基于制度互补效应的金融自由化对经常账户的影响:一个全球性的证据

Nouman Mustafa, D. Siddiqui
{"title":"基于制度互补效应的金融自由化对经常账户的影响:一个全球性的证据","authors":"Nouman Mustafa, D. Siddiqui","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3681330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Financial Liberalization in recent years is seen as a driver of economic growth. However, at the same time, many authors have argued that free capital mobility produces macroeconomic instability and contributes to financial vulnerability in emerging nations. For example, Stiglitz (2002) has argued that pressuring emerging and transition countries to relax controls on capital mobility during the 1990s was a huge mistake. The questions remain why some countries benefit from liberalization while some do not. We proposed that governance institutions may be the deciding factor in this regard. Where institutions' quality is weak, most of the foreign investment would be opportunistic and short term in nature, hence would huge outflows later on after liberalization. However, in the case of strong institutions, the investment would be in long term Greenfield projects, leading to sustainable returns. In this way surplus funds would be reinvested, relieving the pressure from the current account in the long run. To establish its empirical validity, an econometric analysis was performed, using data of 50 countries (40 developing) from 2009 to 2018. KAOPEN (Capital account openness based on IMF’s Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restriction) was used as a proxy for financial liberalization along with institutions (WGI), and their impact on Current account (CA) was assessed using other variables like Inflation (CPI), Trade Openness (exports and imports as % of GDP), financial development (Deposit to GDP), and real GDP as control. The results suggested that liberalization seems to have a negative but insignificant effect on the Current account. Whereas, Institutions have a significant and positive effect. However, the interaction effect showed a negative complementarity of institutions in liberalization and CA relationship. This implies that strong institutions not only promote CA inflow ever in the long run but also decrease the effect of legalization on CA, meaning if the effect is negative, institutions would decrease its severity. Other interesting findings suggested that financial development has a negative and significant effect on CA. Hence, institutions seem to act as a crucial factor in solving the liberalization puzzle, and developing countries should make their governance institutions strong before opening up to the world.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Financial Liberalization on Current Account with Complementary Effect of Institution: A Global Evidence\",\"authors\":\"Nouman Mustafa, D. Siddiqui\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3681330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Financial Liberalization in recent years is seen as a driver of economic growth. However, at the same time, many authors have argued that free capital mobility produces macroeconomic instability and contributes to financial vulnerability in emerging nations. For example, Stiglitz (2002) has argued that pressuring emerging and transition countries to relax controls on capital mobility during the 1990s was a huge mistake. The questions remain why some countries benefit from liberalization while some do not. We proposed that governance institutions may be the deciding factor in this regard. Where institutions' quality is weak, most of the foreign investment would be opportunistic and short term in nature, hence would huge outflows later on after liberalization. However, in the case of strong institutions, the investment would be in long term Greenfield projects, leading to sustainable returns. In this way surplus funds would be reinvested, relieving the pressure from the current account in the long run. To establish its empirical validity, an econometric analysis was performed, using data of 50 countries (40 developing) from 2009 to 2018. KAOPEN (Capital account openness based on IMF’s Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restriction) was used as a proxy for financial liberalization along with institutions (WGI), and their impact on Current account (CA) was assessed using other variables like Inflation (CPI), Trade Openness (exports and imports as % of GDP), financial development (Deposit to GDP), and real GDP as control. The results suggested that liberalization seems to have a negative but insignificant effect on the Current account. Whereas, Institutions have a significant and positive effect. However, the interaction effect showed a negative complementarity of institutions in liberalization and CA relationship. This implies that strong institutions not only promote CA inflow ever in the long run but also decrease the effect of legalization on CA, meaning if the effect is negative, institutions would decrease its severity. Other interesting findings suggested that financial development has a negative and significant effect on CA. Hence, institutions seem to act as a crucial factor in solving the liberalization puzzle, and developing countries should make their governance institutions strong before opening up to the world.\",\"PeriodicalId\":103245,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3681330\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3681330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,金融自由化被视为经济增长的推动力。然而,与此同时,许多作者认为,资本自由流动造成宏观经济不稳定,并加剧了新兴国家的金融脆弱性。例如,斯蒂格利茨(2002)认为,在20世纪90年代向新兴和转型国家施压,要求其放松对资本流动的控制是一个巨大的错误。问题仍然存在,为什么有些国家从自由化中受益,而有些国家却没有。我们提出,治理制度可能是这方面的决定性因素。在机构质量较弱的地方,大多数外资都是机会主义的、短期的,因此在自由化之后会出现大量流出。然而,在实力雄厚的机构中,投资将是长期的绿地项目,从而带来可持续的回报。通过这种方式,盈余资金将被用于再投资,从长远来看,将缓解经常账户的压力。为了验证其实证有效性,本文利用2009年至2018年50个国家(其中40个为发展中国家)的数据进行了计量分析。KAOPEN(基于国际货币基金组织的外汇安排和外汇限制的资本账户开放)被用作金融自由化和机构(WGI)的代理,它们对经常账户(CA)的影响使用其他变量进行评估,如通货膨胀(CPI)、贸易开放(出口和进口占GDP的百分比)、金融发展(存款占GDP)和实际GDP作为控制。结果表明,自由化似乎对经常账户有负面但不显著的影响。而制度则具有显著的积极作用。然而,相互作用效应在自由化和CA关系中表现为制度的负互补。这意味着,从长期来看,强大的制度不仅促进了CA的流入,而且还降低了合法化对CA的影响,即如果影响是负面的,制度会降低其严重性。其他有趣的发现表明,金融发展对CA有负面和显著的影响。因此,制度似乎是解决自由化难题的关键因素,发展中国家应该在向世界开放之前建立强大的治理制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact of Financial Liberalization on Current Account with Complementary Effect of Institution: A Global Evidence
Financial Liberalization in recent years is seen as a driver of economic growth. However, at the same time, many authors have argued that free capital mobility produces macroeconomic instability and contributes to financial vulnerability in emerging nations. For example, Stiglitz (2002) has argued that pressuring emerging and transition countries to relax controls on capital mobility during the 1990s was a huge mistake. The questions remain why some countries benefit from liberalization while some do not. We proposed that governance institutions may be the deciding factor in this regard. Where institutions' quality is weak, most of the foreign investment would be opportunistic and short term in nature, hence would huge outflows later on after liberalization. However, in the case of strong institutions, the investment would be in long term Greenfield projects, leading to sustainable returns. In this way surplus funds would be reinvested, relieving the pressure from the current account in the long run. To establish its empirical validity, an econometric analysis was performed, using data of 50 countries (40 developing) from 2009 to 2018. KAOPEN (Capital account openness based on IMF’s Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restriction) was used as a proxy for financial liberalization along with institutions (WGI), and their impact on Current account (CA) was assessed using other variables like Inflation (CPI), Trade Openness (exports and imports as % of GDP), financial development (Deposit to GDP), and real GDP as control. The results suggested that liberalization seems to have a negative but insignificant effect on the Current account. Whereas, Institutions have a significant and positive effect. However, the interaction effect showed a negative complementarity of institutions in liberalization and CA relationship. This implies that strong institutions not only promote CA inflow ever in the long run but also decrease the effect of legalization on CA, meaning if the effect is negative, institutions would decrease its severity. Other interesting findings suggested that financial development has a negative and significant effect on CA. Hence, institutions seem to act as a crucial factor in solving the liberalization puzzle, and developing countries should make their governance institutions strong before opening up to the world.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pragmatic Literary Theories and WTO Treaty Interpretation Clearing the fog: Forest Stewardship Council labelling and the World Trade Organization ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ ТОРГОВИХ ЗВИЧАЇВ У МІЖНАРОДНИХ КОМЕРЦІЙНИХ АРБІТРАЖНИХ СПОРАХ (Peculiarities of Trade Usages Application in International Commercial Arbitration Disputes) Is it Time for India to Adopt the Convention on the Sale of Goods? Impact of Financial Liberalization on Current Account with Complementary Effect of Institution: A Global Evidence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1