MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603862872 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n4p152

Financial Deepening and Economic Development in MENA Countries: Empirical Evidence from the Advanced Panel Method

2017· article· en· W2603862872 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Şerife Özşahi̇n, Doğan Uysal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial deepeningEconomicsFinancial sector developmentPanel dataHausman testPrivate sectorEstimationFinanceFinancial sectorMacroeconomicsFinancial systemFixed effects modelMonetary economicsFinancial intermediaryEconometricsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyses the effect of financial deepening on economic development in 12 MENA countries for the period between 2000 and 2014. Using three financial deepening indicators which are widely used in the literature, an econometric analysis was conducted through co-integration and estimation methods which take cross-sectional dependence into account. A long-term relationship between variables was revealed with Westerlund (2008) Durbin-Hausman panel co-integration test, and then, long-term coefficients were obtained using Pesaran (2006) CCE (Common Correlated Errors) estimator. Empirical findings point to a positive relationship between financial deepening indicators - domestic credit to private sector, domestic credit provided by private sector, and liquid liabilities of the financial system ratio – and economic development. With this study, it was shown that the domestic credit to private sector causes economic growth for five countries, domestic credit provided by financial sector causes economic growth for one country, and liquid liabilities of the financial system causes economic growth for four countries.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207