外文翻譯--金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長聯(lián)系面板數(shù)據(jù)分析（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1600單詞，9600英文字符，1650漢字</p><p>　　出 處： Review of World Economics, 2007, 143(1):179-198. </p><p>　　作 者： Nicholas Apergls,Ioannis Fil

2、ippidis,and Claire Economidou </p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Financial Deepening and Economic Growth Linkages: A Panel Data Analysis</p><

3、p>　　1.Introduction</p><p>　　Academic 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 contrib

4、ution of the financial markets to growth has received considerable attention with the emergence of the endogenous growth theory, however, the related literature started expanding vigorously especially after the seminal s

5、tudy of King and Levine (1993a,1993b), which revived the interest and gave a boost to a plethora of rese</p><p>　　Broadly speaking, there are four views expressed for the finance-growth nexus. The first one

6、is the supply-leading view, which supports a positive impact of financial development on economic growth. The demand following view, which states that finance actually responses to changes that happen in the real sector

7、or “where enterprise leads, finance follows” Robinson(1952). Somewhere between these two views is the one that claimsmutual impact of finance and growth. Finally, there are some studies a</p><p>　　Despite th

8、e great deal of effort devoted empirically in disentangling the impact of financial development on growth as accurately as possible, there is still no consensus as to the existence, the level, or the direction of such re

9、lationship. 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.</p>

10、<p>　　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 p

11、ossibility of misleading standard tests and unreliable results due to short length of data sets (Pierse and Shell 1995).</p><p>　　Finally, panel data studies make a serious attempt to control for possible sh

12、ortcomings 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

13、 panel estimator, and controlling for unobserved country-specific effects. However, they ignore the integration properties of their data. Therefore, it is not clear whether they eventually estimate a lon</p><p

14、>　　To our knowledge, there is only one study so far in the finance-growth</p><p>　　nexus literature that employs panel data cointegration techniques to investigate the nature of this relationship. Christo

15、poulos 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

16、 findings are supportive to a unique cointegrating vector between growth, financial development, investment share, and inflation, and to unidirectional causali</p><p>　　The present paper aims to contribute t

17、o the relevant literature in the</p><p>　　following ways:</p><p>　　i) On the econometric front, we make use of panel unit root (Im et al.2003) and panel cointegration tests (Pedroni 1999) allowi

18、ng for heterogeneity in coefficients and dynamics across units, which enable us to determine the long-run structure of the finance-growth relationship avoiding well known problems that occur in using traditional (time se

19、ries) cointegration testing (low-power due to small samples). The cointegrating vectors are estimated using dynamic OLS (DOLS) procedure, which allows fo</p><p>　　ii)We attempt to resolve the issue of causal

20、ity, i.e., whether better functioning financial markets exert a causal influence on growth or vice versa following the methodology of Pesaran et al. (1999).</p><p>　　iii) We employ various measures of financ

21、ial development in order to</p><p>　　quantify the impact of financial depth on growth and, further, to examine</p><p>　　the sensitivity of the results. The majority of the previous studies use a

22、 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 c

23、annot be explored by employing only a single indicator.</p><p>　　iv) To control for possible omitted variable bias, we include a complete conditioning information set consisting of variables borrowed from th

24、e relevant literature.</p><p>　　v)We use a large and heterogeneous sample of 65 countries (15 OECD and 50 non-OECD) over the period 1975–2000.</p><p>　　Our findings indicate that there is clearl

25、y a positive association between financial deepening and economic growth. Further, the results support a bidirectional causality between financial deepening and growth for the panels of OECD and non-OECD countries. We co

26、nclude that policies aiming at improving financial markets (economic growth) will have, in the long-run, a significant effect on economic growth (financial development).</p><p>　　2.Model Specification and Da

27、ta</p><p>　　The specification we use to test for cointegration and causality between</p><p>　　financial depth and growth, is the following:</p><p><b>　　(1)</b></p>

28、<p>　　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.</p><p>　　To address this concern, we examine the impact of th

29、ree different measures of financial development. The first one is the liquid liabilities of the financial system(LL),which is defined as currency plus demand and interest bearing liabilities of bank and non-bank financia

30、l intermediaries divided by GDP (M3/GDP). This is the broadest measure of financial depth used, since it includes all types of financial institutions (central bank, deposit money banks, and other financial institutions).

31、 The sec</p><p>　　When it comes to the effect of government spending on productivity this can be ambiguous as it depends on the nature of spending. According to Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), productive spe

32、nding—spending on education, infrastructure or some other form of productive capital—promotes growth while non-productive spending could obstruct growth. Additionally to the notion of non-productive spending, we expect t

33、he coefficient of government size to be negative mostly due to the crowding-out effect: hig</p><p>　　Finally, we include the volume of trade in order to measure the effect of openness to the rest of the worl

34、d. Trade, either in the form of 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

35、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 speci</p><p>　　3.Econometric Methodolo

36、gy</p><p>　　We employ panel cointegration techniques using the panel cointegration</p><p>　　methodology developed by Pedroni (1999), which studies the properties of</p><p>　　spuriou

37、s 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 pane

38、ls 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 using the

39、methodology of Pesaran et al. (1999).The heterogeneit</p><p>　　4. Summary and Concluding Remarks</p><p>　　The paper investigates the causal linkages between financial development and economic gr

40、owth 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 an

41、d economic growth for all different financial indicators that we test for and in all groups of countries.</p><p>　　When it comes to the auxiliary variables, human capital, investment share, and international

42、 trade, their impact on growth is found to be Positive 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.

43、</p><p>　　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 f

44、unctions 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 fou

45、nd to be stronger compared to that in industrial countries, underlying the signific</p><p>　　Finally, policies that foster macroeconomic stability, increased openness, investment in physical and human capita

46、l and productive government spending, and therefore improve economic growth, would also have an important effect on financial development in the long run.</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>

47、　　金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長聯(lián)系：面板數(shù)據(jù)分析</p><p><b>　　1.簡介</b></p><p>　　自從熊彼特(Schumpeter,1911)提出金融部門提供的金融服務能促進經(jīng)濟增長提高的觀點以來，大量的理論和實證文獻相繼出現(xiàn)。20世紀90年代經(jīng)濟學家們使用跨國經(jīng)驗證據(jù)表明，金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長之間存在著顯著的正相關性（King and Levine,1993

48、）,這些數(shù)據(jù)激發(fā)了經(jīng)濟學家對二者相關性的研究興趣。在金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長關系中有四種主要觀點，第一種即認為金融深化對經(jīng)濟增長正相關，相反的認為經(jīng)濟增長作用主要依賴于實體經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展（Robinson，1952），還有一種觀點認為金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長是享福影響促進的關系，最后一種觀點認為二者之間無關。</p><p>　　本文的目的在于審視金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長之間的關系性質，在考慮到新型的經(jīng)濟學技術的應用下，利用面板模型協(xié)

49、整關系以及完整的修正數(shù)據(jù)，分析長期關系，研究金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長在發(fā)展中國家的10年數(shù)據(jù)，包括投資率，通貨膨脹率，堅持單向因果關系在金融深度中得到更好的發(fā)展，但是，這項研究只注意了部分發(fā)展中國家，缺乏一定的普遍性。</p><p>　　2.本論文的研究方法及結構</p><p>　　從計量經(jīng)濟學的角度，我們利用面板單位根（Im et al.2003）以及面板協(xié)整關系測試（Pedronic19

50、99），在該測試中，允許系數(shù)的多樣性以及動態(tài)分析，從而決定在傳統(tǒng)時間序列中出現(xiàn)的協(xié)整問題。同時，采用OLS估計，使其保持一致且有效地長期估計量關系。</p><p>　　我們試圖解決金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長之間的關系能否更好地運作，以及金融市場對經(jīng)濟增長產(chǎn)生原因及影響，在這一過程中會使用Pesaran的方法論。</p><p>　　我們使用各項措施使金融深化量化，進而對經(jīng)濟增長和檢測敏感性提供依

51、據(jù)。以前，大多數(shù)的研究只考慮到單一金融發(fā)展措施對經(jīng)濟增長作用的研究，但是，影響經(jīng)濟增長的因素很多，若只采用單一指標，實證結果可信度將下降。</p><p>　　為了控制變量偏差，我們將借鑒相關文獻的數(shù)據(jù)研究和結果。</p><p>　　我們使用15個經(jīng)合組織成員國及50個非經(jīng)合組織從1975年到2000年的數(shù)據(jù)，我們的研究顯示，金融深化程度與經(jīng)濟增長之間存在著雙向因果關系。</p&g

52、t;<p><b>　　3.模型設定和數(shù)據(jù)</b></p><p>　　使用以下的數(shù)據(jù)模型及因果關系衡量金融深化水平：</p><p><b>　?。?）</b></p><p>　　其中：表示每單位資本的GDP；代表金融發(fā)展水平；代表一系列可控制變量，代表誤差。</p><p>　　

53、根據(jù)不同的財務性指標水平，測出來的金融深化的影響對經(jīng)濟增長的效果也各不同。我們衡量了三種對金融發(fā)展不同影響效果的指標。第一種是金融體系中的流動負債率包括貨幣，活期存款以及有銀行機構和非銀行金融機構使用的（M3/GDP）產(chǎn)生的利息。這一指標是最廣泛的指標，包括所有的類型的金融機構。第二個指標，銀行的信用，指信銀行儲蓄到私人部門的存款除以GDP在第三方即私營企業(yè)信用等于由存款的銀行和其他金融機構私營部門的信用價值除以GDP。</p&g

54、t;<p>　　最后，我們衡量了貿(mào)易額對經(jīng)濟增長的作用，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，通過專業(yè)化渠道，在更加開放的經(jīng)濟體中，經(jīng)濟增長的效果更明顯。</p><p><b>　　4.方法論</b></p><p>　　使用黃旭平（1999）開發(fā)的性能研究，利用面板協(xié)整關系進行回歸分析，在混合面板中測試和推導出適當?shù)姆植迹詈?，利用pesaran的方法論學探索金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長

55、之間的因果聯(lián)系。動態(tài)的非均質性，即在國家中隨著時間變化的攔截變化，在各類相關的變量中可以審查使用標準的Chow-type-F-test。估計面板協(xié)整關系，估算cointegrated之間的長期關系，使用動態(tài)樣本進行估計回歸，但由于外生序列相關性，所以在DOLS估計中，加入初始協(xié)整方程是偏差得以修正。最后一步的研究方向包括面板數(shù)據(jù)因果關系，因此需要厘清誤差修正VAR模型形式。</p><p><b>　　

56、5.總結</b></p><p>　　本文探討了金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長之間的因果聯(lián)系，采用了65個國家從1975年到2000年的數(shù)據(jù)樣本，經(jīng)過一段時間的研究，我們得出的研究結果認為，在利用不同的財務指標測試的國家中，金融發(fā)展與經(jīng)濟增長之間存在著正相關且從統(tǒng)計學角度看，是顯著性平衡關系。同時，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)輔助變量、人力資本、投資份額、國際貿(mào)易在經(jīng)濟增長中起著重要的作用。此外，金融深化與經(jīng)濟增長作用的雙向因果關系