The Nexus between Financial Development and Economic Growth: Panel Data Evidence from Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate the nexus between financial development (FD) in economic growth (GROWTH) in developing countries. The study uses panel data from 138 developing countries during the period 1980–2018. The relationship between financial development and economic growth is investigated using four explanatory variables that are commonly used to measure the level of financial development and several other control variables, including a dummy variable representing the financial and banking crises. The sample of 138 developing countries is also classified into six geographic regions. We have carried out panel unit-root tests and panel cointegration tests before estimating the specified models using both Panel Least Squares (Panel LS) and Panel Fully Modified Least Squares (FMOLS) methods. In addition, panel Granger causality tests have been conducted to identify the direction of causality between FD and GROWTH for each of the regions. The results of the study provide evidence of a direct relationship between FD and GROWTH in developing countries. Furthermore, there is evidence of bi-directional causality running from FD to GROWTH and from GROWTH to FD in samples of Europe and Central Asia, South Asia, and all countries, but not in East Asia and Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".