Exploring the Relationship Between Banking Development Facets and Economic Volatility: Evidence from Developing Nations
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
This study investigates the impact of banking development on economic growth volatility in developing countries over the period 2004–2019, using a panel quantile approach. By examining different facets of banking development, our findings indicate a negative effect of banking sector depth, access, and quality on economic growth volatility. Banking development significantly reduces economic growth instability across different quantiles of economic growth volatility. Nevertheless, banking efficiency increases economic volatility. This study provides valuable insights to financial regulatory authorities in making decisions related to banking development-economic instability nexus.
Downloads
Introduction
The development of financial systems, particularly following the financial liberalization of the 1980s and 1990s, has profoundly transformed the global economy, delivering significant benefits to developing economies. This transformation highlights three critical dimensions: the depth of the financial sector, the quality of financial services, and financial inclusion. Emphasizing these dimensions enables financial development to robustly support economic stability and ensure an equitable distribution of the benefits associated with a mature financial system.
The relationship between various dimensions of financial development and economic growth has been the subject of extensive literature. For instance, increased access to finance yields both social and economic benefits (Siddiki & Bala-Keffi, 2024; Tabashet al., 2024), while financial deepening fosters economic growth (Joshi & Kansil, 2024). Moreover, the performance of the banking sector enhances economic stability (Barraet al., 2024), supporting the notion of ‘more finance, more growth.’ However, financial development also poses challenges, particularly regarding economic growth volatility. As economies integrate further into the global financial system, their vulnerability to external shocks and crises intensifies (Ibrahim & Alagidede, 2017).
The theoretical framework posits divergent hypotheses regarding the effect of financial development on the volatility of economic growth. The first paradigm suggests that robust financial sector development can mitigate economic volatility by diversifying investment portfolios, lowering agency costs, and providing crucial information on the risks and returns of various investments. This leads to more efficient capital allocation and enhances borrowers’ ability to access credit (Bernanke & Gertler, 1989; Kiyotaki & Moore, 1997; Morganet al., 2004). By acquiring more information, financial intermediaries can achieve economies of scale in evaluating and managing non-financial borrowers, thus reducing information asymmetry (Greenwood & Jovanovic, 1990; Mishkin, 1996). The second paradigm examines the impact of financial development on exacerbating or alleviating shocks to growth volatility, suggesting that its nuanced effects depend on risk behavior, real or monetary shocks, and credit availability (Bacchetta & Caminal, 2000; Aghionet al., 2004). The third paradigm elucidates the causal link between financial development and economic volatility (Lopèz-Monti, 2020).
Extensive empirical research investigates the impact of financial sector depth on economic volatility. For example, Da-Silva (2002), Manganelli and Popov (2015), Subkhan and Hutajulu (2023), Singhet al. (2023), and Yilmaz (2024) suggest that financial development attenuates economic volatility. In contrast, other studies propose a nonlinear relationship between financial deepening and economic instability (Ibrahim & Alagidede, 2017; Ma & Song, 2017; Ghosh & Adhikary, 2023) using ARDL and dynamic panel regressions. This implies that while the initial stages of financial deepening tend to reduce economic volatility, this effect may reverse after surpassing a certain point. Recently, Sebaiet al. (2024) found a dynamic interrelationship between banking deepening and economic volatility using a GMM panel-VAR approach in 38 emerging countries from 1985 to 2020.
In addition to financial deepening, the quality and inclusivity of banks are identified as critical components of financial development (Beck, 2016; Chenet al., 2023). Fernándezet al. (2016) argue that financial stability is crucial for mitigating economic volatility, particularly in less competitive banking sectors during the period from 1989 to 2008. Creelet al. (2015) and Barra and Zotti (2022) emphasize the central role of a stable financial sector in bolstering economic stability in the European Union and Italy, respectively, using a GMM approach. Moreover, Klein and Weill (2022) demonstrate a positive impact of banking performance on economic growth, based on a GMM analysis of a sample of 132 countries over the period 1999–2013. Xue (2020) reports a non-monotonic relationship between banking profitability and economic volatility across both developing and developed nations, utilizing a panel threshold approach.
Additionally, Boachieet al. (2021) established a positive effect of financial inclusion on economic stability from 2008 to 2018, focusing on 18 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Cavoliet al. (2019) reveal a nonlinear relationship between financial inclusion and economic volatility across 100 EMDEs over the period 1995–2013. Conversely, Gopalan and Rajan (2021) identify a negative association between digital financial inclusion and output volatility in 40 emerging markets. All these studies employ the GMM method. Furthermore, Ullahet al. (2024) underscore the transmission channels through which financial development influences economic instability. By employing PCSE11Panel corrected standard error. and GMM methods, their research demonstrates that institutional quality mitigates the adverse effects of various dimensions of financial development on economic volatility. However, their analysis does not find a significant interaction effect of regulatory quality on the relationship between market-based financial development and economic volatility.
Drawing from the discussion above, the existing empirical literature posits uncertainty regarding the nexus between financial sector development and economic volatility. The disparities in the reported outcomes may arise from variations in measures of financial development and the regression methods applied in the cited studies. This paper examines the impact of overall dimensions of banking development (namely, banking sector size, bank sector quality, and bank inclusive) on economic growth volatility within developing countries from 2004 to 2019. In doing so, this study makes two significant contributions to the scholarly field.
First, this paper employs principal component analysis (PCA) to assess the three major facets of banking development. Previous research has predominantly focused on indicators of banking depth, often overlooking crucial aspects such as banking sector quality and inclusivity. This gap in research has limited regulatory authorities’ understanding of the complete effect of banking development on economic volatility.
Second, this study utilizes panel quantile regression with fixed effects, introduced by Powell (2022), to examine the relationship between banking development and economic growth volatility. This approach enables the examination of the entire distribution of economic volatility by estimating the impact of banking development across different quantiles. Moreover, the panel data framework incorporates unobserved individual heterogeneity, thereby mitigating potential biases from its omission. This method facilitates robust estimation even in the presence of non-normally distributed error terms and skewed dependent variable distributions.
Data, Variables and Descriptive Statistics
Data
This paper investigates the relationship between banking development and economic growth volatility using a panel of 25 developing countries from 2004 to 2019. The data are sourced from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators (WDI), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Bankscope Data. A detailed list of the developing countries is provided in Table I.
Developing countries | Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Croatia, Egypt, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tunisia, Thailand, the Federation of Russia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine. |
Independent Variable: Measurement of Financial Development
Banking development is analyzed through three key aspects: banking deepening, banking sector quality, and banking inclusion (Beck, 2016; Svirydzenka, 2016). Banking deepening involves the expansion of bank credit and the enhancement of financial system liquidity. The quality of the banking sector relies on the effectiveness, performance, and stability of banking institutions. Banking inclusion aims to provide individuals from diverse socio-economic backgrounds with rapid access to financial services at affordable costs. Despite extensive scholarly contributions, there remains a lack of standardized consensus on a banking development index (Tang & Tan, 2014). To address this issue and account for the high correlation among sub-indices of banking development, we employ principal component analysis (PCA) to establish indicators for each dimension of banking development.
In Terms of Size: Financial Deepening
Based on Tang and Tan (2014), our paper considers the following key indicators of banking deepening: domestic credit to the private sector as a percentage of GDP (Credit_GDP), financial system deposits to GDP (Deposit_GDP), ratio of liquid liabilities to GDP (Liquid_Liab), bank assets to GDP (ASSETS_GDP), and broad money to GDP (Broad_GDP).
In Terms of Access: Financial Inclusion
The construction of the banking inclusion indicator, which encompasses various dimensions, including the accessibility and availability of banking services, requires the adoption of the analytical framework proposed by Ahamed and Mallick (2019). This research undertakes an examination of two primary facets of penetration: demographic and geographic. To assess demographic penetration, the number of bank branches () per 100,000 adults is utilized. For the evaluation of geographic penetration, the number of bank branches ( and ATMs () per 1000 km2 is considered.
In Terms of Quality: Financial Performance
In assessing the quality of the banking sector, this study employs two essential measures: Bank Return on Equity (ROE) and Bank Return on Assets (ROA). These measures are fundamental for evaluating a bank’s profitability and overall financial health (Xue, 2020).
In Terms of Quality: Financial Efficiency
Expanding on Adnan’s (2011) research, this study employs net interest margin (NIM) and overhead costs (COST) as crucial measures of a bank’s management effectiveness.
In Terms of Quality: Financial Stability
In accordance with the research conducted by Xue (2020), the present study employs banking credit risk indicators, specifically non-performing loans (NPL), to assess banking stability.
Table II delineates the results of the principal component analysis applied to each financial development indicator, presenting the respective factor scores for each variable.
Banking development indicators | PC_1 | PC_2 | PC_3 | PC_4 | PC_5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Panel A. Banking Deepening Index (B_Deepening) | |||||
Eigen values | 4.443 | 0.333 | 0.139 | 0.079 | 0.005 |
Percentage of variance | 0.888 | 0.067 | 0.028 | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Cumulative percentage | 0.888 | 0.955 | 0.983 | 0.999 | 1.000 |
Variables | |||||
Credit_GDP | 0.424 | 0.686 | 0.542 | −0.173 | 0.160 |
Broad_GDP | 0.468 | −0.176 | −0.059 | −0.431 | −0.749 |
ASSETS_GDP | 0.445 | 0.368 | −0.633 | 0.513 | −0.054 |
Deposit_GDP | 0.439 | −0.508 | 0.473 | 0.570 | 0.028 |
Liquid_Liab | 0.459 | −0.324 | −0.279 | −0.442 | 0.640 |
Panel B. Banking Inclusion Index (B_Inclusion) | |||||
Eigen values | 2.109 | 0.882 | 0.009 | ||
Percentage of variance | 0.703 | 0.294 | 0.003 | ||
Cumulative percentage | 0.703 | 0.997 | 1.000 | ||
Variables | |||||
BB_km2 | 0.672 | −0.217 | −0.708 | ||
ATM_km2 | 0.672 | −0.222 | 0.707 | ||
BB_POP | 0.311 | 0.950 | 0.004 | ||
Panel C. Banking Performance Index (B_Performance) | |||||
Eigen Values | 1.708 | 0.292 | |||
Percentage of variance | 0.854 | 0.146 | |||
Cumulative percentage | 0.854 | 1.000 | |||
Variables | |||||
ROA | 0.707 | 0.707 | |||
ROE | 0.707 | −0.707 | |||
Panel D. Banking Efficiency Index (B_Efficiency) | |||||
Eigen values | 1.261 | 0.739 | |||
Percentage of variance | 0.631 | 0.369 | |||
Cumulative percentage | 0.631 | 1.000 | |||
Variables | |||||
NIM | 0.707 | 0.707 | |||
COST | 0.707 | −0.707 |
Variables | Definition | Sources |
---|---|---|
Eco_Vol | Economic growth volatility, calculated as five-year rolling window standard deviations of GDP growth rate. | Authors’ calculation, WDI |
Credit_GDP | Domestic credit to the private sector as a percentage of GDP. | WDI |
Broad_GDP | Broad money to GDP. | WDI |
ASSETS_GDP | Banks assets to GDP. | IMF |
Deposit_GDP | Financial system deposits as a percentage of GDP. | WDI |
Liquid_Liab | Liquid liabilities as a percentage of GDP. | WDI |
ROE | Bank return on equity. It is a measure of banking performance, by country. | Bankscope |
ROA | Bank return on assets. This measure reflects the profitability of the banking sector by country. | Bankscope |
NIM | Assess the banking sector’s efficiency by determining the ratio of the bank’s net interest revenue to its total assets. | Bankscope |
COST | The efficiency of the banking sector is evaluated by measuring overhead costs as a percentage of total assets. | Bankscope |
NPLs | Nonperforming loans to gross loan. A higher value indicates a more risky portfolio. | WDI |
BB_km2 | Number of commercial bank branches per 1000 km2. | IMF |
ATM_km2 | Number of ATMs per 1000 km2. | IMF |
BB_POP | Number of commercial bank branches per 100.000 adults. | IMF |
FO | Ratio of the sum of foreign direct investment and portfolio inflows to GDP. | WDI |
REER | Real effective exchange rate. | WDI |
INTR | Real interest rate. | WDI |
Gov_Consump | Government consumption divided by GDP. | WDI |
Log_POP | Logarithm of total population. | WDI |
Following Ahamed and Mallick (2019), the banking development index for each country has been normalized using a scale from 0 to 1. A value of zero denotes minimal banking development, while a value of one signifies full banking development.
Dependent Variable and Control Variables
The standard deviation of GDP growth rates over a five-year period, as utilized by Ullahet al. (2024), serves as a measure of economic growth volatility.
A set of control variables is employed, including financial openness (FO), real effective exchange rate (REER), Government consumption (GOV), real interest rate (INTR), and the logarithm of the total population (Log_POP). Detailed definitions and data sources for our variables are presented in Table III.
Table IV presents the descriptive statistics for the variables employed in this study, based on five aspects of banking development, with values ranging from 0 to 1. The standard deviations of the banking development variables are notably high, with banking inclusion reaching a maximum value of 0.180. The dependent variable, economic volatility (Eco_Vol), has a mean of 0.023 and a relatively low standard deviation of 0.018. The control variables, including financial openness (FO), real interest rate (INTR), real effective exchange rate (REER), government consumption (Gov_consump), and total population (Log_POP), display mean values of −0.468, 0.049, 0.971, 0.148, and 7.690, respectively. Both kurtosis and skewness coefficients deviate significantly from the expected values of 3 and 0, indicating non-normal distribution characteristics. The Doornik and Hansen (2008) normality test confirms statistical significance across all variables, rejecting the normality assumption. Consequently, classical regression techniques, such as ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation, may not be optimal for our data analysis. Instead, the panel quantile approach emerges as a suitable and robust method for addressing non-normal errors and outliers.
Variables | Observation | Mean | Standard deviation | SKEW | KURT | Normality-test | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eco_Vol | 375 | 0.023 | 0.018 | 1.420 | 5.090 | 74.98*** | 0.000 |
Credit_GDP | 366 | 0.660 | 0.453 | 1.304 | 4.501 | 62.49*** | 0.000 |
Deposit_GDP | 395 | 0.496 | 0.580 | 3.682 | 17.411 | 239.78*** | 0.000 |
ASSETS_GDP | 395 | 0.670 | 0.428 | 1.839 | 7.599 | 119.33*** | 0.000 |
Broad_GDP | 396 | 0.796 | 0.624 | 3.067 | 13.503 | 199.35*** | 0.000 |
Liquid_Liab | 395 | 0.745 | 0.645 | 3.018 | 12.851 | 199.35*** | 0.000 |
BB_km2 | 390 | 7.192 | 266.76 | 4.628 | 22.465 | 281.88*** | 0.000 |
ATM_km2 | 394 | 20.964 | 554.626 | 4.759 | 24.099 | 291.87*** | 0.000 |
BB_POP | 390 | 12.233 | 7.876 | 1.151 | 4.262 | 41.27*** | 0.000 |
ROA | 391 | 0.016 | 0.019 | −5.933 | 91.382 | 371.54*** | 0.000 |
ROE | 370 | 0.173 | 0.110 | −0.737 | 7.640 | 56.93*** | 0.000 |
NIM | 391 | 0.035 | 0.019 | 1.436 | 5.956 | 85.77*** | 0.000 |
COST | 393 | 0.025 | 0.052 | 11.813 | 174.41 | 529.77*** | 0.000 |
NPLs | 300 | 0.034 | 0.082 | 4.369 | 25.555 | 217.63*** | 0.000 |
Gov_consump | 400 | 0.148 | 0.044 | 0.416 | 2.437 | 17.54*** | 0.000 |
FO | 400 | 0.025 | 0.026 | 3.280 | 18.715 | 228.97*** | 0.000 |
REER | 224 | 0.972 | 0.120 | −0.113 | 3.350 | 5.65 | 0.378 |
INTR | 324 | 0.036 | 0.091 | 1.996 | 8.707 | 111.19*** | 0.000 |
Log_POP | 400 | 7.670 | 0.665 | 0.279 | 2.814 | 5.65*** | 0.000 |
Panel Quantile Regression Analysis
Conventional regression techniques provide a description of the average relationship between banking development and economic growth volatility, neglecting distributional heterogeneity. To address the distributional heterogeneity and gain deeper insight into the association between banking development and economic growth volatility, a panel quantile regression with fixed effects (QRPD), developed by Powell (2022), is employed. This approach yields more robust estimations, particularly when the distribution of the dependent variable exhibits skewness or when the error term deviates from normality. To examine whether banking sector development has a negative or positive effect on economic volatility, the model is presented as follows:
where represents the economic growth volatility of the country i in year t. is the variable encompasses multiple aspects of banking development, including banking deepening, banking performance, banking efficiency, banking stability, and banking inclusion. Details about other variables can be found in Table III. For a comprehensive insight into the model, please consult the research conducted by Powell (2022).
Results of the Panel Quantile Regression
Panel Unit Root Test Results
To assess the suitability of variables for panel quantile estimation, the first step involves testing stationarity using a panel unit root test, specifically the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test. This test confirms the stationarity of the variables at a 1% significance level. Detailed results of the panel unit root test are provided in Table V.
Variables | ADF | |
---|---|---|
At level | First difference | |
Eco_Vol | 3.197 | −15.363*** |
Credit_GDP | 1.521 | −7.097*** |
Deposit_GDP | −0.726 | −12.854*** |
ASSETS_GDP | 0.992 | −9.573*** |
Broad_GDP | −0.414 | −12.431*** |
Liquid_Liab | −0.340 | −14.604*** |
BB_km2 | 2.122 | −2.230*** |
ATM_km2 | 1.825 | −4.748*** |
BB_POP | 2.477 | −3.639*** |
ROA | −7.050*** | |
ROE | −4.739*** | |
NIM | −5.431*** | |
COST | −5.754*** | |
NPLs | −4.102*** | |
Gov_consump | 1.601 | −13.123*** |
FO | −5.832*** | |
REER | 0.746 | −6.506*** |
INTR | −7.028*** | |
Log_POP | −13.476*** |
Panel Quantile Regression Results
To address the distributional heterogeneity in the relationship between banking development and economic growth volatility in developing countries, a panel quantile regression is employed. The results, detailed in Tables VI–X, include measurements of the aforementioned banking development indicators: B_Deepening, B_Inclusion, B_Performance, B_Efficiency, and NPLs. The findings are presented for the , percentiles of the conditional economic volatility distribution. Overall, the results demonstrate a negative and significant impact of various banking development indices on economic growth volatility across different quantiles of the economic volatility distribution. In particular, an increase in the overall banking development indices corresponds to a reduction in economic volatility. The higher quantiles, such as the percentiles, represent countries characterized by higher levels of economic growth volatility. Conversely, the lower quantiles, including the percentiles, are associated with countries exhibiting lower economic growth volatility. These findings are consistent with the empirical estimations of Cavoliet al. (2019), Klein and Weill (2022), and Singhet al. (2023).
Dependent variable: Eco_Vol | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Q10 | Q20 | Q30 | Q40 | Q50 | Q60 | Q70 | Q80 | Q90 |
B_Deepening | −0.008*** | −0.010*** | −0.021*** | −0.023*** | −0.023*** | −0.025*** | −0.031*** | −0.047*** | −0.055*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
FO | 0.010*** | 0.011*** | 0.032*** | 0.039*** | 0.025*** | 0.039*** | 0.053*** | −0.029*** | 0.110*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Gov_Consum | 0.025*** | −0.002*** | −0.006*** | −0.003*** | −0.002 | −0.0041*** | 0.096*** | −0.184*** | 0.240*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.746) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
REER | 0.008*** | 0.010*** | 0.017*** | 0.022*** | 0.014*** | 0.026*** | 0.023*** | 0.057*** | 0.006*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
INTR | 0.002*** | 0.026*** | 0.044*** | 0.051*** | 0.048*** | 0.042*** | 0.018*** | 0.193*** | −0.073*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Log_POP | −0.002*** | −0.003*** | −0.003*** | −0.004*** | −0.004*** | −0.005*** | −0.004*** | −0.019*** | −0.006*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) |
Dependent variable: Eco_Vol | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Q10 | Q20 | Q30 | Q40 | Q50 | Q60 | Q70 | Q80 | Q90 |
B_Inclusion | −0.005*** | −0.007*** | −0.010*** | −0.015*** | −0.023*** | −0.028*** | −0.046*** | −0.0228*** | −0.067*** |
(0.000) | (0.004) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
FO | 0.010*** | −0.023*** | −0.013*** | 0.016*** | 0.008*** | 0.040*** | 0.040*** | 0.088*** | 0.134*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.001) | (0.000) | |
Gov_Consum | 0.027*** | −0.163*** | −0.110*** | −0.035*** | −0.162*** | 0.059*** | −0.089*** | 0.289*** | 0.421*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
REER | 0.003*** | 0.029*** | 0.032*** | 0.026*** | 0.005** | 0.029*** | 0.059*** | 0.041*** | 0.029*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.037) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
INTR | −0.009*** | 0.053*** | 0.066*** | 0.071*** | 0.116*** | 0.083*** | 0.024*** | −0.123*** | −0.066*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Log_POP | −0.003*** | −0.007*** | −0.009*** | −0.011*** | −0.014*** | −0.016*** | −0.023*** | −0.007*** | 0.008*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) |
Dependent variable: Eco_Vol | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Q10 | Q20 | Q30 | Q40 | Q50 | Q60 | Q70 | Q80 | Q90 |
B_Performance | −0.001*** | −0.003*** | −0.005*** | −0.007*** | −0.008*** | 0.011*** | −0.024*** | −0.062*** | −0.074*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.001) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
FO | 0.005*** | 0.004*** | 0.010*** | −0.008** | 0.010*** | 0.017*** | 0.001*** | 0.019*** | 0.060*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.011) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Gov_Consum | 0.022*** | −0.015*** | −0.033*** | −0.033*** | 0.006*** | 0.073*** | 0.001 | 0.152*** | 0.396*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.004) | (0.000) | (0.197) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
REER | 0.006*** | 0.013*** | 0.014*** | 0.023*** | 0.006*** | 0.026*** | 0.010*** | 0.013*** | 0.031* |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.004) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.052) | |
INTR | −0.001*** | 0.044*** | 0.052*** | 0.025*** | 0.052*** | 0.019*** | 0.012*** | −0.001 | −0.085*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.817) | (0.000) | |
Log_POP | −0.002*** | −0.004*** | −0.006*** | −0.003*** | −0.004*** | −0.003*** | −0.006*** | −0.006*** | −0.00002 |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.976) |
Dependent variable: Eco_Vol | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Q10 | Q20 | Q30 | Q40 | Q50 | Q60 | Q70 | Q80 | Q90 |
B_Efficiency | 0.008*** | 0.013 | 0.051*** | 0.068*** | 0.070*** | 0.074*** | 0.090*** | 0.097*** | 0.127*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
FO | 0.007*** | 0.007*** | 0.022*** | 0.012*** | 0.015*** | 0.014*** | −0.040*** | 0.019*** | 0.034*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Gov_Consum | 0.019*** | 0.018*** | −0.021*** | −0.006*** | 0.009*** | −0.041*** | 0.037*** | 0.166*** | 0.301*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
REER | 0.015*** | 0.011*** | 0.021*** | 0.024*** | 0.039*** | 0.016*** | 0.038*** | 0.037*** | 0.060*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
INTR | 0.010*** | 0.023*** | 0.038*** | 0.028*** | 0.025*** | 0.029*** | −0.086*** | −0.044*** | −0.011 |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.488) | |
Log_POP | −0.004*** | −0.004*** | −0.004*** | −0.005*** | −0.006*** | −0.007*** | −0.006*** | −0.004*** | −0.010*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) |
Dependent variable: Eco_Vol | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Q10 | Q20 | Q30 | Q40 | Q50 | Q60 | Q70 | Q80 | Q90 |
B_Stability | 0.003*** | 0.008*** | 0.008*** | 0.017*** | 0.040*** | 0.141*** | 0.152*** | 0.180*** | 0.114*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
FO | 0.004*** | 0.006*** | 0.003*** | −0.003*** | −0.002** | 0.025*** | 0.009*** | −0.002*** | 0.040*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.053) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.007) | (0.000) | |
Gov_Consump | 0.022*** | 0.027*** | −0.017*** | −0.028*** | −0.070*** | 0.011*** | −0.080*** | 0.020*** | 0.194*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.001) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
REER | 0.007*** | 0.010*** | 0.015*** | 0.016*** | 0.010*** | 0.011*** | 0.014*** | 0.038*** | 0.049*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
INTR | 0.002*** | 0.016*** | 0.054*** | 0.055*** | 0.077*** | 0.047*** | 0.056*** | 0.020*** | −0.015** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.017) | |
Log_POP | −0.001*** | −0.004*** | −0.006*** | −0.005*** | −0.006*** | −0.006*** | −0.013*** | −0.011*** | −0.002*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.904) |
However, our analysis indicates that certain indicators of banking development, specifically banking efficiency (B_efficiency) and non-performing loans (NPLs), exert a statistically significant positive impact on economic volatility at the 1% significance level across all quantiles of the economic volatility distribution (Tables IX and X). The observed positive coefficient for banking efficiency across different quantiles may be explained by instances of borrower defaults and inadequate oversight within the banking sector. A higher net interest margin suggests potentially greater returns on interest-earning assets, which could incentivize riskier lending and investment behaviors. Such tendencies may contribute to heightened economic volatility as banking institutions pursue profit maximization through increased risk-taking, thereby affecting the broader economy. These findings align with the results of Fernándezet al. (2016) and Cavoliet al. (2019). Overall, the relationship between banking development and economic growth volatility demonstrates uniformity across all quantiles of the economic volatility distribution.
Conclusion
This research examines the impact of banking development on economic growth volatility across a sample of 25 developing countries from 2004 to 2019. Our empirical findings indicate a negative relationship between different facets of banking development and economic growth volatility. Nonetheless, banking efficiency and bank credit risk show a positive effect on economic volatility. This effect exhibits heterogeneity and uniformity across all quantiles of the economic volatility distribution.
The identified negative link between banking development and economic growth volatility underscores the necessity for policymakers in developing countries to enhance the stability, performance, and inclusivity of the banking sector. To effectively promote sustainable development, regulatory authorities should broaden their focus beyond traditional measures of banking depth. By acknowledging the relationship between banking development and economic instability, policymakers can initiate transformative measures that mitigate economic volatility and improve national resilience.
References
-
Adnan, N. (2011). Measurement of financial development: A fresh approach. 8th International Conference on Islamic Economics and Finance.
Google Scholar
1
-
Aghion, P., Bacchetta, P., & Banerjee, A. (2004). Financial development and the instability of open economies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51, 1077–1106.
Google Scholar
2
-
Ahamed, M. M., & Mallick, S. K. (2019). Is financial inclusion good for bank stability? International evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 157, 403–427.
Google Scholar
3
-
Bacchetta, P. H., & Caminal, R. (2000). Do capital market imperfections exacerbate output fluctuations? European Economic Review, 44, 449–468.
Google Scholar
4
-
Barra, C., D’Aniello, C., & Ruggiero, N. (2024). The effects of types of banks on financial access and income inequality in a heterogeneous sample: A quantile regression analysis. Journal of Economics and Business, 48(3).
Google Scholar
5
-
Barra, C., & Zotti, N. (2022). The role of nonlinearity on the financial development–economic performance nexus: An econometric application to Italian banks. Empirical Economics, 60, 2293–2322.
Google Scholar
6
-
Beck, T. (2016). Financial inclusion–measuring progress and progress in measuring. Mimeo. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2016/statsforum/pdf/beck_paper.pdf.
Google Scholar
7
-
Bernanke, B., & Gertler, M. (1989). Agency costs, net worth, and business fluctuations. The American Economic Review, 79, 14–31.
Google Scholar
8
-
Boachie, R., Aawaar, G., & Domeher, D. (2021). Relationship between financial inclusion, banking stability and economic growth: a dynamic panel approach. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 39(3), 655–670.
Google Scholar
9
-
Cavoli, T., Gopalan, S., & Rajan, R. S. (2019). Does financial inclusion amplify output volatility in emerging and developing economies? Economies Review, 31(4), 901–930.
Google Scholar
10
-
Chen, Z., Ali, S., Lateef, M., & Khan, A. I. (2023). The nexus between asymmetric financial inclusion and economic growth: Evidence from the top 10 financially inclusive economies. Borsa Istanbul Review, 23(2), 368–377.
Google Scholar
11
-
Creel, J., Hubert, P., & Labondance, F. (2015). Financial stability and economic performance. Economic Modelling, 48, 25–40.
Google Scholar
12
-
Da-Silva, G. F. (2002). The impact of financial system development on business cycles volatility: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Macroeconomics, 24(2), 233–253.
Google Scholar
13
-
Doornik, J. A., & Hansen, H. (2008). An omnibus test for univariate and multivariate normality. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 927–939.
Google Scholar
14
-
Fernández, A. I., González, F., & Suárez, N. (2016). Banking stability, competition, and economic volatility. Journal of Financial Stability, 22, 101–120.
Google Scholar
15
-
Ghosh, P., & Adhikary, M. (2023). Dynamicity and nonlinearity in the association between different facets of financial development and macroeconomic volatility: Evidence from the World Economy. International Review of Applied Economics, 37(6), 745–766.
Google Scholar
16
-
Greenwood, J., & Jovanovic, B. (1990). Financial development, growth and distribution of income. Working Paper, 3189.
Google Scholar
17
-
Gopalan, S., & Rajan, R. S. (2021). Does digital financial inclusion moderate or exacerbate output volatility? Applied Economics Letters, 29(19), 1804–1809.
Google Scholar
18
-
Ibrahim, M., & Alagidede, P. (2017). Financial sector development, economic volatility and shocks in sub-Saharan Africa. Physica A, 484, 66–81.
Google Scholar
19
-
Joshi, S., & Kansil, R. (2024). Financial Deepening and Economic Growth: Evaluation of Evidence from India. Development Economics.
Google Scholar
20
-
Kiyotaki, N., & Moore, J. (1997). Credit cycles. Journal of Political Economy, 105(2), 211–248.
Google Scholar
21
-
Klein, P. O., & Weill, L. (2022). Bank profitability and economic growth. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 84, 183–199.
Google Scholar
22
-
Lopèz-Monti, M. (2020). The effect of macroeconomic volatility on financial deepening: A missing link? Working paper. Available at: https://www.rafalopezmonti.com/uploads/1/2/2/6/122625603/macro_volatility_and_financial_deepening_rafael_lopez-monti_nov_2020.pdf.
Google Scholar
23
-
Ma, Y., & Song, K. (2017). Financial development and macroeconomic volatility. Bulletin Development and Macroeconomic Volatility, 70(3), 205–225.
Google Scholar
24
-
Manganelli, S., & Popov, A. (2015). Financial development, sectoral reallocation, and volatility: International evidence. Journal of International Economics, 96(2), 323–337.
Google Scholar
25
-
Mishkin, F. S. (1996). Understanding financial crises: A developing country perspective. Working Paper, 5600.
Google Scholar
26
-
Morgan, P., Rime, B., & Strahan, E. (2004). Bank integration and state business cycles. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(4), 1555–1584.
Google Scholar
27
-
Powell, D. (2022). Quantile regression with nonadditive fixed effects. Empirical Economics, 63, 2675–2691.
Google Scholar
28
-
Sebai, M., Talbi, O., & Mehri, G. H. (2024). On the banking deepening and economic volatility nexus in emerging countries: Evidence from a GMM panel-VAR approach. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(5), 430–442.
Google Scholar
29
-
Siddiki, J., & Bala-Keffi (2024). Revisiting the relation between financial inclusion and economic growth: A global analysis using panel threshold regression. Economic Modelling, 135.
Google Scholar
30
-
Singh, V. K., Abosedra, S., Fakih, A., Ghosh, S., & Kanjilal, K. (2023). Economic volatility and financial deepening in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from panel cointegration with cross-sectional heterogeneity and endogenous structural breaks. Empirical Economics, 65, 2013–2038.
Google Scholar
31
-
Subkhan, M. A., & Hutajulu, D. M. (2023). The analysis of the effect of financial deepening on Indonesia’s economic growth: A longitudinal analysis. Research Horizon, 3(1), 19–35.
Google Scholar
32
-
Svirydzenka, K. (2016). Introducing a new broad-based index of financial development. International Monetary Fund. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/Introducing-a-New-Broad-based-Index-of-Financial-Development-43621.
Google Scholar
33
-
Tabash, M. I., Ezekiel, O., Ahmed, A., Oladiran, A., Elsantil, Y., & Lawal, A. I. (2024). Examining the linkages among financial inclusion, economic growth, poverty, and inequality reduction in Africa. Scientific African, 23.
Google Scholar
34
-
Tang, C. F., & Tan, B. W. (2014). The linkages among energy consumption, economic growth, relative price, foreign direct investment, and financial development in Malaysia. Quality & Quantity, 48(2), 781–797.
Google Scholar
35
-
Ullah, W., Zubir, A. S. M., & Ariff, A. M. (2024). Exploring the moderating effect of regulatory quality on the relationship between financial development and economic growth/economic volatility for developed and developing countries. Borsa Istanbul Review, 24(5), 934–944.
Google Scholar
36
-
Xue, W. (2020). Financial sector development and growth volatility: An international study. International Review of Economics and Finance, 70, 67–88.
Google Scholar
37
-
Yilmaz, O. (2024). Financial development and declining growth volatility: Explanations and an empirical study with the latest FD index. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 70, 457–470.
Google Scholar
38