3.8 Article

Trade liberalization, financial modernization and economic development: An empirical study of selected Asia-Pacific countries

Journal

RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS
Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 343-355

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rie.2017.03.001

Keywords

Trade liberalization; Financial modernization; Economic development; Panel data analysis; Asia and Pacific region

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the relationship between trade liberalization, financial modernization and economic development for 14 countries in the Asia and Pacific region over the period spanning from 1961 to 2011. The study uses panel data as they have many advantages over cross-sectional or time series data. In addition to analyzing the full panel, we also divide the 14 countries under study into two sub-samples: high-income countries and middle-income countries, based on World Bank's income classification as of 1st July 2013. The panel cointegration tests show a long run relationship between the above variables. The study uses Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS) method to estimate the models and then conducts Granger causality tests to identify patterns of causation among the variables of interest. In general, the results indicate unidirectional causality (1) from financial modernization to economic development for the entire panel and the panel of middle-income countries; (2) from trade liberalization to economic development for the whole panel as well as two subpanels of high-income and middle-income countries; and (3) from trade liberalization to financial modernization for the whole panel as well as two subpanels. The findings of this study support that the actual effect of financial depth on economic development (and vice versa) seems to depend on the level of financial development. (C) 2017 University of Venice. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available