##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

Download data is not yet available.

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.
Table I. List of Countries

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 (BB_POPi) per 100,000 adults is utilized. For the evaluation of geographic penetration, the number of bank branches (BB_kmi2) and ATMs (ATM_kmi2) 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
Table II. Banking Development Indicators in Developing Countries (2004–2019): Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
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
Table III. Variable Descriptions

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
Table IV. Descriptive Statistics

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 Eco_Volit represents the economic growth volatility of the country i in year t. Banking_Developmentit 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).

E c o _ V o l i t = δ i + μ i + α 1 θ B a n k i n g _ D e v e l o p m e n t 0 i t + α 2 θ F O i t + α 3 θ R E E R i t + α 4 θ I N T R i t + α 5 θ G o v _ C o n s u m p i t + α 6 θ L o g _ P O P i t + ε i t

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***
Table V. Panel Unit Root

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 VIX, include measurements of the aforementioned banking development indicators: B_Deepening, B_Inclusion, B_Performance, B_Efficiency, and NPLs. The findings are presented for the 10th, 20th,30th,40th,50th,60th,70th,80th,90th 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 60th,70th,80th,90th percentiles, represent countries characterized by higher levels of economic growth volatility. Conversely, the lower quantiles, including the 10th,20th,30th,40th and 50th 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)
Table VI. Banking Deepening and Economic Growth Volatility: Panel Quantile Regression
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)
Table VII. Banking Inclusion and Economic Growth Volatility: Panel Quantile Regression
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)
Table VIII. Banking Performance and Economic Growth Volatility: Panel Quantile Regression
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)
Table IX. Banking Efficiency and Economic Growth Volatility: Panel Quantile Regression
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)
Table X. Banking Stability (NPLs) and Economic Growth Volatility: Panel Quantile Regression

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

  1. Adnan, N. (2011). Measurement of financial development: A fresh approach. 8th International Conference on Islamic Economics and Finance.
     Google Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Bacchetta, P., & Banerjee, A. (2004). Financial development and the instability of open economies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51, 1077–1106.
     Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bacchetta, P. H., & Caminal, R. (2000). Do capital market imperfections exacerbate output fluctuations? European Economic Review, 44, 449–468.
     Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Bernanke, B., & Gertler, M. (1989). Agency costs, net worth, and business fluctuations. The American Economic Review, 79, 14–31.
     Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Creel, J., Hubert, P., & Labondance, F. (2015). Financial stability and economic performance. Economic Modelling, 48, 25–40.
     Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Fernández, A. I., González, F., & Suárez, N. (2016). Banking stability, competition, and economic volatility. Journal of Financial Stability, 22, 101–120.
     Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Greenwood, J., & Jovanovic, B. (1990). Financial development, growth and distribution of income. Working Paper, 3189.
     Google Scholar
  18. Gopalan, S., & Rajan, R. S. (2021). Does digital financial inclusion moderate or exacerbate output volatility? Applied Economics Letters, 29(19), 1804–1809.
     Google Scholar
  19. Ibrahim, M., & Alagidede, P. (2017). Financial sector development, economic volatility and shocks in sub-Saharan Africa. Physica A, 484, 66–81.
     Google Scholar
  20. Joshi, S., & Kansil, R. (2024). Financial Deepening and Economic Growth: Evaluation of Evidence from India. Development Economics.
     Google Scholar
  21. Kiyotaki, N., & Moore, J. (1997). Credit cycles. Journal of Political Economy, 105(2), 211–248.
     Google Scholar
  22. Klein, P. O., & Weill, L. (2022). Bank profitability and economic growth. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 84, 183–199.
     Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Ma, Y., & Song, K. (2017). Financial development and macroeconomic volatility. Bulletin Development and Macroeconomic Volatility, 70(3), 205–225.
     Google Scholar
  25. Manganelli, S., & Popov, A. (2015). Financial development, sectoral reallocation, and volatility: International evidence. Journal of International Economics, 96(2), 323–337.
     Google Scholar
  26. Mishkin, F. S. (1996). Understanding financial crises: A developing country perspective. Working Paper, 5600.
     Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, P., Rime, B., & Strahan, E. (2004). Bank integration and state business cycles. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(4), 1555–1584.
     Google Scholar
  28. Powell, D. (2022). Quantile regression with nonadditive fixed effects. Empirical Economics, 63, 2675–2691.
     Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Xue, W. (2020). Financial sector development and growth volatility: An international study. International Review of Economics and Finance, 70, 67–88.
     Google Scholar
  38. 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