{"title":"Quest for the general effect size of finance on growth: a large meta-analysis of worldwide studies","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s00181-023-02528-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>We analyze diverse and heterogeneous literature to grasp the general effect size of financial development on economic growth on a world scale. For that, we perform by far the largest available meta-analysis of the finance–growth nexus using 3561 estimates collected from 177 studies. Our meta-synthesis results show that large heterogeneity in empirical evidence is, in fact, driven by only a limited number of variables (moderators). By using advanced techniques, we also document the existence of the publication selection bias that is propagated in the literature in a nonlinear fashion. We account for uncertainty in moderator selection by employing model-averaging techniques. After adjusting for the publication bias, the results of our meta-regression provide evidence of a small but genuine positive effect of the financial development on growth that very mildly declines over time. Finance channeled via capital markets seems to be more beneficial for economic growth than that provided in the form of private credit. Our evidence goes against arguments about the damaging role of financial development and is in line with century-old theoretical foundations that favor the positive role of finance on economic growth.</p>","PeriodicalId":11642,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-023-02528-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We analyze diverse and heterogeneous literature to grasp the general effect size of financial development on economic growth on a world scale. For that, we perform by far the largest available meta-analysis of the finance–growth nexus using 3561 estimates collected from 177 studies. Our meta-synthesis results show that large heterogeneity in empirical evidence is, in fact, driven by only a limited number of variables (moderators). By using advanced techniques, we also document the existence of the publication selection bias that is propagated in the literature in a nonlinear fashion. We account for uncertainty in moderator selection by employing model-averaging techniques. After adjusting for the publication bias, the results of our meta-regression provide evidence of a small but genuine positive effect of the financial development on growth that very mildly declines over time. Finance channeled via capital markets seems to be more beneficial for economic growth than that provided in the form of private credit. Our evidence goes against arguments about the damaging role of financial development and is in line with century-old theoretical foundations that favor the positive role of finance on economic growth.
期刊介绍：
Empirical Economics publishes high quality papers using econometric or statistical methods to fill the gap between economic theory and observed data. Papers explore such topics as estimation of established relationships between economic variables, testing of hypotheses derived from economic theory, treatment effect estimation, policy evaluation, simulation, forecasting, as well as econometric methods and measurement. Empirical Economics emphasizes the replicability of empirical results. Replication studies of important results in the literature - both positive and negative results - may be published as short papers in Empirical Economics. Authors of all accepted papers and replications are required to submit all data and codes prior to publication (for more details, see: Instructions for Authors).The journal follows a single blind review procedure. In order to ensure the high quality of the journal and an efficient editorial process, a substantial number of submissions that have very poor chances of receiving positive reviews are routinely rejected without sending the papers for review.Officially cited as: Empir Econ
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
