversely, in most of the industrial countries, we may assume that the financial system may already have an optimal structure, whereas changes are only caused in case of significant changes in the economic structure, which takes substantial time.Fourth, in the case of the OECD countries the data availability on the composition of value added for most of the industries allows us to calculate an alternative measure of economic structures, where we control for the firm asset characteristics in the given industry. In this analysis, the primary data source is the OECD STAN database for industrial analysis, which enables retrieval of gross value added for 47 industries representing nine main sectors of the economy in 25 countries. We divide the industries using firm specific characteristics from either an asset-intensive or knowledge sector, where we measured asset intensity as the ratio of tangible assets (property, plant and equipment) to total bookassets of the firm in the industry, whereas the company specific data was computed using data from the Bureau van Dijk's ORBIS database.According to our theory, asset-intensive firms with tangible assets may use the assets to collateralise their bank debt. Hence, in countries dominated by asset-intensive industries bank-based financial systems are more likely to emerge. In contrast, knowledge-based companies with a low level of tangible assets are often forced to use either equity or bonds to finance their needs. Therefore, countries dominated by industries with intangible assets are more likely to have a market-based financial system.Classifying industries as either asset or tangible asset intensive, where we distinguish industries using ratios calculated on firm level data, we again construct two alternative measures for economic structure and employ them in the basic regression. The results of those regressions are similar to those we have presented previously and the coefficients of the economic structure were again negative and statistically significant. Overall the robustness tests at the industry-level also confirm our findings on the link between economic structure and financial structure.ConclusionOur results provide new evidence concerning the causes and causality of the direction of evolution of the financial system structure. Using both OLS, dynamic panel techniques and event studies wedocument that the economic structure is closely linked to the shape of the financial system. We find that countries with asset-intensive sectors are more likely to have a bank-based system. Conversely, countries with sectors that are based on knowledge and intangible assets are likely to exhibit a market-based financial system. The results suggest that the structure of the real economy may influence the structure of the financial system. Additionally, even during systemic crises, such a relationship still holds. Moreover, we conduct event studies using a difference-in-difference strategy in order to address the problems of potential endogeneity. We use different shocks that alter the economic structures in India, Finland and Sweden, and South Korea. In all the countries the shocks resulted in significant development of the service sector relative to the industry sector. The changes in economic structure were followed by changes in the structure of financial system, where the stock market gained on importance relative to the banking sector. Consequently, the results of the event studies suggest a causal relation between economic structure and financial structure.In our opinion, these results present a missing link in the explanation as to why country financial structures still differ. The results, however, confirm that other factors may influence the structure of the financial system. Consequently, a financial system may not always have an optimal structure, which may be a result of political arrangements or the interestsof incumbent groups (Rajan and Zingales, 2003a,b). Therefore, we assume that financial systems may not always be able to reach their optimal structure. However, as existing barriers are removed the structure of a financial system may develop and gain ground, but it would be independent of further changes in the real economic structure. Finally, when the financial system has reached its optimal structure with respect to the characteristics of the real economy, our theory implies that any increase in the significance of fixed-asset-intensive sectors would lead to an increase in the role of banks with respect to the stock market.The main policy implications of the model are that despite efforts from governments and multilateral organisations, particular those from the emerging economies, country capital markets will not grow in size or activity as long as the economy remains asset-intensive. Therefore, governments should focus on improving the transparency or efficiency of the existing financial structure and less on the development of the stock market because the market will develop as soon as the economic structure changes. These results are consistent with Robinson (1952).Finally, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on the relative merits of bank-based versus market-based financial systems with respect to the promotion of economic growth. Our paper presents plausible explanations to Luintel et al. (2008), that financial structure matters with respect to economic growth.中文经济结构决定金融结构吗？富兰克林·艾伦，劳拉·巴蒂洛罗摘要在本文中，我们研究了实体经济结构与一国金融体系之间的关系。
外文翻译--金融发展与经济增长：观点和议程
本科毕业论文(设计)外文翻译外文题目Financial Development and Economic Growth: Views and Agenda出处：Journal of Economic Literature作者：Ross Levine译文：金融发展与经济增长：观点和议程一、简介：目标和边界经济学家对金融体系对经济增长的重要性持有不同的观点。
沃尔特·白泽特（1873）和约翰·希克斯(1969）认为他通过促进“巨大工程”的资本积累而在英国的工业化中起到了至关重要的作用。
熊彼特（1912）认为促进技术创新运行良好的银行通过识别和资金创业者以最好的机会成功地实施创新的产品和生产过程。
相反，琼·罗宾逊（1952）声称“企业领导金融随之而来。
”根据这个观点，经济发展创造了金融安排的特殊要求，金融系统自动响应这些要求。
因此，很多经济学家不相信金融—增长的重要关系。
罗伯特·卢卡斯（1988）断言金融因素在经济增长中的角色的“不好过应力”，而发展经济学家经常忽略表达了他们对金融体系的作用持怀疑态度。
比如，一本包括三位诺贝尔奖得主的“发展经济学，敢为人先”的散文收集，并没有提到金融。
另外，尼古拉斯·斯特恩（1989）提到发展经济学不需要讨论金融体系，甚至在一节中列出忽略的主题。
在这些相互矛盾的意见中，本文运用现有的理论来组织一个财务增长关系的分析框架，然后评估了金融体系在经济增长中的量化的重要性。
虽然结论毫不犹豫的指出，理论推理和实证证据表明了积极的优势，金融发展与经济增长的第一阶关系。
越来越多的工作导向了一个信念，甚至大多数持怀疑态度，金融市场和机构的发展是一个成长过程中关键和不可分割的一部分，从视图的角度，那些金融体系是一个无关紧要的枝节，被动地应对经济增长和工业化。
甚至有证据表明，金融发展能很好的预测未来经济增长率，资本积累和技术转变。
此外，越野，个案研究，行业和企业层面的分析文件表明，金融发展或缺乏关键影响经济发展的速度和格局。
外文翻译--股票市场,银行和经济增长
本科毕业论文(设计)外文翻译外文题目：stock Markets, Banks, and Economic Growth出处：THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW作者：Ross LEVINE AND SARA ZERVOS译文：股票市场，银行和经济增长一、摘要股票市场和银行对促进经济的长期增长是否有很好的作用？本文表明，当资本积累和生产力的提高在回归的时候一起进去的，即使在控制了经济和政治因素后，股市的流动性和银行业务的发展同时正向预测增长。
结果是一致的观点，金融市场提供重要服务的增长，而股票市场提供不同于银行的服务。
本文还发现，股市的规模，波动性，以及国际一体化并没有和增长有很多的联系，而金融指标都不是密切相关的私人储蓄率。
二、文献综述关于金融体系与经济增长间的关系也存在着一些争论。
从历史上看，经济学家聚焦于银行。
沃尔特·白泽特(1873)和熊彼特（1912）强调了银行体系在经济增长和突出的情况下的至关重要性，比如当银行能积极促进创新，通过确定未来的增长和资金效率投资。
相反，罗伯特E.卢卡斯（1988）指出，经济学家“不好过应力”的金融作用系统。
琼罗宾逊（1952）认为，银行被动地应对经济增长。
根据经验，罗伯特G.和莱文（1993年）表明，金融中介水平是一个很好的指标来反应长期经济增长率，资本积累和生产率的提高。
除了对银行的历史焦点，还有一个不断扩大的关于股市和长期增长间理论文献，但实证确很少。
莱文（1991）和瓦莱丽（1995）在更多的流动性股市下得到模型—该市场交易股票更便—减少不利因素投资于长期项目的时间，因为如果投资者在项目未到期钱想要他们的存款就可以很容易的卖出项目的股份。
为了提高流动性，因此，促进在较长期，高回报的项目上投资来提高生产力增长。
同样，迈克尔.B和格雷戈尔W.史密斯（1994）和莫里斯（1994）指出，更大的国际风险分担通过国际整合股票市场投资组合诱发从安全的，低回报投资转变到高回报投资，从而加快生产力增长。
Finance And Growth Schumpeter Might Be Right【外文翻译】
本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Finance And Growth: Schumpeter Might Be Right出处：The Quarterly Journal of Economics作者：Ross Levine; Robert G. king译文：金融与增长：熊彼特可能是对的摘要目前,我们报告的证据符合熊彼特的观点：即认为金融体系能够促进经济增长,以下我们将通过1960-1989年期间，80个不同国家的数据来呈现与其观点相一致的证据。
金融发展水平的各种评估方式与人均实际GDP的增长速度,有形物质资本积累率以及运效率的提高密切相关。
进一步来说,金融发展的组成部分与经济增长的同时,对未来物质资本积累和经济效率的提高具有一定的作用。
引言1911年，约瑟夫·熊彼特认为动员储蓄，项目评估，风险管理，监控管理以及促进交易等金融中介机构提供的服务在技术创新和经济发展的过程中起着重要作用。
戈德史密斯（1961）和麦金农（1973）的实证研究阐明了一些国家的金融和经济发展的紧密联系。
但却有无数有影响力的经济学家认为金融是经济发展中相对来说不那么重要的因素。
值得注意的是,罗宾逊（1952）认为金融发展仅仅是遵循经济增长。
最近，卢卡斯（1988）把金融和经济发展之间的关系称作“超负荷”。
本论文我们采用了1960—1989年间80个国家的数据，研究是否高水平的金融发展与经济发展是呈正相关的。
通过两组报告我们发现：第一组涉及了金融发展和增长指标之间的同期强度关系；我们研究1960年—1989年期间金融发展的平均水平与人均GDP增长的平均增长率和实物资本积累率，以及在同一时期改善经济效益速度的偏相关强度。
我们可以发现，在众多国家和政策的特点控制前后，高水平的金融发展与更快的经济发展速率、实物资本的积累以及经济效率的影响是呈正相关第二组发现是关注于金融发展和未来利率长期增长,实物资本积累以及经济效益的改善之间的关系。
外文翻译--金融深化与经济增长联系：面板数据分析
外文题目：Financial Deepening and Economic Growth Linkages:A Panel Data Analysis出处：Kiel Institute 2007作者：Nicholas Apergls,Ioannis Filippidis,and Claire Economidou原文：Financial Deepening and Economic Growth Linkages:A Panel Data Analysis1.IntroductionAcademic research on the finance-growth nexus dates back at least to Schumpeter (1911) who emphasized the positive role of financial development on economic growth. The contribution of the financial marketsto growth has received considerable attention with the emergence of the endogenous growth theory, however, the related literature started expanding vigorously especially after the seminal study of King and Levine (1993a,1993b), which revived the interest and gave a boost to a plethora of research.Broadly speaking, there are four views expressed for the finance-growth nexus. The first one is the supply-leading view, which supports a positive impact of financial development on economic growth. The demandfollowing view, which states that finance actually responses to changes that happen in the real sector or “where enterprise leads, finance follows”Robinson(1952). Somewhere between these two views is the one thatclaimsmutual impact of finance and growth.Finally, there are some studies arguing that there is no relationship at all.Despite the great deal of effort devoted empirically in disentangling theimpact of financial development on growth as accurately as possible, thereis still no consensus as to the existence, the level, or the direction of suchrelationship. Cross-country and, more recently, panel data studies show evidence of a positive impact of financial development on growth while time series studies, on the other hand, offer contradictory results. When it comes to time series studies, although one is able to identify the direction of causality and the nature of the I(1) variables is taken into account in the estimation techniques, there is always the possibility of misleading standard tests and unreliable results due to short length of data sets (Pierse and Shell 1995).Finally, panel data studies make a serious attempt to control for possible shortcomings of the previous two methodologies by accounting for other determinants of growth to avoid potential biases induced by omitted variables,correcting for simultaneity using instrumental variables and GMM dynamic panel estimator, and controlling for unobservedcountry-specific effects. However, they ignore the integration properties of their data. Therefore, it is not clear whether they eventually estimate a long-run equilibrium relationship between finance and growth or a spurious one offering thus misleading conclusions.To our knowledge, there is only one study so far in the finance-growth nexus literature that employs panel data cointegration techniques to investigate the nature of this relationship. Christopoulos and Tsionas (2004), use panel cointegration analysis to examine whether a long-run relationship between financial development and economic growth exists for 10 developing countries over the period 1970–2000. Their findings are supportive to a unique cointegrating vector between growth, financial development, investment share, and inflation, and to unidirectionalcausality from financial depth to growth. However, this study limits its attention only to few developing countries and employs only onemeasure of financial deepening.The present paper aims to contribute to the relevant literature in the following ways:i) On the econometric front, we make use of panel unit root (Im et al. 2003) and panel cointegration tests (Pedroni 1999) allowing for heterogeneity in coefficients and dynamics across units, which enable us to determine the long-run structure of the finance-growth relationship avoiding wellknown problems that occur in using traditional (time series) cointegrationtesting (low-power due to small samples). The cointegrating vectors are estimated using dynamic OLS (DOLS) procedure, which allows for consistent and efficient estimators of the long-run relationship, deals with the endogeneity of the regressors and takes into account the integration and cointegration properties of the data.ii)We attempt to resolve the issue of causality, i.e., whether better functioning financial markets exert a causal influence on growth or vice versa following the methodology of Pesaran et al. (1999).iii) We employ various measures of financial development in order to quantify the impact of financial depth on growth and, further, to examine the sensitivity of the results. The majority of the previous studies use a single measure of financial development and base their findings solely on it. But no measure is perfect, and further, there are many channels through which financial deepening could impact on growth and these channels cannot be explored by employing only a single indicator.iv) To control for possible omitted variable bias, we include a complete conditioning information set consisting of variables borrowed from the relevant literature.v)We use a large and heterogeneous sample of 65 countries (15 OECDand 50 non-OECD) over the period 1975–2000.Our findings indicate that there is clearly a positive associationbetween financial deepening and economic growth. Further, the resultssupport a bidirectionalcausality between financial deepening and growthfor the panelsof OECD and non-OECD countries. We conclude that policiesaiming atimproving financial markets (economic growth) will have, in thelong-run,a significant effect on economic growth (financialdevelopment).2.Model Specification and DataThe specification we use to test for cointegration and causality betweenfinancial depth and growth, is the following:it it i it i i it u X a F a a y ++++=210 (1)where yit is GDP per capita; Fit is a measure of financial development;Xit isa set of control variables, and uit is the error term.To address this concern, we examine the impact of three differentmeasuresof financial development. The first one is the liquid liabilitiesofthefinancialsystem(LL),which is defined as currency plus demand andinterest bearingliabilities of bank and non-bank financialintermediariesdivided by GDP (M3/GDP). This is the broadest measure of financial depthused, since it includes all types of financial institutions (central bank,deposit money banks, and other financial institutions). The secondindicator, bank credit (BC), is defined as credit by depositmoney banksto the private sector divided by GDP while the third one, private sectorcredit (PC), equals the value of credits by deposit money banks and otherfinancial institutions to the private sector divided by GDP.When it comes to the effect of government spending on productivitythis can be ambiguous as it depends on the nature of spending. According to Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), productive spending—spending on education, infrastructure or some other formof productive capital—promotes growth while non-productive spending could obstruct growth. Additionally to the notion of non-productive spending, we expect the coefficient of government size to be negative mostly due to the crowding-out effect: higher spending undermines economic growth by transferring additional resources from the productive sector of the economy to government, which uses them less efficiently.Finally, we include the volume of trade in order to measure the effect of openness to the rest of the world. Trade, either in the formof exports or imports, is a proxy of growth-enhancing interactions (specialization, exchange of ideas through exports or acquiring foreign technology through quality imports) among countries acting as conduit for knowledge dissemination,thus more open economies should exhibit higher growth rates.14 Therefore,the estimated coefficient on trade share in our specification is expected tobe positive.3.Econometric MethodologyWe employ panel cointegration techniques using the panel cointegration methodology developed by Pedroni (1999), which studies the properties of spurious regressions, tests for cointegration in heterogeneous panels andderives appropriate distributions for these cases. The Pedroni methodology allows one to test for the presence of long-run equilibria in multivariate panels while permitting the dynamic and even the long-run cointegrating vectors to be heterogeneous across individual members. Finally, we explore the causal links between financial development and economic growth usingthe methodology of Pesaran et al. (1999).The heterogeneity of the countries included in this data set is an issue ofconcern. In particular, the effects on the finance-growth relationship are expected to vary over time and across countries. Once heteroskedasticity is present, the data set cannot be pooled. Studies that do not explicitly test for cross-country heterogeneity in their samples raise some concerns over their findings.Given our variables are cointegrated, we estimate the long-run relationship using the dynamic OLS (DOLS) approach proposed by Stock and Watson (1993). It is well known that the OLS estimates of the cointegration regression equation are biased due to endogeneity and serial correlation.The cointegration results are reported in Table 3. The calculated test statistics reject the null hypothesis of absence of cointegration at 1 percent for the three groups of countries (OECD countries, non-OECD countries, all countries) and for the three indicators of financial development.Moreover,we notice substantially larger panel cointegration statistics in the group of non-OECDcountries, providing support to the proposition that amore perceptible and strong correlation between financial development and growth exists in the first and/or in the middle stages of economic development.4.Summary and Concluding RemarksThe paper investigates the causal linkages between financial development and economic growth in a large sample of 65 countries, both developed and developing, over the period 1975–2000.Overall, our results support a positive and statistically significant equilibrium relation between financial development and economic growth for all different financial indicators thatwe test for and in all groups of countries. When it comes to the auxiliary variables, human capital, investment share, and international trade, their impact on growth is found to bePositive and statistically significant while government spending exhibits a positive effect for the OECD countries, but a negative effect for the group of non-OECD countries.Further, the results indicate a strong bi-directional causality between financial development and economic growth. The implication is that policies aiming at improving financial markets and their functions will have, in the long run, a significant effect on economic growth. Such policies are especially important for the group of developing countries where the impact of financial sector development on growth is found to be stronger compared to that in industrial countries, underlying the significance of undertaking a number of reforms in the financial sector that could contribute further to economic growth.Finally, policies that foster macroeconomic stability, increased openness,investment in physical and human capital and productive governmentspending, and therefore improve economic growth, would also have animportant effect on financial development in the long run.外文题目：Financial Deepening and Economic Growth Linkages:A Panel Data Analysis出处：Kiel Institute 2007作者：Nicholas Apergls,Ioannis Filippidis,and Claire Economidou译文：金融深化与经济增长联系：面板数据分析1.简介自从熊彼特(Schumpeter,1911)提出金融部门提供的金融服务能促进经济增长提高的观点以来，大量的理论和实证文献相继出现。
经济增长与金融发展方向的因果关系【外文翻译】
外文翻译原文The direction of causality between financialDevelopment andeconomic growthMaterial Source: Journal of Development Economics Documentos de Trabajo del Banco Central de Chile Working Papers of the Central Bank of ChileHuérfanos 1175, primer piso. 2002(10).Author: César Calderón Lin LiuAbstractThis 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) 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 sampling 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.IntroductionEver 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 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. 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 promote economic growth, or does economicgrowth 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 financial 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 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. 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 competing 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 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, there has been little empirical analysis of Patrick’s hypotheses, for eit her 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 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 Patrick 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 hypotheses. Previouscausality 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 from 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 causality 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 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 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).Second, 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 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-called Geweke decomposition test has been recently applied by Chong and Calderón (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 financial 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 contribution 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 V AR techniques, we test the existence of causality for all the directions mentionedabove (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 relationship 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 attracting 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, 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 that 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 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 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 result 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 ConclusionsThe 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 the case of supply-leading, policies should aim to financial sectorliberalization; whereas in the case of demand-following, more emphasis should be placed 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, financial developmentenhances 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 countries. 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 contributes 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 sampling 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 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 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 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。
关于农村金融发展对经济发展影响的外文翻译
浙江财经大学东方学院毕业论文（或毕业设计）外文文献翻译译文：农村金融发展不会促进经济发展吗？来自尼日利亚的实证学生姓名邵林敏指导教师彭武珍分院信息分院专业名称统计学班级10统计2班学号10204302312013年12月10日农村金融发展不会促进经济发展吗？来自尼日利亚的实证摘要：强劲的经济发展是不可能没有金融深化的，尤其是在欠发达国家（最不发达国家）大多数民众居住的农村社区。
本文分析了农村金融发展对尼日利亚经济增长的影响。
本文选用了1980-2011年的时间序列数据，运用Johansen和Juselius的协整检验，以得出变量之间的长期关系。
因此，用动态普通最小二乘法（DOLS）方法揭示尼日利亚农村金融发展与经济增长之间的关系。
协整检验结果表明农村金融发展与尼日利亚经济增长之间存在长期关系。
此外，DOLS结果发现农村金融发展与尼日利亚经济增长之间存在显著的正相关关系。
它在这项研究中得到证实，农村金融作为全国经济增长的引擎。
因此，可以得出结论，提高农村生产力的信贷可以减免弱势创业者的负担，从而使他们能够对尼日利亚经济的发展做出最大的贡献。
此外，本研究建议除其他事项外，对于农村生产的信贷分配的障碍应减少到最低限度。
关键词：农村发展；信贷分配；金融发展1引言包容性增长的理念，促使第三世界的经济体发起，实现变化的政策和规划旨在将瘫痪的经济代理人转变成积极的人员来提高他们的经济增长。
尼日利亚政府也不例外，政府促进包容性增长通过尼日利亚中央银行（CBN）运用双广义目标金融包容策略。
首先，要将无银行帐户的民众绝大多数在农村社区成为金融体系的活跃成员。
其次，它也强调在农民负担得起的成本上，提高农村居民的信贷可得性。
不幸的是，在使用金融包容性策略如村镇银行和农业信贷保证计划等等，没有达到目标受益者。
一方面，一些确定为负责非洲农村金融市场的发展表现不佳的问题包括过度管制，监管不力和人才缺乏（Aliero，2009）。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
金融结构和经济增长关系外文文献翻译中英文2019-2020英文Financial structure and economic growth nexus revisitedLan KhanhAbstractThis paper empirically reassesses the long-debated relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Specifically, we examine whether the effect of financial structure on economic growth is affected by the occurrence of banking crisis and economic volatility, the level of financial development, and the financial structure disproportion. We employ the generalized method of moments estimation to a panel of 99 countries over the 1971–2015 period. Although the main result supports the market-based view, the positive effect of the securities market development relative to the banking system weakens significantly if the financial structure is unbalanced. Our findings are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks, including different measures of financial structure, time periods, and model specifications.Keywords: Financial structure, Unbalanced financial system, Economic growthIntroductionAlthough most empirical evidence demonstrates that financial development has a positive long-run impact on economic growth, there isno consensus in both theoretical and empirical evidence on the effect of financial structure on economic growth. Some theoretical models emphasize the benefits of bank-based financial system while others underline the advantages of financial system that rely more on securities markets. According to Levine (2003), the financial system as a whole has five functions to mitigate the problems caused by market frictions, including resource allocation, corporate governance monitoring, risk reduction, saving mobilization, and transaction facilitation. The four competing theories of financial structure, including bank-based, market-based, financial services, and law and finance view are constructed based on the role of banks and securities markets in providing such financial functions. We discuss them briefly below.The bank-based view criticizes the drawbacks of the securities market and stresses that banks can mitigate these drawbacks. A well-developed securities market quickly reveals information, reducing the individual investors' incentives to collect and analyze information. As a result, a well-developed securities market may hinder the process of identifying innovative projects that promote economic growth (Stiglitz, 1985). Uncoordinated market may be ineffective in monitoring managers due to asymmetric information, free-rider problem, and surreptitious relationship between boards of directors, large shareholders, and managers (Allen & Gale, 2000; Jensen, 1993; Stiglitz, 1985). Moreover,liquid securities markets may encourage myopic investment, leading to inefficient corporate governance and resource allocation (Bhidé, 1993).In contrast, the proponents of market-based view depreciate the role of banks in providing financial functions. A banking system with a huge influence over the firms and bias toward prudence can impede the firms from undertaking innovative, profitable projects (Hellwig, 1991; Morck & Nakamura, 1999; Rajan, 1992; Weinstein and Yafeh, 1998). A long-run relationship between banks and firms' managers can lead them to act against the interests of other stakeholders (Black and Moersch, 1998). Finally, a bank-based system may be only good in providing inexpensive, basic risk management for standardized situations, leaving the advanced services for flexible and complicated demand for the stock-based system (Levine, 2002).The financial services view argues that the issue is the overall development of financial system, not the particular institutional arrangements such as banks or securities markets. Banks and markets may act as complement rather than substitution in providing growth-enhancing financial services to the economy (Boyd & Smith, 1998; Levine & Zervos, 1998). La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, and Vinshy (1998) argue that legal system differences across countries determine the differences in the financial system. The legal rights and enforcement mechanism ensure the quantity and quality of servicesprovided by financial system, which then influence resource allocation and economic growth.In the early 21st centuries, a series of papers find that the financial structure is not relevant for economic growth (Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt, Levine, and Maksimovic, 2000; Beck & Levine, 2002; Demirguc-Kunt & Maksimovic, 2002; Levine, 2002; Ndikumana, 2005). However, recent papers with more technical econometric approach provide the contradicting evidence that financial structure does matter. Some of them are in favor of market-based view while the others claim that a bank-based financial system enhances economic growth (Demirgüç-Kunt, Feyen, and Levine, 2013; Castro, Kalatzis, & Martins-Filho, 2015; Liu & Zhang, 2018).In this paper, we re-examine the relationship between financial structure and economic growth, in terms of size, activity, and efficiency. However, our aims are different from the previous research and we make new contributions to the current literature in the following ways.First, we check whether the macro-economic volatility and banking instability affect the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999), Rousseau and Wachtel (2011), Schularick and Taylor (2012), and Ductor and Grechyna (2015) mention that macroeconomic volatility, financial, and banking crises caused by excessive financial deepening or rapid credit growthweaken the connection between the financial development and economic growth.Second, we propose that the relationship between financial structure and economic growth may vary according to the level of financial development. There has been a great number of research identifying that finance has a different impact on economic growth in different countries, regions, economic development levels, time periods, and financial development levels (Beck, Degryse, & Kneer, 2014; De Gregorio & Guidotti, 1995; Deidda & Fattouh, 2002; Huang & Lin, 2009; Rioja and Valev, 2004a, 2004b). De Gregorio and Guidotti (1995), Levine and Zervos (1998), Levine, Loayza, and Beck (2000), and Rioja and Valev (2004b) conclude that the impact of financial development on growth changes as the financial development level changes. They also point out several theoretical explanations for this relationship, including economies of scales, learning-by-doing effects, and the law of diminishing returns (Rioja & Valev, 2004b).Third, we investigate whether the effects of financial structure on economic growth in the balanced financial system are different from those in the unbalanced financial system. Previously, Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008)find that a more balanced financial structure is associated with higher economic growth. If there exists a difference, it can explain why some research concludes that the financial structure isirrelevant for economic growth.To achieve these objectives, we use a panel dataset of 99 countries over the period 1971–2015 and the system generalized method of moments (GMM) to estimate the impact of financial structure on economic growth. We employ two approaches of Levine (2002) and Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008) to measure financial structure and identify the unbalanced financial system. We allow for the interaction between the main variables of interest (financial structure indicators) and the variables that reflect macro-economic volatility, banking crisis, financial development, as well as the unbalancedness of the financial system.We obtain several interesting findings, which are stable in extensive robust analyses. First, financial structure activity and efficiency matter for economic growth but the size of financial structure does not. Second, banking crises and economic volatility do not significantly change the relationship between financial structure and economic growth. Third, the role of stock market over banks increases with the development of the financial sector. Fourth, the positive impact of higher stock market development relative to banking sector development is reverted if the country's financial structure is unbalanced toward stock markets. Although our result is in favor of the market-based view, it also implies that for a country to receive benefit from higher development in financialstructure, it must have a balanced financial system first.Literature reviewBased on four competing financial structure theories, there has been a growing number of literature on the effect of financial structure on economic activities. Overall, early research on the financial structure and growth nexus provide supporting evidence for the financial services and law. However, recent studies have verified that the financial structure, bank-based or market-based financial system, matters for economic growth.One of the pioneer studies on the financial structure and economic growth nexus is the seminar of Beck et al. (2000). In this paper, they use different methodologies for three cross-country-, industry-, and firm-level dataset to investigate the relationship between the financial structure and economic development. First, using a sample of 48 countries with data being averaged over the period 1980–1985, they find that the financial structure is not significantly related to economic growth while the financial development is positively correlated with economic growth. Second, the industry-level data of 34 countries and 36 industries indicate that the overall level of financial development, but not a specific structure of financial system, affects industry growth rate and the creation of new firms. Third, they use panel firm-level data from 1990 to 1995 to examine whether firms' access to external finance varies across financial systemwith different structures. Again, the result is similar to the above findings. Overall, firms do not grow faster in either market- or bank-oriented financial system. The financial development level and legal environment are critical determinants of economic growth. Demirguc-Kunt and Maksimovic (2002) use firm-level data from 40 countries to check whether firms' access to external funds for growth differs in bank-oriented and market-oriented financial systems. The result reveals that the effect of the financial development on firms' growth is associated with the development of a country's contracting environment. Moreover, the relative development of stock market over banking system is not a robust predictor of the firms' access to external financing. Their finding is consistent with the financial services and law views. A highly cited paper by Levine (2002) explores the financial structure and economic growth relationship under four competing theories, including bank-based, market-based, financial services, and law views. He proposes three measures of the financial structure, in terms of size, activity, and efficiency. Using a data set of 48 countries from 1980 to 1985, he finds that financial structure is not significantly associated with economic growth, capital allocation, and the individual sources of growth. This finding indicates that both bank-based and market-based theories are not relevant for economic growth but provides a strong support for the financial services view. Similarly, Ndikumana (2005) finds that thefinancial system development, not the financial structure, has a positive effect on the domestic investment. Beck and Levine (2002) investigate whether bank-based or market-based financial system has an impact on the growth, establishment of firms, and capital allocation efficiency across industries. The result does not support bank-based or market-based theory but the overall finance development and legal system efficiency are what matter for economic growth. Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008) criticize the common measurement of financial structure (proposed by Levine (2002)) and recommend a new measure of the financial structure's balancedness. The result indicates that a more balanced financial structure, in terms of the banking relative to the capital market, supports economic growth. Their finding implies the complementary rather than substitution relationship between banks and capital markets.In sharp contrast, recent studies employing the same data set, larger sample size, and longer period, indicate that the financial structure exerts a significant effect on economic growth. Pinno and Serletis (2007) investigate the potential for heterogeneity in the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth in Levine (2002)'s cross-country data set. They find evidence that developing countries benefit from the bank-based financial system while developed ones profit from the market-based financial system. Ergungor (2008)research on howthe financial system structure affects economic growth for 48 countries from 1980 to 1995, which are previously analyzed in Levine (2002). Ergungor (2008) employs a variety of financial structure, financial development, as well as economic, social, and political variables. The result indicates that the financial system structure matters for economic growth. Specifically, a bank-oriented financial system boots economic growth, especially the capital stock component, in countries with inflexible judicial systems. Baum, Schäfer, and Talavera (2011) study whether a country's financial structure affects the firm's obstacles in obtaining external funds. They follow Levine (2002) to use two measures of financial structure, size and activity. Employing the data of 5500 manufacturing firms from 35 countries over the period 1989–2006, they find that both financial structure activity and size play an important role in reducing obstacles to firm's access to external finance. Although the result supports the bank-based view, the authors emphasize that both banks and stock markets have their own pros and cons. Luintel, Khan, Arestis, and Theodoridis (2008) criticize the research, which employ multi-country, -industry, and –firm level dataset. They propose the use of time-series and dynamic heterogeneous panel method to overcome the problems of cross-country heterogeneity and unbalanced cross-country growth path. The result indicates that both financial structure and development are predictors of economic growth. Moreover,there is little support for Boyd and Smith (1998)'s prediction that the role of market based financial system rises as the economy grows.ConclusionThis paper re-examines the effect of financial structure on economic growth. We use a variety of financial structure indicators and macro-economic variables to examine the relationship between financial structure and economic growth under unbalanced financial system, economic volatility, banking crisis, and financial development level. We apply the system GMM estimation for a panel data set of 99 countries over the period 1971–2015.The main findings can be summarized as follows. First, a more market-based financial system, in terms of activity and efficiency, helps country to grow faster while a more market-based financial system in terms of size does not. Second, although banking crises and macro-economic volatility negatively affect economic growth, they do not affect the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Third, the role of stock market over banks strengthens with the development of financial sector. Fourth, although the results obtained are in favor of market-based view, the dominating role of stock markets over banks is deteriorated if the financial structure is unbalanced toward stock market. In other words, in a country with under-developed banks but well-developed stock markets, increase the development of the stockmarkets relative to banks do not significantly promote economic growth. Our results are robust to country groups, alternative model specifications, and other proxies for financial structure.Our results indicate that a more developed toward stock market financial system is definitely not always better for economic growth. Understanding the relationship between financial structure and economic growth in different economic and financial system conditions is very important to guarantee the effective role of financial sector in boosting economic activities. In the case of under-developed banking system, increasing the financial development toward stock market is harmful for economic growth. The policymaker should focus on the strategies to balance financial structure to maintaining the positive long-run economic growth. Our result also urges for future research that identifies the mechanisms though which the marginal effect of financial structure on economic growth changes from positive to negative.中文重新审视金融结构和经济增长关系Lan Khanh摘要本文从实证上重新评估了金融结构与经济增长之间长期存在的关系。