4.6 Article

Does Financial Development Reduce the Poverty Gap?

期刊

SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH
卷 161, 期 1, 页码 1-27

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11205-021-02705-8

关键词

Poverty; Financial development; Income inequality; Poverty gap

资金

  1. ETH Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Financial development may impact poverty indirectly through income inequality and economic growth, with different effects observed when using different poverty lines. Financial instability does not seem to affect poverty directly, and the overall impact of financial development on poverty can be positive or negative depending on the strength of the indirect effects. These results are consistent across various robustness checks.
Financial development may affect poverty directly and indirectly through its impact on income inequality, economic growth, and financial instability. Previous studies do not consider all these channels simultaneously. To proxy financial development, we use the ratio of private credit to GDP or an IMF composite measure. Our preferred measure for poverty is the poverty gap, i.e. the shortfall from the poverty line. Our fixed effects estimation results for an unbalanced panel of 84 countries over the 1975-2014 period suggest that financial development does not have a direct effect on the poverty gap. However, as financial development leads to greater inequality, which, in turn, results in more poverty, financial development has an indirect effect on poverty through this transmission channel. Only if we use poverty lines of $3.20 or $5.50 (instead of $1.90 a day as in our baseline model) to define the poverty gap, we find that economic growth reduces poverty. This implies that in those cases the overall effect of financial development on poverty may be positive or negative, depending on which indirect effect, i.e. that of income inequality or growth, is stronger. Financial instability does not seem to affect the poverty gap. These results are consistent across various robustness checks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据