Causal nexus between economic growth, banking sector development, stock market development, and other macroeconomic variables: The case of ASEAN countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the relationship between banking sector development, stock market development, economic growth, and four other macroeconomic variables in ASEAN countries for the period 1961–2012. Using principal component analysis for the construction of the development indices and a panel vector auto‐regressive model for testing the Granger causalities, this study finds the presence of both unidirectional and bidirectional causality links between these variables. The study contributes to understanding the importance of the interrelationship between the variables and combines the different strands of the literature. It also contributes to the literature by focusing on a group of countries that have not been studied before. One particular policy recommendation is to make the banking sector more accessible for those country's inhabitants that do not have bank accounts. Another policy recommendation is to nurture stock market development, which will facilitate the increased raising of capital for investment purposes to enhance economic growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it