金融發展、經濟成長與所得分配

Abstract

一、金融發展對經濟成長的影響：動態門檻效果的分析\n\n本研究旨在探討於全球的架構下，各國金融發展對於經濟成長之關係為何？並且進一步探討銀行發展及股市發展是否對經濟成長有不對稱效果。對於過去相關文獻無法獲得金融發展與經濟成長間一致的關係，我們懷疑應與金融發展與經濟成長之間為非線性關係有關。延伸 Shen and Lee (2006) 我們將探討是否於金融發展與經濟成長間存在著銀行的門檻效果，並提出兩個假說，第一是「blessing-in-low-regime」，即在低度銀行發展區域，金融發展對於經濟成長有正面影響。第二是「curse-in-high-regime」即在高度銀行發展區域，金融發展對於經濟成長有負面影響。本文發展一個新的模型：dynamic panel threshold model (DPTM)是延伸Hansen (1999)的panel threshold model，認為經濟成長會受到自己上一期變數所影響，結果指出就銀行發展對於經濟成長的影響而言，在低度銀行發展區域支持「blessing-in-low-regime」；在高度銀行發展區域支持「curse-in-high-regime」。反之，就股市發展對於經濟成長的影響，在低度銀行發展區域並不支持「blessing-in-low-regime」;在高度銀行發展區域亦不支持「curse-in-high-regime」。\n\n\n二、金融發展與經濟成長的雙向因果關係\n\n本研究探討是否金融發展與經濟成長之間存在一項非線性的雙向因果關係，且此項因果關係是否受到金融發展以及經濟成長程度的影響。在全球的架構下，利用42個國家1976年到2005年的資料，使用一項新發展的計量模型：dynamic panel threshold model (DPTM)來探討此項因果關係。實證結果顯示，當使用銀行發展做為門檻變數時，在低度銀行發展區域，銀行發展對於經濟成長有正面影響，然而股市發展則對經濟成長有負面影響；而在高度銀行發展區域，銀行發展對於經濟成長的影響性則轉向負面影響，而股市發展則轉向正向支持經濟成長。相對地，無論在低度銀行發展區域或是高度銀行發展區域，經濟成長對於銀行發展皆有正面影響。最後，當使用經濟成長做為門檻變數時，本文發現金融發展與經濟成長的因果關係並未改變。\n\n\n三、金融發展如何影響所得分配？倒U型分配假說與線性假說\n\n本研究使用1976年到2005年42個發展中與已發展國家的資料，分析金融發展與所得分配的關係，並且進一步探討金融發展是否對所得分配有不對稱效果，隨著銀行發展程度的不同，其對所得分配的影響性將隨之改變。過去金融發展與所得分配的相關文獻提出兩項相對的理論假說，分別為Greenwood and Jovanovic (1990)的「倒U型分配假說」與Galor and Zeira (1993)的「線性假說」。本研究發展一項計量模型dynamic panel threshold model (DPTM)來檢驗這兩項假說。分析結果顯示，在低度銀行發展區域，股市發展將提升所得不均；而在高度銀行發展區域，股市發展則轉為減緩所得不均，支持「倒U型分配假說」。相對地，無論在低度銀行發展區域或是高度銀行發展區域，銀行發展對所得不均的影響性皆為負向的減緩效果，不支持「倒U型分配假說」，然而其對所得分配的影響性仍存在不對稱的門檻效果。

Essay 1:\nBlessing or Curse? The Role of Financial Development to Economic Growth\n\nThis study aims to investigate the asymmetric effect between financial development and economic growth by considering the threshold effect. Based on Shen and Lee`s (2006) findings, we examine whether the effect of financial development on economic growth depends on the threshold variable of bank development. Our hypothesis is that bank development is a blessing to economic growth at the low bank development regime, but it is a curse at the high bank development regime. To examine the “blessing-in low-regime” and “curse-in high-regime” hypothesis, we develop a dynamic panel threshold model (DPTM) to test this hypothesis. The DPTM is a direct extension of the non-dynamic panel threshold model of Hansen (1999). We conclude that the effect of bank development on economic growth supports the hypothesis. Nevertheless, the effect of stock market development on economic growth does not support the hypothesis.\n\n\nEssay 2:\nA Bivariate Causality between Financial Development and Economic Growth\n\nThis study hypothesizes that causal relationship between financial development and economic growth is not linear; however, it may be influenced by the level of financial development or economic growth. A new econometric method, dynamic panel threshold model (DPTM) is proposed to investigate conditional causality.\nHerein, the thresholds of “bank development” and “economic growth” are applied. When bank development is used as threshold in the low bank-developed regime, bank development is beneficial for economic growth. However, it poses adverse effects on the stock market. In contrast, in the high bank-developed regime, bank development exhibits an adverse effect on economic growth whereas the stock market manifests the opposite effect. Nevertheless, economic growth is beneficial for bank development in both regimes, though the influence is stronger in the low bank-developed regime. Results are robust when the income level of a country is utilized as a threshold.\n\n\nEssay 3:\nHow does Financial Development Affect the Distribution of Income? Inverted U-shaped Hypothesis or Linear Hypothesis\n\nThis study analyzes the relationship between financial development and income distribution using panel data from both developing and developed countries between 1976 and 2005. Specifically, we analyze whether financial development has an impact on income inequality and whether this impact depends on the threshold variable of bank development. We define the low and high bank development regimes when a country`s bank development is below and above the threshold and test two alternative hypotheses the “inverted U-shaped hypothesis” and the “linear hypothesis” with a dynamic panel threshold model (DPTM). The DPTM is a direct extension of the non-dynamic panel threshold model of Hansen (1999). We find little evidence to support the inverted U-shaped relationship between inequality and finance, the effect of stock market development on inequality supports the inverted U-shaped hypothesis. Nevertheless, the effect of bank development on inequality does not support the inverted U-shaped hypothesis. However, the relationship between financial development and income distribution is nonlinear.