Correlates of Stock Market Development and Economic Growth: A Confirmatory Study from Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study confirms the debate on whether stock market development correlates to economic growth. The dimensions used for the stock market development consisted of market liquidity, size, and capitalization. Economic growth was represented by the real gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate. Based on secondary data obtained from the Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE) and Ghana Statistical Service from 2014 to 2018, a correlational research design was adopted to analyze the data with SPSS 20v by using bivariate and regression. The study found that there is a high positive relationship between market liquidity and economic growth, a moderate negative relationship between market size and economic growth, and a moderate positive relationship between market capitalization and economic growth. Also, the stock market development of market liquidity, size, and capitalization predict 95.7 percent of economic growth. The study summarized that there is a high positive association between stock market development and economic growth as a confirmatory revelation, but all the relationship results were not statistically significant. The result points to the casualty of the relationship between stock market development and economic growth. The study recommends that more firms must be encouraged to be listed on GSE to enhance economic growth in Ghana.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".