Download - Finance, Volatility and Growth
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
1/31
Finance, Volatility and Growth:
Non-Linear Time-Series Evidence for Brazil since 1870
Nauro F. Camposa,b
Menelaos Karanasos a Jihui Zhang
a
aDepartment of Economics and Finance, Brunel University (UK)
bCEPR and IZA
December 2010
Abstract
This paper uses the power-ARCH (PARCH) framework with annual time series data
to evaluate the main explanations for the remarkable economic performance of Brazil
from 1870 to 2003. The emphasis is on the role of the domestic financial development,
international financial factors, trade openness, and public deficits. The major findings
are as follows: (1) financial development and trade openness both show a strong
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
2/31
1. Introduction
The association between financial development and economic growth was first raised
by Schumpeter (1912). For the first time, he emphasizes the importance of finance to
the growth and development of a capitalist economy. Subsequently, studies including
King and Levine (1993), Levine and Zervos (1998) and Beck and Levine (2004),
using differing samples of countries, report that measures of financial development
have a positive effect on long-run growth.
Still, the majority of the empirical research relies on cross-country studies, although
employing various methodologies to try to take the potential simultaneity issue into
account (Adrogue et al. 2006; Castelar et al. 2005). Relatively, little attention has been
devoted to the use of time series technique and single country analysis.
Given this background, this paper investigates the role of the financial development,
trade openness, public deficit in generating growth by using a power-ARCH (PARCH)
framework with annual time series data for Brazil, covering the period from 1870 to
2003.
Therefore, this paper contributes to the debate within three particular areas:First,
we answer the question of what is the relationship between financial development and
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
3/31
we studied only one particular country over a very long period of time with annual
frequency data to exam the impact of financial development on the output growth.
The second area of focus is to explain the association of volatility and growth.
Ramey and Ramey (1995) point out that output growth rate are negatively associated
with their volatility, while Grier and Tullock (1989) report that higher standard
deviations of growth are related with higher mean rates. Further, as to Brazil, more
papers have concentrated on inflation uncertainty and growth. Though it is a hot
debate, there is no general agreement on recent papers. Dotsey and Sarte (2000) argue
that in the long term inflation uncertainty adversely affects long term growth but the
effect can be contrary in short term. They claimed that it could be a precautionary
savings motivation which boosted the inflation uncertainty to the growth. However,
Issler et al. (1998) show that precautionary savings in Brazil is not a significant factor.
Thirdly, except of testing individual univariate effects on the economic growth, we
also use multivariate analysis to help to explain the association. In doing so, for each
effect we report estimates of both single variable test and multivariate results. Besides,
considering the development of global financial market, this paper also tries to shed
some lights on the field of whether development of international financial
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
4/31
financial development affect Brazil’s economy growth positively in the long – term,
however, this positive effect associates with a negative short – term relationship. 2)
Empirical results also suggested that public deficit do affect growth via volatility
channel. 3) Global financial development links with Brazil’s economy – positively in
the short run while negatively in the short run.
The paper is organized as follows: section 2 describes the data including data
resources and definitions of each indicator; section 3 provides details of our
econometric methodology. Section 4 reports our main results and findings and section
5 concludes and suggests the direction of our future research.
2. Brief Background on Economic Growth in Brazil since 1870
Among economic historians, and at least until 1980, Brazil is widely considered to
be one of the fastest growing economies in the world (Maddison, 1995). Yet, for the
following two decades, due to the banking and currency crises, price instability and
high protection against imports lead to GDP growth not only much lower than other
developing countries but also against to the previous 50 years. After the period of
1960 – 1980, the disappointing growth period, Brazil’s economy has improved in
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
5/31
However, in relative previous studies of Brazil, there is little attention has been
given to the period of 1870 to the end of the World War I, especially in the field of the
association between financial development and output growth. Nevertheless, since the
early nineteenth century, Brazil declared its independence and also built up its first
modern style financial system1, a basic cycle between financial development and
output growth has been built. Besides, a part from the financial development, it has
been well known that trade openness, consist the major proportion of the economic
growth in Brazil, boosted the growth, to specify – coffee exportation. As Werner
Baear (2001) states, there is no doubt that coffee exports were the engine of growth
throughout most of the nineteenth century2. Thus, whether financial development
together with other indicators will affect Brazil’s output growth interested us the most
in this period – from 1870 to 1930.
Next, one of the most important contributions to the study of the long – term
Brazilian economic growth from 1930 – 1990 was given by Abreu and Verner (1997).
They studied various fields including financial development, degree of the openness,
education policies and etc. But, in their findings we cannot see strong evidence of
financial development boosted growth. As they argued: “increased public sector
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
6/31
whether the relationship between financial development and output growth in Brazil
obey the economic theory, our results present a different story. By using a different
econometric approach, we find that financial development affects the long-term
growth positively while associate with a negative short-run effect.
Finally, from 1990 till early 21st century, the growth of Brazil becomes a hot
debated issue. A lot of recent researches on either Latin America or Brazil covered
this period to study the role of financial development. Bittencourt (2010) found that
financial development played a significant role in generating growth in Latin America.
Castelar et al (2005) examined the relationships between financial development
growth and equity. Also, Stefani (2007) investigated this relationship in Brazil
between 1980 till 2006 by using a cointegration model. Further, some more papers
shed some light on the relative fields like how interest rates and inflations affect
Brazil’s recent growth (Muinhos and Nakane 2006; Vale 2002.). In line with the
economy theory most of the papers obtained a strong positive relationship between
financial development and output growth in Brazil.
To sum up, most historical researches of Brazil divided the examining period in to
several parts. Indeed, Brazil has it’s particularly tendency of growth rate mixtures
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
7/31
development of the global financial market in generating the economic growth in
Brazil.
3. Data
The main data are from “International Historical Statistics: The Americas: 1750 –
2000” (Mitchell. B. R., 2003). Data was record yearly for Brazil including: Gross
Domestic Product, Saving Bank Deposits, Deposits in Commercial Banks, M1, and
M2. However, the money standards of the data changed from time to time and figures
are often incomplete for the given year. Therefore, in order to find relatively complete
series to avoid bias as much as possible, other resources are included.
Various measures of financial development are used. One is the ratio of M1 to GDP.
The narrow money divided by growth capture the financial depth or the relative size
of the financial system. Besides in order to capture the efficiency of the financial
sector, two other measures of financial development are also used. Deposits in
Commercial Banks have been reported by Mitchell. B. R. (2003). However, due to the
missing figures, we follow a more practicable method of Peláez and Suzigan (1976) to
regenerate the series. Total deposits in Commercial Banks are defined as the
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
8/31
Mitchell (2007) and IBGE3. A public deficit is provided as the ratio of total public
deficits to GDP, while trade openness is measured as the ratio of imports plus exports
then divided by the GDP.
At last, international financial sector developments should also have impact on
Brazil’s economic growth, although for most of the period since 1930 Brazil remained
a closed economy. Marcelo Abreu states from 1930-1980 Brazil had a “cross-eyed”
foreign economic orientation, with bold export promotion polices and a rather closed
domestic market. But Brazil, as the largest economy in Latin America, and ninth
largest in the world, cannot be isolated to the world economy environment. However,
it is still hard to measure the world economy environment itself, especially when we
take both the depression and World War period into account.
Thus, in standard fashion in this type of study, we use the level of interest rate in
US4 as our proxy of the global financial market.
4.
Methodology
The power-arch model was first introduced by Ding Granger and Engle in 1993. As
with the other ARCH family of models PARCH framework also allows the growth (y t)
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
9/31
With
Where xit are explanatory variables including financial development, public deficit,
trade openness and US interest rate. (et) are independently and identically distributed
random variables with E(e_{t})=E(e_{t}²-1)=0, while (ht) is the conditional variance
of growth.
Further, follow the PARCH(1,1) process ht has alternative variance specification
as :
⑵
With
Where α and β are standard GARCH parameters, δ with δ > 0 is the
heteroscedasticity parameter and γ is the level term for the lth lag of growth.
A feature of conventional ARCH model is that the conditional variance is related to
lagged absolute of squared residuals and lagged conditional standard deviation or
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
10/31
growth and its volatility. We present our main reasons in three different aspects: the
direct, indirect and dynamic effect (short and long – term). The tables below report
the estimated parameters of interest for the period 1870 to 2003. All results were
obtained by quasi-maximum likelihood estimation as implemented in EVIEWS.
According to the likelihood ratio and the minimum value of the information criteria,
we choose the best fitting estimations.
First model is specified with φ=γ= 0 to study the direct effect of our set of
explanatory variables to the growth. In testing both direct effect and indirect effect,
the explanatory variables are allowed in mean equation and variance equation (model
1 and model 2). Through All three estimated parameters - γ, φ and λ , obtained from
the estimations, we can clearly investigate the implications of each variable on the
growth and its volatility. Then, instead of λ , we allow multiple explanatory variables
in the variance equation to specify the robustness of the indirect effect. Apart from
that, multiple variables allowed can also explaining how those variables works
together.
5. Empirical Results
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
11/31
growth rate is positive and statistically significant, whereas, public deficits and
international financial development shows a mixed effect and are not significant at all.
A simple PARCH(1,1) model shows that International financial development seems to
have no effect on the growth (insignificant). However, whether these will be our
baseline results or changed from more profound estimations will be assessed below.
“K” is the garch in mean parameter. For all cases the estimates are positive and
highly significant. This is in a line with the theoretical argument of Black (1987).
Further, the power term coefficient “δ” are stable around 0.8 – 0.9.
It seems to be generally agreed that financial development is positively associated
with output growth. However, recently, several papers have pointed out that this
positive relationship between financial development and economic growth is actually
dependent on whether this movement is temporary or permanent. Loayaza and
Ranciere (2006), using a sample of 75 countries, studied the dual effect of financial
development on the growth, Campos, Karanasos and Tan (2008) adopt a similar
approach to examine the effects in Argentina. Both papers confirmed that a positive
long-term relationship between financial development and out put growth can coexist
with a negative short-term effect.
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
12/31
Table 2 presents the estimated results. According to different financial development
measures, table 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 report the estimates from money supply and
efficiency of the financial sectors respectively. “λ ” captures the short-run effect, “l” is
lag length and t-statistic value reported in the parentheses.
It can be seen that λ fd is negative and statistically significant through out all tests
which confirm that, in Brazil’s case, we find a significantly negative short-term effect
of financial development to growth. Further, not only financial development but also
trade openness and public deficits are also negative and significant related to the
growth. Also, the results suggest that in the short – term, the development of global
financial market has a positive impact on Brazil’s output growth.
To summarize, both financial development and trade openness supports economic
growth in Brazil in the long term. However, probably due to fast growth, Brazil also
experienced banking crisis which lead to an extremely fragile financial system. Hence,
our empirically findings suggest that the positive long-run relationship between
financial development and out put growth in Brazil, is associated with a negative short
– run relationship. In addition, as to the degree of the trade openness and public
deficits, compare to the trade openness, public deficits present only a little proportion
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
13/31
Indirect Effect:
Table 3 reveals the estimation results for each one of the explanatory variable effect
on both growth and its volatility. Besides confirming the results from previous
estimations again, the parameter we most interested is φ which captures the effect on
growth via volatility channel.
The results show all financial development, the degree of trade openness on the
conditional volatility economic growth rates is negative and significant, whereas the
estimated coefficients of public deficits and international financial development are
positive and significant.
Moreover, direct effects of both revenue and expenditure become positive and
significant here, while the public deficit – the over all affect of revenue minus
expenditures continue to have no direct impact. Additionally, the indirect effects of
revenue and expenditures shows a completely different sign from their over all effect.
Public deficits affect growth volatility negatively while revenue and expenditure
appears to have positive impact on the growth volatility themselves.
Further, in order to gain a profound explanation of the results from above and to
investigate the robustness of our results. We run the model with all four explanatory
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
14/31
To this point the findings from empirical results are quite different from Abreu and
Verner (1997) who claimed that increased public sector savings proved to have only
small impact on GDP per capita. It can be seen from both table 4 and 5, the indirect
effect of financial development remains statistically significant throughout with a
negative implication. Together with the results from estimation of the direct effects,
we find strong evidences that financial development is associated with out put growth.
Next, comparing table 4 and 5, revenue, expenditures and public deficits remains
the same signs (φ3). That is, the volatility of growth is negatively associated with the
public deficit while positively affected by revenue and expenditures respectively.
In addition, for the entire test, φ2 shows a positive and significant sign which
implies there is strong evidence that international financial market affected the
volatility of Brazil’s economy growth. Notice that trade openness changes positive
when we put all other variables in. However, estimate parameters become
insignificant throughout the table 4 and table 5.
In conclusion, we find robust evidence that financial development, public deficit
and international financial development affect growth indirectly – its volatility. Trade
openness has a negative and significant indirect effect itself, however, when we put all
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
15/31
still has a strong impact on Brazil’s growth volatility.
Dynamic Aspects
In this section it will be discussed how short- and long-run effects help us to gain a
better understanding of our baseline results. In order to estimate the short- and
long-term relationships we follows the error correction (P)ARCH form:
Where θ and Ϛ are the short and long-term effect respectively, φ is the speed of
adjustment to the long-run relationship. The long-run growth equation is in the
parenthesis which acts as a forcing equilibrium condition:
Where εt is I (0). The lag of the first difference of each control variables characterizes
the short-run effect. Also we considering the PARCH effects by specified the error
term ut as following:
Where
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
16/31
short-run effect, tells a totally different story. Almost all the control variables,
(including financial development, public deficits and trade openness) appear to have a
negative impact on growth in the short term.
More interestingly, results of US interest rate – a proxy of global financial
development, are contrary to the rest estimations. Links between output growth and
global financial development are negative in the long term and positive in the short
term.
Table 7 and 8 summarize the main results when we add 3 remaining explanatory
variables. Notice we only reported estimations from three variable combinations –
either financial development, public deficits and international financial development
or trade openness , public deficits and international financial development, because
the results of all four variable combinations is unstable with the PARCH process.
Basically, the results are in line with single variable test. φ lies within the dynamically
stable range (-2, 0). With the exception of the US interest rate, all other variables
appear to have a negative and significant impact on the short-run economic growth.
Also, the estimated parameters present a positive and statistically significant
association between financial development and growth in the long-term.
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
17/31
in a long time period.
Thus, among other papers, our results are in a line with Loayaza and Ranciere
(2006) and Nauro, Menelaos and Bin (2008) who claim that the sign of the
relationship between economic growth and financial development depends on
whether the movements are temporary (short-run) or permanent (long-term).
Structural Breaks
In this section, we discuss one final important robust test regarding the role of
structural breaks. In order words, we assess whether taking account of structural
breaks will affect our baseline results. In testing the structural breaks in our various
explanatory variables, we adopted methodology developed by Bai and Perron (2003),
which can be download from: http://people.bu.edu/perron/code.html. The model
provided 3 different models including BIC, LWZ and B-P test model. Bai and Perron
address the problem of testing multiple structural breaks in “Computation and
Analysis of Multiple Structural Change models” (2003). In addition to test the
exsitsting breaks, B-P model also points out the number and location of multiple
breaks5.
http://people.bu.edu/perron/code.htmlhttp://people.bu.edu/perron/code.html
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
18/31
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
19/31
effect in conditional variance equation as follows:
Generally speaking, our tested results are quite robust even with the inclusion of the
structural break dummies. It can be seen from tables 9 and 10, “λ ” is positive and
significant through out the estimations, and the coefficient of financial development
and trade openness are still positive and significant for the start of the sample until the
break year (λ > 0). Further, “λ + λ 1” capture our second half of the sample. The
estimations show that both financial development and Trade Openness promote
Brazil’s output growth whether structural break is included or not.
Except the direct effect, Table 10 also presented results from indirect effect. Overall,
results are quite robust, that is, financial development tends to affect GDP growth
negatively via the volatility channel (φ < 0 and φ + φ1 < 0). Nevertheless, indirect
effect of the trade openness becomes mixed – coefficients can be both positive and
negative, but they all insignificant within the dummy variables. Therefore, we can say
that the impact on trade openness to volatility of the growth lessened when we adopt
our structural break dummies. Next, as to long- and short-run effect, table 11 reveals
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
20/31
negative short – run impact.. 2) Volatility of the output growth affected by financial
development negatively and interestingly, the indirect effect from trade openness to
growth volatility faded out when we add our structural break dummies.
6. Conclusions
The empirical evidence presented in this paper confirmed that financial
development, trade openness, public deficit and international financial development
are all endogenous variables in explaining the growth in Brazil’s economy, for a long
time period, from 1870 – 2003.
Although we included late nineteenth century and world war period, there is still
strong evidence that: firstly, over the long-run, financial development and trade
openness support and promote the output growth, however, the fast financial
development and out put growth may lead to financial fragility and banking crisis. In
Brazil’s case, by using an empirical model to test long-term and short-term in the
same time, we also find that a positive long – term relationship between financial
development and economic growth are also associate with a negative short – term
relationship.
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
21/31
Empirical results also suggested that public deficit do affect growth via volatility
channel.
The finial observation is that though Brazil economy has had unstable links with
the world economy over the half of our examine period, we find clear clue that global
financial development links with Brazil’s economy – positively in the short run while
negatively in the short run.
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
22/31
References
Abreu, M. and D.Verner, 1997. Long-Term Brazilian Economic Grwoth: 1930-1994.
Paris: OECD.
Adrogue, Ricardo, Martin Cerisola and Gaston Gelos, 2006. Brazil’s Long-Term
Grwoth Performance – Trying to Explain the Puzzle. IMF Working Paper
Angus Maddison, “Historical Statistics for the World Economy: 1-2003 AD”,at: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls
Beck, T., Levine, R. and N. Loayza, 2000. Finance and Sources of Growth. Journal
of Financial Economics 58, 261--300.
Beck,T., and R. Levine. 2004. Stock Markets, Banks and Growth: Panel Evidence.
Journal of Banking and Finance 28:423-442.
Campos, N, Armando Castellar Pinheiro, Fabio Giambiagi and Maurício M. Moreira,
2002. "Does it Take a Lula to go to Davos? A Brief Overview of Brazilian Reforms,
1980-2000," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 580, University of
Michigan.
Campos, N. and M. Karanasos, 2007. Financial Development, Economic Growth
and Political Instability Power-GARCH Evidence from Argentina 1896-2000,
Castelar Pinheiro, Armando, Indermit S. Gill, Luis Serven and Mark Roland
Thomas, 2004. Brazilian Economic Growth, 1900-2000: Lessons and Policy
Implications. Inter-American Development Bank.
Ding, Z., Granger, C.W.J. and R. Engle, 1993. A Long Memory Property of Stock
Market Returns and a New Model. Journal of Empirical Finance 1, 83-106.
https://owa1.brunel.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xlshttps://owa1.brunel.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
23/31
Quarterly Journal of Economics 108, 717-737.
Levine, R., and S. Zervos. 1998. Stock Markets, Banks, and Economic Growth.
American Economic Review 88:537-558.
Loayza, N. V. and R. Rancière, 2006. Financial Development, Financial Fragility
and Growth. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 38, 1051-1076.
Muinhos, Marcelo Kfoury and Marcio I. Nakane.2006.Comparing Equilibrium
Interest rates: Different Approaches to Measure Brazilian rates.Working Papers Series
from Central Bank of Brazil, Research Department. NO.101.
Manoel Bittencourt.2010. Financial Development and Economic Growth in Latin
America: Schumpeter is Right!. Working Paper Series. University of Pretoria.
Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz. 1982. Monetary trends in the United States
and the United Kingdom : their relation to income, prices, and interest rates,
1867-1975, University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell. B. R. 2003. International Historical Statistics: The Americas: 1750 – 2000,
5th edition. PALGRAVE MAVMILLAN Press.
Patricia Stefani, 2007. Financial Development and Economic Growth in Brazil:
1986-2006. Economics Bulletin, Vol3, NO.69, 1-13
Peláez, C. M., and W. Suzigan. 1976. História Monetária do Brasil: Análise da
Política, Comportamento e Instituições Monetárias. Monografia (Instituto de
Planejamento Econômico e Social. Instituto de Pesquisas), no. 23. Rio de Janeiro,
TableA.3.
Ramey, G. and V. Ramey, 1995.Cross-country Evidence on the Link between
V l ili d G h A i E i R i 85 1138 1151
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
24/31
Appendix
Table
Figure
GDP
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1 8 7 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 9 6 0
1 9 6 9
1 9 7 8
1 9 8 7
1 9 9 6
GDP of Brazil from 1870 to 2003
1 8 7
1 8 8
1 8 9
1 9 0
1 9 1
1 9 2
1 9 3
1 9 4
1 9 5
GDP
Table 1. Direct effect on Economic Growth
x it ↓ k
Panel A: Financial DevelopmentM1
3.30
4. 314.32
0. 052.43
0. 442.58
0. 52
Deposits
(Commercial Banks) 3.714. 99
13 .59
0. 02332.42
0. 432.08
0. 48
Deposits
( Bank of Brazil ) 3.053. 27
4.91
0. 042.73
0. 522.83
0. 52
Panel B: Public Deficit
Expenditures3.06
3. 010.57
0. 00212.84
0. 543.29
0. 53
Revnues3.15
3. 350.55
0. 02132.76
0. 512.95
0. 53
Revenues - Expenditures3.84
5. 52−0.39
−0. 2382.45
0. 402.23
0. 48
Panel C: Trade Openness
−0. 80
−0. 80
−0. 90
−1. 00
−0. 90
−0. 80
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
25/31
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
26/31
Table 3. Indirect effect on Economic Growth
x it ↓ k
Panel A: Financial Development
M12.15
6. 257.86
0. 03302.46
0. 411.49
0. 35−4.51
−0. 023
l−8
2.10
0. 12−
1. 00
M25.19
6. 43−0.30
−0. 00033.43
0. 461.73
0. 35−3.40
−0. 0036
l−5
4.16
0. 22−
1. 00
Deposits (Commercial Banks)1.61
2. 823.36
0. 05083.32
0. 502.46
0. 37−1.85
−0. 0131
l−5
1.35
0. 07−
1. 00
Deposits (Bank of Brazil)2.19
3. 223.54
0. 02773.59
0. 582.09
0. 30−3.24
−0. 0050
l−8
2.07
0. 06−
1. 2
Panel B: Public Deficit
Revenue2.80
4. 872.83
0. 01162.72
0. 432.21
0. 42−10.83
−0. 1014
l−5
1.30
0. 13−
0. 80
Expenditures2.53
4. 831.84
0. 000892.84
0. 432.12
0. 40−10.57
−0. 0094
l−5
1.31
0. 11−
0. 80
Revenue - Expenditures2.61
4. 74−0.92
−0. 00292.75
0. 451.97
0. 402.64
0. 0078
l−5
1.02
0. 08−
0. 80
Panel C: Trade Openness
Export2.74
6. 411.97
0. 04262.45
0. 391.69
0. 38−1.78
−0. 0288
l−8
2.08
0. 13−
1. 00
Import2.89
6. 693.77
0. 05385.65
0. 402.65
0. 32−1.85
−0. 0375
l−8
1.93
0. 11−
1. 00
Export Import2.28
6. 624.49
0. 021862.30
0. 381.73
0. 38−3.55
−0. 0199
l−
8
2.23
0. 14−
0. 80
Panel D: Interest Rate
US Interest Rate3.26
5. 072.36
0. 00133.06
0. 482.23
0. 421.66
0. 0010
l−8
3.68
0. 21−
0. 80
Table 3 reports parameter estimates for the following model:
yt c kh t x it t , ht 2 ht −1
2 ∣ et −1 ∣
ht −1
2 x it yt −6
The numbers in parentheses are absolute t statistics.
25
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
27/31
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
28/31
Table 6. The short- and long-run Growth effects
xit ↓
Panel A: Financial Development
M1/GDP
l2
−1.10−0. 027
−7.44
−0. 483.45
0. 1332.65
0. 583.39
0. 52−
1. 00
Deposits/GDP
(Commercial Banks)l4
−4.83−0. 075
−6.72
−0. 464.05
0. 1672.78
0. 583.45
0. 51 1. 00
Deposits/GDP
( Bank of Brazil )l4
−4.86−0. 028
−6.91
−0. 474.08
0. 01652.85
0. 603.39
0. 51−
1. 00
Panel B: Public Deficit
Revenues
l7
−1.86−0. 0193
−8.91
−0. 65−1.60
−0. 03083.19
0. 534.03
0. 51−
0. 90
Expenditures
l7
−1.89−0. 0183
−9.09
−0. 66−1.69
−0. 03243.28
0. 494.06
0. 52−
0. 90
Revenue-Expenditure
l4
−1.62−0. 0056
−7.22
−0. 460.10
0. 000962.80
0. 503.37
0. 52−
0. 80
Panel C: Trade Openness
Export/GDPl5
−1.40−0. 056
−7.17−0. 55
2.847 0. 228
2.150. 48
3.290. 56
−1. 00
Import/GDP
l4
−9.06−0. 085
7.22−0. 48
3.400. 210
2.670. 57
3.380. 52
−1. 00
ExportImport
l4
−8.44−0. 047
−7.23−0. 48
3.26
0. 1162.61
0. 563.39
0. 53−
1. 00
Panel D: International Financial Development
US interest rate
l2
3.370. 00039
−9.82−0. 683
−2.50−0. 00028
2.620. 61
4.430. 60
−1. 00
Table 5 reports parameter estimates for t he following model:
Δ yt Δ xi,t −l yt −1 − c − xi,t −1 u t ,
h t 2 |ut −1 |
ht −1
2 . (l is the order of the lag)
and capture t he short- and long-run effects respectively.
indicates the speed of adjustment to the long-run relationship.
The numbers in p arentheses are absolute t statistics.
27
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
29/31
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
30/31
-
8/18/2019 Finance, Volatility and Growth
31/31
Table 11. The short- and long-run Growth effects with dummies
xit ↓
M1/GDP
l4
−4.23−0. 045
−8.95
−0. 574.25
0. 1290.87
0. 0030
l−1
−2.00
−0. 1492.96
0. 513.70
0. 56−
1. 00
Deposits/GDP
(Commercial Banks)l4
−4.50−0. 065
−7.47−0. 50
4.190. 174
1.070. 0043
l−2
−2.54−0. 148
3.220. 57
3.240. 50 1. 00
Deposits/GDP
( Bank of Brazil )l4
−4.34−0. 028
−7.79
−0. 544.19
0. 0160.89
0. 0030
l−2
4.08
−0. 122.68
0. 503.77
0. 56−
1. 00
Panel B: Trade Openness
Export/GDP
l4
−3.75−0. 097
−7.41−0. 50
3.620. 277
0.77
0. 0026
l−2
−2.06
−0. 1152.920. 54
3.590. 53
−1. 00
Import/GDP
l4
−3.92−0. 069
−8.21−0. 53
4.020. 208
0.88
0. 0030
l−2
−2.77
−0. 1312.960. 54
3.550. 53
−1. 00
ExportImport
l4
−4.07−0415
−7.97−0. 52
3.870. 119
0.83
0. 0028
l−2
−2.48
−0. 1252.940. 54
3.580. 54
−1. 00
Panel C: Public Deficit
Export
l−4
−2.42−0. 0032
−8.48−0. 68
−0.86−0. 0017
0.800. 0026
l−2
−1.03−0. 109
2.620. 44
3.340. 56
−0. 90
Import
l−4
−2.76−0. 0042
−8.87−0. 64
0.280. 0053
0.550. 0016
l−2
−1.09−0. 092
2.400. 47
3.990. 60
−1. 00
ExportImport
l−4
−1.80−0. 0072
−7.03−0. 53
0.270. 0022
0.810. 0025
l−2
−0.73−0. 079
2.410. 51
3.650. 57
−1. 00
Panel D: US interest rate
US interest rate
l−4
2.060. 0009
−11.64−0. 75
−4.07−0. 0004
1.120. 0036
l−2
−1.88−0. 137
2.940. 55
3.810. 56
−1. 00
Table 5 reports parameter estimates for the following model:
Δ y t Δ x i,t −l y t −1 − c − xi,t −1 u t ,
h t 2 Dgdp |u t −1 |
h
t −1
2 yt −l . (l is the order of the lag)
and capture the short- and long-run effects respectively.
indicates the speed of adjustment to the long-run relationship.
The numbers in p arentheses are absolute t statistics.
30