4.7 Article

Natural resource abundance, technological innovation, and human capital nexus with financial development: A case study of China

Journal

RESOURCES POLICY
Volume 65, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101585

Keywords

Natural resource curse; Financial development; China

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [63192807]
  2. Tianjin Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project [TJGL18-003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The discourseon the impact of natural resource endowment and its effect on financial development has been an important research area in the last few decades. This study attempts to test the resource curse hypothesis in case of China for the period of 1987-2017. Unlike others, we introduce additional variables such as technological innovations, human capital, and trade openness into the finance demand function. We used an augmented Dickey-Fuller unit root test with and without structural breaks and Carrion-i-Silvestre et al.'s (2009) generalized least squares based test to examine the stationary properties of the variables. Similarly, to examine the presence of the cointegration relationship between financial development and its determinants, the Maki cointegration with multiple structural breaks approach is applied. The empirical results support the presence of the resource curse; that is, natural resources negatively affect financial development in China. Nonetheless, technological innovations, trade openness, and human capital affect financial development positively. The interaction of human capital and technological innovations is also positively linked with financial development. Our empirical findings have robust policy implications, highlighting the need to promote technological innovations and human capital development for effective use and management of natural resources to promote the development of financial sector.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available