金融结构和经济增长关系外文文献翻译中英文
毕业论文(设计)外文文献翻译及原文
金融体制、融资约束与投资——来自OECD的实证分析R．SemenovDepartment of Economics，University of Nijmegen，Nijmegen（荷兰内梅亨大学，经济学院）这篇论文考查了OECD的11个国家中现金流量对企业投资的影响.我们发现不同国家之间投资对企业内部可获取资金的敏感性具有显著差异,并且银企之间具有明显的紧密关系的国家的敏感性比银企之间具有公平关系的国家的低.同时，我们发现融资约束与整体金融发展指标不存在关系.我们的结论与资本市场信息和激励问题对企业投资具有重要作用这种观点一致，并且紧密的银企关系会减少这些问题从而增加企业获取外部融资的渠道。
一、引言各个国家的企业在显著不同的金融体制下运行。
金融发展水平的差别(例如，相对GDP的信用额度和相对GDP的相应股票市场的资本化程度），在所有者和管理者关系、企业和债权人的模式中，企业控制的市场活动水平可以很好地被记录.在完美资本市场,对于具有正的净现值投资机会的企业将一直获得资金。
然而，经济理论表明市场摩擦，诸如信息不对称和激励问题会使获得外部资本更加昂贵，并且具有盈利投资机会的企业不一定能够获取所需资本.这表明融资要素，例如内部产生资金数量、新债务和权益的可得性，共同决定了企业的投资决策.现今已经有大量考查外部资金可得性对投资决策的影响的实证资料（可参考，例如Fazzari（1998）、 Hoshi(1991)、 Chapman（1996）、Samuel(1998））.大多数研究结果表明金融变量例如现金流量有助于解释企业的投资水平。
这项研究结果解释表明企业投资受限于外部资金的可得性。
很多模型强调运行正常的金融中介和金融市场有助于改善信息不对称和交易成本，减缓不对称问题,从而促使储蓄资金投着长期和高回报的项目,并且提高资源的有效配置（参看Levine（1997)的评论文章）。
因而我们预期用于更加发达的金融体制的国家的企业将更容易获得外部融资.几位学者已经指出建立企业和金融中介机构可进一步缓解金融市场摩擦。
绿色金融对经济增长的影响英语作文
Green Finance and Its Impact on EconomicGrowthIn the contemporary era, the intersection of finance and sustainability has gained significant attention, leading to the emergence of green finance. Green finance, an innovative financial approach, aims to promote environmental protection and sustainable development by redirecting capital flows towards eco-friendly projects and initiatives. This shift not only addresses environmental concerns but also presents new opportunities for economic growth.The fundamental premise of green finance is to align financial decisions with environmental and social objectives. It involves the mobilization of private and public capital to finance projects that have positive environmental impacts, such as renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and waste management. By doing so, green finance not only reduces the environmental footprint of economic activities but also creates new jobs, industries, and technologies that contribute to economic growth.One of the most significant impacts of green finance on economic growth is its ability to drive innovation. As capital flows towards green projects, it encourages businesses and research institutions to invest in clean technologies and sustainable business models. This innovation, in turn, leads to the creation of new products, services, and markets that contribute to economic expansion. For instance, the development of renewable energy sources has created jobs in the manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of solar panels, wind turbines, and other clean energy technologies.Moreover, green finance can also enhance the resilience of the economy to environmental risks. As climate changeand environmental degradation pose increasing threats to economic stability, green finance can help mitigate these risks by financing projects that reduce carbon emissions, adapt to climate change, and protect ecosystems. Bybuilding resilience, green finance contributes to the long-term sustainability and growth of the economy.Another key aspect of green finance is its potential to attract foreign investment. As the world increasinglyrecognizes the importance of sustainability, investors are looking for opportunities in green projects and businesses. By developing a robust green finance framework, countries can attract foreign capital, which can provide additional funding for green projects and contribute to economic growth.However, it is worth noting that the implementation of green finance also poses certain challenges. Ensuring the effective allocation of capital towards sustainableprojects requires robust regulatory frameworks, transparent disclosure standards, and strong institutions. Additionally, the transition to a green economy may involve costs and adjustments for businesses and consumers, which need to be carefully managed to avoid any negative impacts on economic growth.In conclusion, green finance presents a unique opportunity to align economic growth with environmental sustainability. By redirecting capital flows towards eco-friendly projects, it can drive innovation, enhance economic resilience, and attract foreign investment. However, to fully harness its potential, it is essential toaddress the challenges associated with its implementation and ensure that green finance is integrated into national development strategies.**绿色金融对经济增长的影响**在当今时代，金融与可持续发展的交汇点引起了广泛关注，从而催生了绿色金融。
绿色金融对经济增长的影响英语作文
Green Finance: Its Impact on EconomicGrowthIn recent years, the concept of green finance has gained significant attention, as it offers a sustainable approach to financing economic activities. Green finance aims to channel financial resources towards environmentally friendly and climate-resilient projects, thereby promoting economic growth while mitigating environmental risks. This essay explores the impact of green finance on economic growth, analyzing the mechanisms through which it canfoster sustainable development.Firstly, green finance mobilizes capital towards green projects. By providing financial incentives and risk mitigation measures, green finance attracts private sector investment into renewable energy, energy-efficient technologies, and sustainable infrastructure. This investment spurs innovation and technological advancements, leading to increased productivity and economic growth.Secondly, green finance contributes to risk management and mitigation. Climate change and environmental degradation pose significant risks to economic stability.Green finance helps to identify and manage these risks, ensuring that economic activities are resilient to environmental shocks. By investing in adaptation measures and disaster risk reduction, green finance supports sustainable economic growth.Moreover, green finance promotes transparency and accountability in the financial sector. By requiring strict environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, green finance ensures that financial institutions and investors are held accountable for their environmental and social impacts. This transparency enhances trust and confidence in the financial system, leading to moreefficient capital allocation and economic growth.Additionally, green finance fosters cross-sectoral collaboration. By bridging the gap between the financial and real sectors, green finance encourages cooperation between different stakeholders, including governments, financial institutions, businesses, and communities. This collaboration leads to the development of innovative solutions that address both economic and environmental challenges, thus supporting sustainable growth.In conclusion, green finance has a profound impact on economic growth. By mobilizing capital towards green projects, managing and mitigating risks, promoting transparency and accountability, and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration, green finance supports sustainable development. As the world faces increasing environmental challenges, the role of green finance in driving economic growth becomes increasingly important.**绿色金融对经济增长的影响**近年来，绿色金融的概念受到了广泛关注，因为它为经济活动提供了一种可持续的融资方式。
经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文最新
经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文最新经济结构决定金融结构外文文献翻译中英文2019-2020英文Does economic structure determine financial structure?Franklin Allen，Laura BartiloroAbstractIn this paper, we examine the relationship between the structure of the real economy and a country's financial system. We consider whether the development of the real economic structure can predict the direction of evolution of a country's financial structure. Using data for 108 countries, we find a significant relationship between real economic structure and financial structure. Next, we exploit shocks to the economies in India, Finland and Sweden, and South Korea and show that changes in the economic structure of a country influence the evolution of its financial system. This suggests that financial institutions and capital markets change in response to the structure of industries.Keywords：Financial system，Economic structureIntroductionThe structures of financial systems vary among industrial and developing countries. In some countries, financial systems are predominantly bank-based, while in others they are dominated by capital markets. Only fragmented theories exist in the literature that explain the prevailing differences in country financial structures, which are definedas the mix of financial markets, institutions, instruments, and contracts that prescribe how financial activities are organized at a particular date.The existing studies explain the prevailing differences in financial structures using legal origin and protection, politics, history, and culture as factors. This paper considers the link between the real economic structure and the financial system of a country. Such a relationship is influenced by the funding sources for corporate investment that differ depending on firm and project characteristics (Allen, 1993; Boot and Thakor, 1997; Allen and Gale, 1999). Consistent with this theory, banks are more appropriate for the financing of traditional asset-intensive industries, whereas capital markets favour innovative and risky projects. One implication of this theory is that the real economic structure of a country, whether it is asset intensive or service oriented, could determine its financial structure. For instance, financial systems in countries such as Germany and Japan would remain bank-based as long as their economies are dominated by manufacturing industries. Contrastingly, the financial system in the United States will continue to be market-oriented as long as service and highly innovative companies constitute a large share of the economy. Consequently, the financial systems of the United States, Germany, or Japan will remain at polar extremes because of their economic structures even though the countries are at a similar stage of development.Robinson (1952) argues that financial intermediaries and markets emerge when required by industries. Consequently, intermediaries and markets appear in response to economic structure. The idea that the form of financing, and thus the country's financial structure, depends on the type of activity that firms engage in has not yet been directly addressed in the literature. To provide evidence of the hypothesis that structure and changes in the real economy determine the direction ofevolution of a country's financial system, we first must distinguish the different financial structures across countries. However, although recent attention has shifted to a more systematic classification of financial systems, the literature provides only very broad measures and definitions for classification. Consistent with the literature this study classifies a country's financial system as either bank-based (the German or Japanese model) or market-based (the Anglo-Saxon model). In the bank-based financial system, financial intermediaries play an important role by mobilising savings, allocating credit, and facilitating the hedging, pooling, and pricing of risks. In the market-based financial system, capital markets are the main channels of finance in the economy (Allen and Gale, 2000).Our theory builds on Rajan and Zingales (2003a) who note that bank-based systems tend to have a comparative advantage in financing fixed-asset-intensive firms rather than high technology research and development-based firms. Rajan and Zingales (2003a) argue thatfixed-asset-intensive firms are typically more traditional and well understood, and the borrower has the collateral to entice fresh lenders if the existing ones prove overly demanding. As per Rajan and Zingales (2003a), loans are well collateralised by physical assets, and therefore are liquid; hence, the concentration of information in the system will not be a barrier to the financing of these assets. Conversely, the authors argue that market-based systems will have a comparative advantage in financing knowledge industries with intangible assets.Consequently, we suggest that countries with a majority of physical-asset-intensive firms, depending on external finance, will be more likely to possess a bank-oriented financial system.However, capital markets should develop more effectively in countries with firms that are based on knowledge and intangible assets. We test this hypothesis by identifying fixed-asset-intensive firms within the economic sector defined as industry by the standard classification system for economic activity. Conversely, in this study the service sector acts as a proxy for knowledge and intangible asset firms. The relative importance of the two types of firms in an economy will be represented by the relative volume of activity of the two different economic sectors. The standard system of classification for economic activity includes a third sector, agriculture. We classify agriculture as a physical-asset-intensive industry because land and agricultural machinery may be used as collateral and, therefore,we assume that firms in the agricultural sector will prefer bank financing over capital markets.We first present some historical evidence showing the nexus between real economic structure and financial system. In order to test our outlined hypothesis, we use a panel data set for 108 countries and employ both the panel OLS and a two-step generalised-method-of-moments (GMM) system. Additionally, we investigate the robustness of the results by introducing different additional control variables and testing the heterogenous effects. The results suggest that there is a negative and significant relationship between a country's economic structure (industry versus service sector) and financial system structure (stock market versus banking sector). In economies where the service sector carries more weight economically than industry and agriculture, the country tends to have a market-based financial system. In contrast, a bank-based financial system is more likely to emerge in economies with many fixed-asset-intensive firms.Next, we conduct event studies using the treatment effect estimation to isolate the endogeneity concerns. We analyse different types of exogenous shock to the structure of the real economy and its impact on financial structure. We employ three events that changed the economic structures of the countries and further investigate their impact on the financial structure using a difference-in-difference strategy. The firstevent is India's structural reforms in 1991 as a positive shock to the country's economy; the second one is the demise of the Soviet Union as a negative shock to the economy of Finland and Sweden; the third one is the economic reforms in the 1980s and early 1990s in South Korea. In India and South Korea we find that after the structural reforms of the economies, the service sector grew in relative terms and the stock markets in both countries experienced significantly faster growth than their banking systems, compared to the control countries. In Finland and Sweden we document that following the negative shock the service sector gained in relative importance, which was followed by the faster growth of the equity market in comparison to the banking system. Overall, the results of the three different event studies confirm our hypothesis that the relative importance of financial intermediaries and markets is determined by the industry needs of a country.The findings of this study are interesting from a regulatory perspective and lend insight into the development of financial structures worldwide. The main policy implications from this study are that financial structures should be evaluated in terms of whether they meet the requirements of the real economy and industries. Furthermore the financial structure cannot bechanged as long as the economic structure does not change. The results provide insight into the reasons for limited capital markets growth in developing countries despite officialstimulation efforts from governments and multilateral organisations (Schmukler et al., 2007). According to our study of many developing countries, as long as economies remain relatively agriculture- and industry-oriented, any government effort to create or further develop a capital market is likely to not to be very successful. Additionally, any regulation that attempts to force a change in the financial system may result in a discrepancy in the economic and financial structure. Therefore, such efforts or regulations may introduce financial constraints that can further stall economic growth because financial structure influences output levels and economic growth (Levine and Zervos, 1998; Luintel et al., 2008).The real economy and finance nexusA number of explanations for financial structure exist in the literature; however, none are able to provide a comprehensive account of the observations. The first explanation is based on legal origin and investor protection. Levine (1997) builds on the work of La Porta et al. (1997, 1998); henceforth LLSV) stating that legal systems originate from a limited number of legal traditions: English common law or French, German, and Scandinavian civil law. In his study on financial development and economic growth, the author employs measures of creditors' rights and demonstrates that they may explain the emergence of bank-based financial systems. Modigliani and Perotti (2000) argue that legal institutionsdetermine the degree of financial development and the financial structure of a country. They argue that market-based systems flourish in environments with stronginstitutions. Ergungor (2004) also attempts to explain differences in financial structure by examining legal origin across countries. His study presents evidence that countries with civil law financial systems are more likely to be bank-oriented than common law countries. In the author's opinion, this evolution is a result of effective rule of law in common law countries, which improves shareholder and creditor rights protection. A perspective has emerged in the literature that legal origin can be used to explain the structure of a financial system.However, Rajan and Zingales (2003a) argue that countries with a common law system did not rely on markets to a greater extent than civil law systems at the beginning of the last century. They report that in 1913, the ratio of France's stock market capitalisation to GDP was twice as high as that of the United States, which is a country that has an environment that favours capital market development according to the legal origin perspective. It is therefore problematic to argue that legal origin is the main determinant of financial structure. The view presented below is that both the structure of the financial system and the laws will adapt to the needs and demands of the economy. One example of this is branching regulation in the United States banking sector. Rajan and Zingales(2004) note that as technology improved the ability of banks to lend and borrow from customers at a distance, competition increased in the United States even when banks had no in-state branches. Politicians who could not prevent this competition because they lacked jurisdiction, withdrew the regulations that limited branching. Another example is the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had restricted banking activities in the United States since 1933. In this case, the introduction of the FinancialModernisation Act in 1999 followed the creation of the first financial holding company in the United States and removed past restrictions. Therefore, we argue that economic demand may enhance the evolution of the financial structures and of the legal system.The existing empirical results show also that legal investor protection may support financial development. For example, LLSV (1997) show that countries with poorer investor protection have less developed capital markets. Demirgü?-Kunt and Levine (2004) find that countries with stronger protection for shareholder rights tend to have a more market-based financial system. Djankov et al. (2007) investigate cross-country determinants of private credit and find that legal creditor rights are statistically significant and quantitatively important in determining private credit development, while there is no evidence showing that creditor rights are converging among legal origins. Moreover, Djankov et al. (2007) confirm that shareholder protection ispositively related to stock market development.The second explanation for financial structure is based on political factors. Biais and Perotti (2002) provide a theoretical model of government incentives to structure privatisation policy so that financial shareholders are diffused, which may be designed to ensure re-election. Additionally, Perotti and V olpin (2004)argue that established firms have an incentive to limit entry by retarding financial development, which may well impact the financial structure. Perotti and von Thadden (2006) use a theoretical model to demonstrate the effect of the distribution of income and wealth in democratic societies and their influence on the financial structure of an economy.Moreover, according to Rajan and Zingales (2003a, 2004) structures of the financial system are unstable and evolve over time. They argue that a financial system will develop toward the optimal structure but will be hindered by politics, which are often influenced by powerful, incumbent groups. Similarly, Cull and Xu (2013) argue that financial development is driven by political economy. In their opinion financial development may reflect the interests of the elite, rather than providing broad-based access to financial services. Song and Thakor (2012a, b) develop a theory of how a financial system is influenced by political intervention that is designed to expand credit availability. They show that the relationship between political intervention and financial system development isnonmonotonic. In the early stage of financial development, the size of markets is relatively small and politicians intervene by controlling some banks and providing capital subsidies, while in the advanced stage when the financial sector is most developed, political intervention returns in the form of direct-lending regulation.Industrial-level evidenceTo check the robustness of our main results we conduct a wide array of additional analyses; however, for brevity we do not report them in full. First, we check the consistency of the results after removing outliers. These outliers are eliminated after considering the scatter plot of the main financial and economic structure indicators. We eliminate those countries that fall particularly far from the regression line and then repeat the estimation on the new sample. After eliminating the extreme observations, we still find a significant and negative relationship between economic and financial structure. Second, we increasethe set of explanatory variables and add variables for country GDP, inflation, area, latitude, dummies for landlocked economies, transition economies, or developing countries. Including these variables does not affect either the significance level or the sign of the estimated coefficients. Third, we divide the countries in the sample into two groups based on their membership in the OECD. We assume that countries belonging to the OECD are on average more developed than non-OECD member countries. Using the two separatesamples we compute again the baseline regressions. The results indicate that the relationship between financial structure and economic structure is much stronger in industrial countries than in developing countries. One possible explanation for this result is the different development stage of the financial system itself. In developing countries, the financial structure is emerging and adjusting to the needs of the real economy at the same time. Moreover, rapid changes in the financial structure are often caused by additional factors such as liberalization or political transformation. Conversely, in most of the industrial countries, we may assume that the financial system may already have an optimal structure, whereas changes are only caused in case of significant changes in the economic structure, which takes substantial time.Fourth, in the case of the OECD countries the data availability on the composition of value added for most of the industries allows us to calculate an alternative measure of economic structures, where we control for the firm asset characteristics in the given industry. In this analysis, the primary data source is the OECD STAN database for industrial analysis, which enables retrieval of gross value added for 47 industries representing ninemain sectors of the economy in 25 countries. We divide the industries using firm specific characteristics from either an asset-intensive or knowledge sector, where we measured asset intensity as the ratio of tangible assets (property, plant and equipment) to total bookassets of the firm in the industry, whereas the company specific data was computed using data from the Bureau van Dijk's ORBIS database.According to our theory, asset-intensive firms with tangible assets may use the assets to collateralise their bank debt. Hence, in countries dominated by asset-intensive industries bank-based financial systems are more likely to emerge. In contrast, knowledge-based companies with a low level of tangible assets are often forced to use either equity or bonds to finance their needs. Therefore, countries dominated by industries with intangible assets are more likely to have a market-based financial system.Classifying industries as either asset or tangible asset intensive, where we distinguish industries using ratios calculated on firm level data, we again construct two alternative measures for economic structure and employ them in the basic regression. The results of those regressions are similar to those we have presented previously and the coefficients of the economic structure were again negative and statistically significant. Overall the robustness tests at the industry-level also confirm our findings on the link between economic structure and financial structure.ConclusionOur results provide new evidence concerning the causes and causality of the direction of evolution of the financial systemstructure. Using both OLS, dynamic panel techniques and event studies wedocument that the economic structure is closely linked to the shape of the financial system. We find that countries with asset-intensive sectors are more likely to have a bank-based system. Conversely, countries with sectors that are based on knowledge and intangible assets are likely to exhibit a market-based financial system. The results suggest that the structure of the real economy may influence the structure of the financial system. Additionally, even during systemic crises, such a relationship still holds. Moreover, we conduct event studies using a difference-in-difference strategy in order to address the problems of potential endogeneity. We use different shocks that alter the economic structures in India, Finland and Sweden, and South Korea. In all the countries the shocks resulted in significant development of the service sector relative to the industry sector. The changes in economic structure were followed by changes in the structure of financial system, where the stock market gained on importance relative to the banking sector. Consequently, the results of the event studies suggest a causal relation between economic structure and financial structure.In our opinion, these results present a missing link in the explanation as to why country financial structures still differ. The results, however, confirm that other factors may influence the structure of the financial system. Consequently, a financial system may not always have an optimal structure, which may be a result of political arrangements or the interestsof incumbent groups (Rajan and Zingales, 2003a,b). Therefore, we assume that financial systems may not always be able to reach their optimal structure. However, as existing barriersare removed the structure of a financial system may develop and gain ground, but it would be independent of further changes in the real economic structure. Finally, when the financial system has reached its optimal structure with respect to the characteristics of the real economy, our theory implies that any increase in the significance of fixed-asset-intensive sectors would lead to an increase in the role of banks with respect to the stock market.The main policy implications of the model are that despite efforts from governments and multilateral organisations, particular those from the emerging economies, country capital markets will not grow in size or activity as long as the economy remains asset-intensive. Therefore, governments should focus on improving the transparency or efficiency of the existing financial structure and less on the development of the stock market because the market will develop as soon as the economic structure changes. These results are consistent with Robinson (1952).Finally, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on the relative merits of bank-based versus market-based financial systems with respect to the promotion of economic growth. Our paper presents plausible explanations to Luintel et al. (2008), that financial structure matters with respect to economic growth.中文经济结构决定金融结构吗？富兰克林·艾伦，劳拉·巴蒂洛罗摘要在本文中，我们研究了实体经济结构与一国金融体系之间的关系。
金融发展与经济增长的关系国外文献综述
金融发展与经济增长的关系国外文献综述① 吉林大学经济学院 陈丽 李娇娇摘 要：本文旨在对国外学者关于金融发展与经济增长之间的关系的研究进行梳理和总结，重点分析金融结构对经济增长的影响，包括直接金融、间接金融的影响，在此基础上提出针对我国金融机制方面的政策建议。
关键词：金融发展 经济增长 直接金融 间接金融中图分类号：F830 文献标识码：A 文章编号：2096-0298(2016)03(c)-091-041 引言从Schumpeter(1911)以来有一大批文献都认为金融发展能促进经济增长，因为金融部门提供的服务可以最大限度地将资本和资源配置到发挥最大价值的地方，以此减少逆向选择、道德风险以及交易费用所带来的损失。
后来Goldsmith(1969)的实证研究也验证了这一观点。
同年，Goldsmith在其《金融结构与金融发展》一书中，对金融发展理论做了更加深入、系统的分析，这一著作夯实了金融发展理论的基础，也为后来的学者指明了金融发展与经济增长关系的研究方向。
与此相反，另一批在Robinson(1952)著名的论断“哪里有企业领导，金融紧随其后”之后的文献资料则认为，良好增长的经济才能促进金融市场提供资金，进而支持经济的良好增长前景，例如Lucas(1988)和以Levine(1997)为首的部分发展经济学家的相关研究。
在这些例子中，经济增长在前，金融发展在后。
2 金融发展与经济增长的关系2.1 理论研究在Schumpeter等人的思想基础之上，Gurley(1955)和Shaw(1955)独辟蹊径，以分析金融部门的作用为切入点，讨论金融结构对经济增长的影响。
这一思想开辟了金融结构比较研究的先河。
1973年，Mckinnon(1973)和Shaw突破性地将发展中国家纳入研究范围。
Mckinnon的金融抑制论，揭示出发展中国家由于进行利率管制而长期存在金融抑制和通货膨胀现象。
而Shaw的金融深化论，则从分析发展中国家的金融中介机制关系角度出发，主张实行金融自由化。
关于经济的外文文献
关于经济的外文文献1."Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty（《21世纪的资本》 - 托马斯·皮凯蒂）2."Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven D.Levitt and Stephen J.Dubner （《怪诞经济学：一个叛逆经济学家揭示一切的隐藏面》 - 史蒂文·D·列维特和斯蒂芬·J·邓纳）3."The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith（《国富论》 - 亚当·斯密）4."Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness" by Richard H.Thaler and Cass R.Sunstein （《推动力：关于健康、财富和幸福的决策改进》 - 理查德·H·塞勒和卡斯·R·桑斯坦）5."Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman（《思考，快与慢》 - 丹尼尔·卡尼曼）6."The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time" by Karl Polanyi（《伟大转型：我们时代的政治与经济起源》 - 卡尔·波兰尼）7."The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle" by Joseph A.Schumpeter（《经济发展理论：对利润、资本、信用、利息和商业周期的探究》 - 约瑟夫·A·熊彼特）8."The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time" by Jeffrey D.Sachs（《贫困的终结：我们时代的经济可能性》 - 杰弗里·D·萨克斯）9."Development as Freedom" by Amartya Sen（《自由发展》 - 阿马蒂亚·森）。
金融发展与经济增长国外文献综述
金融发展与经济增长国外文献综述作者：陈美兰来源：《中国市场》2015年第16期[摘要]本文回顾了金融发展与经济增长早期西方主流经济学家的理论观点，对该领域最具影响力的理论和实证研究进行归纳总结，集中讨论了三个方面：金融总量与经济增长关系、金融结构与经济增长、金融自由化与经济增长，并研究了金融发展与经济增长的主要关系和未来发展趋势。
[关键词]金融发展；经济增长；金融自由化；金融结构[DOI]10.13939/ki.zgsc.2015.16.0601 引言史密斯（Gold Smith，1969）曾指出：“金融领域最重要的研究课题之一，是金融结构和金融发展对经济增长的影响。
”金融发展理论研究的主要内容就是金融发展与经济增长的关系。
关于金融发展对于经济增长的功能，理论界有两大阵营，一部分学者持肯定态度，认为金融发展有利于经济增长，还有一部分学者持怀疑态度，认为金融发展会带来经济的不稳定，这不利于经济的平稳增长。
2 早期理论综述古典经济学家最早认识到与货币密切联系的各种金融活动对经济发展具有重要的促进作用。
亚当·斯密在《国富论》中肯定了审慎的银行活动能增进一国的产出，增进产出的方法在于使无用的资本变为有利，使不生利的资本生利。
这就是目前人们所普遍接受的“金融中介资本分配和再分配职能论”。
约翰·穆勒继承了金融信用媒介论，指出信用没有创造资本，但是促进了资本的流动，使资本在生产中得到更有效利用，有效资本的增加带来了社会总产出相应的增加。
熊彼特第一个将金融中介的发展置于经济发展的中心地位，强调金融交易在经济增长中的重要性，他认为银行的信用创造和信用之间的关系是理解资本主引擎的关键。
20世纪50年代至60年代，大量学者深入研究了金融与经济增长的关系。
其中格利（Gurley，1955）和索肖（Shaw，1960）分别发表了《经济发展中的金融方面》和《金融中介机构、储蓄与投资》两篇论文，通过建立一种由初始向高级、从简单向复杂逐步演进的金融发展模型，证明了经济发展阶段越高，金融的作用越强。
证券市场发展与经济增长外文文献翻译中英文2020
证券市场发展与经济增长外文文献翻译中英文2020英文The relationship of renewable energy consumption to stock marketdevelopment and economic growth in IranSeyedeh Razmi，Bahareh Bajgiran，etcAbstractThis paper investigates the relationship of two types of renewable energy consumption (total hydropower, wind, solar and nuclear energies, and total combustible renewable and waste) to stock market value and economic growth in Iran. An autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) model was used for data from 1990 to 2014 and results show that stock market value affects both groups of renewable energies in the long run. Growth rate significantly affects total hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear energies in both the short and long run, although it is only significant in the short run for combustible renewable and waste energies. Neither type of renewable energy consumption affects growth in either the short or long run.Keywords：Renewable energy consumption，Stock market，Growth，ARDLSustainable development, as one of the main goals of every economy, encourages policymakers to use energy sources that emit the fewest pollutants to the environment. Today, renewable energy resources havebecome increasingly more important due to the fact that they have fewer negative impacts on the environment than other sources of energies and the growing limitations of fossil fuels. Most developed countries that are in agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Kyoto Protocol have established a framework to encourage greater usage of renewable energy sources Maji. Consequently, countries that are rich in non-renewable energies should consider ways to offset the economic slowdown that would be caused due to the loss of demand from developed countries. Apart from environmental issues, substituting domestic renewable energies also protects countries against external economic crises. As countries reduce fuel imports, their economies become less vulnerable to external crises. The importance of economic growth as the main objective of all economies has led a lot of studies towards finding the impact of renewable energies on economic growth. For example, one study using the ARDL method discovered that renewable energy and economic growth have a negative relationship in the long run in Nigeria, although an insignificant relationship exists in the short run. A negative impact of renewable energy on economic growth was also found in Turkey, South Africa, and Mexico by Ocal and Aslan. However, Destek found a positive relationship between the two variables was discovered for India. Aïssa et al tried to discover the relationship among renewable energy, output, and trade by using panel cointegrationof 11 African countries. They did not find any causality between renewable energy with output and trade in the short run. However, in the long run, Jebli and Youssef discovered the impact of renewable energy on output.Apergis and Payne employed panel cointegration for investigating the casual relationship between renewable energy consumption and economic growth for OECD countries. They found bidirectional causality between variables both in the short and long run. Similar results were discovered for Central American countries by Apergis and Payne. Using panel data, Chang et al found bidirectional causality between economic growth and renewable energy for G7 countries. However, these results were not approved for individual countries. Tugcu et al also discovered similar results for G7 countries. Using the panel cointegration method, Pao et al investigated the causal effect of clean and non-clean energies on economic growth for Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey. They found one-way causality running from renewable energy to economic growth in the long-run and two-way causality in short-run.Apart from economic growth, financial market development indexes are among the variables of interest to economists in energy studies. Financial market development can affect energy demand by influencing economic growth as well as reducing households’ constraints. Financial markets affect economic growth by transferring funds, determiningcapital prices, facilitating transactions, as well as distributing risk management. Facilitating consumer lending is another impact of financial markets on energy consumption, as easier access to financing for energy purchases increases consumer demand for energy. In other words, financial market development may increase energy consumption by reducing financial risk and lending costs and increasing access to financial investments and advanced technologies. Financial market development can also reduce the risks to consumers and businesses and thereby become an important factor in generating wealth in the economy. Therefore, the existence of financial market development is considered as a reliable lever for consumers and businesses which increases economic activity and energy demand.Kakar et al considered the relationship between financial market development, economic growth, and energy consumption in Pakistan in the 1980s. Using Johansen cointegration and Granger causality, the results showed the long-run effects of the financial market development on energy consumption, however its impact in the short run was negligible. Several studies have confirmed the relationship between financial development, energy consumption and economic growth. Stock market developments also play an important role in allocating funds for clean energy projects. Sadorsky stated that stock market developments would increase the demand for energy in emerging economies, whileChang indicated that the development of market capitalism in emerging countries would stimulate investment and energy consumption. This study investigates the relationship between renewable energy consumption, the stock market value,1 and GDP growth in Iran. It must be noted that, to the best knowledge of the authors, there have not been any studies on financial market development and renewable energies thus far; therefore, this research has referred to studies on total energy consumption and financial market development.Renewable energies can play an important role in reducing emissions of pollutants, such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Features such as environmental compatibility, fewer pollutive effects, renewability, and global reliability have led these types of energies to play an important role in the world's energy supply system on a day-to-day basis. Nowadays, Iran is suffering from air pollution, and the impact on public health is a well-known problem. Therefore, consuming renewable energies can be effective in both achieving clean air and increasing the overall health and well-being of the society. According to recent changes in Iran's energy consumption laws, governmental units such as the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Oil have been obliged to support clean energy consumption.Iran has many capacities in which to use hydro, wind, solar and other kinds of renewable energies due to its geographic environment.Despite its high potential for employing renewable resources, renewable energies have not yet been properly exploited. Renewable energy consumption in Iran is still less than 4% of total energy consumption. Therefore, Iran needs to devote particular attention to the various aspects of renewable energies to maintain its position as an energy supplier. Regarding foreign sanctions that have reduced the speed of foreign investment in non-renewable energy, the Iranian government also needs to increase its support to the private sector to attract more investment in renewable energies. This research helps policymakers in Iran and other countries meet their goals for using renewable energies by investigating the relationships of the three aforementioned variables.This study differs from other research on this issue as most papers in this field study economic growth, non-renewable energy consumption, and pollution (CO2) by panel data models. For our research objective, we make three key contributions. First, financial markets, especially the stock market, can help developing industries to raise and circulate capital within the broader economic system. While many studies have examined the relationship between financial development and economic growth with non-renewable energies, there is a gap in research pertaining to renewable energies. The study covers this gap by focusing on of renewable energy that have largely been ignored in prior research. Second, in contrast to the studies applying cross-country panel causality testing,especially in developed countries, we apply an ARDL model as a robust methodology for Iran's economy. Third, studies on renewable energies typically use one type of renewable energy source, while this study compares two groups of renewable energies: total hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear energies and combustible renewable and waste energies. We examine the effect of economic growth on the two types of renewable energy consumption and conversely, the effect of the two types of renewable energy consumption on economic growth. This type of analysis has the potential to support future policy recommendations.For our estimation model we have carried out the following steps. First, after a thorough review of theoretical and empirical studies, we have selected our models. Next, we have verified the unit roots and integration tests for long-run relationships. Subsequently, we have applied two models for each of the long-run and short-run analyses. In each model, the dependent variables are: economic growth and renewable energy type. Finally, we have conducted diagnostic tests to confirm the reliability of the results.This paper examines the relationship between two types of renewable energy consumption, including consumption of hydro, solar, wind and nuclear energies as well as that of combustible renewables and waste energies, stock market value, and economic growth in Iran over the period 1990–2014 using the ARDL method. Such a study on Iran is verynecessary, as studies in this area are rare, and only small steps have been taken towards using renewable energies. The use of renewable energy in Iran is still less than 4% of the total energy consumption in the country. Therefore, more robust studies must be done regarding renewable energies. Results show the existence of short- and long-run relationships between variables in two models where the dependent variables are re (consumption of water, solar, wind and nuclear energies), gr (economic growth rate), and rec (consumption of combustible renewable and waste energies).The coefficient of st (stock market value) is insignificant for both re and rec as dependent variables in the short run, meaning that in the short run, financial markets have no effect on renewable energy consumption; however, it is positively significant in the long run for both groups. Therefore, the stock market value is an important positive factor affecting renewable energies in the long run. Growth rate significantly affects re in both the short and long run, although it is only significant in the short run for rec as a dependent variable. Neither type of renewable energy affects growth in the short run and long run. This result is similar to Dogan that found little effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth in Turkey. Destek found negative effect of renewable energy consumption for South Africa and Mexico. However, Adams et al discovered positive effect of renewable energy consumption on economicgrowth in 30 Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries.By examining the relationship among two groups of renewable energy consumption, stock market value, and economic growth, the results of this study highlight a few points for policymakers in Iran who are looking for ways to improve public health by using clean energies. First, stock market development in Iran has led to an increase in renewable energy consumption for total hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear energies, while has not affected the consumption of combustible renewable and waste energies. The positive effect of stock market value on long-run economic growth shows that stock market development can increase renewable energy consumption in the long run. Second, economic growth can also lead to an increase in renewable energy consumption of the first group so policies towards increasing economic growth also lead to renewable energy consumption of first group. Third, given Iran's recent investments in the development and use of renewable energy technologies, the results of this research show that the country should continue to develop its renewable energy infrastructure in order to reap the full benefits.Responses to the following questions can be a guide for policymakers to achieve sustainable development and to increase the health and well-being of the society.•Do renewable energies have a positive effect on economic growth?•Does the value of the stock market have a positive effect on economic growth?•Does the value of the stock market have a positive effect on renewable energy?If the value of the stock market affects both economic growth and renewable energy consumption, it can serve as a stimulus for using renewable energy and achieving sustainable development. Economic policymakers can increase renewable energy consumption by better understanding the nuances of the effects of stock market value and economic growth on each group of renewable energy and use this knowledge to facilitate the development of the applicable renewable energies for the improvement and spread of clean air.中文证券市场发展和经济增长的关系伊朗可再生能源消费Seyedeh Razmi，Bahareh Bajgiran等摘要本文研究了伊朗两类可再生能源消耗（水电，风能，太阳能和核能总量以及可燃可再生和废物总量）与证券市场价值和经济增长之间的关系。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
金融结构和经济增长关系外文文献翻译中英文2019-2020英文Financial structure and economic growth nexus revisitedLan KhanhAbstractThis paper empirically reassesses the long-debated relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Specifically, we examine whether the effect of financial structure on economic growth is affected by the occurrence of banking crisis and economic volatility, the level of financial development, and the financial structure disproportion. We employ the generalized method of moments estimation to a panel of 99 countries over the 1971–2015 period. Although the main result supports the market-based view, the positive effect of the securities market development relative to the banking system weakens significantly if the financial structure is unbalanced. Our findings are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks, including different measures of financial structure, time periods, and model specifications.Keywords: Financial structure, Unbalanced financial system, Economic growthIntroductionAlthough most empirical evidence demonstrates that financial development has a positive long-run impact on economic growth, there isno consensus in both theoretical and empirical evidence on the effect of financial structure on economic growth. Some theoretical models emphasize the benefits of bank-based financial system while others underline the advantages of financial system that rely more on securities markets. According to Levine (2003), the financial system as a whole has five functions to mitigate the problems caused by market frictions, including resource allocation, corporate governance monitoring, risk reduction, saving mobilization, and transaction facilitation. The four competing theories of financial structure, including bank-based, market-based, financial services, and law and finance view are constructed based on the role of banks and securities markets in providing such financial functions. We discuss them briefly below.The bank-based view criticizes the drawbacks of the securities market and stresses that banks can mitigate these drawbacks. A well-developed securities market quickly reveals information, reducing the individual investors' incentives to collect and analyze information. As a result, a well-developed securities market may hinder the process of identifying innovative projects that promote economic growth (Stiglitz, 1985). Uncoordinated market may be ineffective in monitoring managers due to asymmetric information, free-rider problem, and surreptitious relationship between boards of directors, large shareholders, and managers (Allen & Gale, 2000; Jensen, 1993; Stiglitz, 1985). Moreover,liquid securities markets may encourage myopic investment, leading to inefficient corporate governance and resource allocation (Bhidé, 1993).In contrast, the proponents of market-based view depreciate the role of banks in providing financial functions. A banking system with a huge influence over the firms and bias toward prudence can impede the firms from undertaking innovative, profitable projects (Hellwig, 1991; Morck & Nakamura, 1999; Rajan, 1992; Weinstein and Yafeh, 1998). A long-run relationship between banks and firms' managers can lead them to act against the interests of other stakeholders (Black and Moersch, 1998). Finally, a bank-based system may be only good in providing inexpensive, basic risk management for standardized situations, leaving the advanced services for flexible and complicated demand for the stock-based system (Levine, 2002).The financial services view argues that the issue is the overall development of financial system, not the particular institutional arrangements such as banks or securities markets. Banks and markets may act as complement rather than substitution in providing growth-enhancing financial services to the economy (Boyd & Smith, 1998; Levine & Zervos, 1998). La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, and Vinshy (1998) argue that legal system differences across countries determine the differences in the financial system. The legal rights and enforcement mechanism ensure the quantity and quality of servicesprovided by financial system, which then influence resource allocation and economic growth.In the early 21st centuries, a series of papers find that the financial structure is not relevant for economic growth (Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt, Levine, and Maksimovic, 2000; Beck & Levine, 2002; Demirguc-Kunt & Maksimovic, 2002; Levine, 2002; Ndikumana, 2005). However, recent papers with more technical econometric approach provide the contradicting evidence that financial structure does matter. Some of them are in favor of market-based view while the others claim that a bank-based financial system enhances economic growth (Demirgüç-Kunt, Feyen, and Levine, 2013; Castro, Kalatzis, & Martins-Filho, 2015; Liu & Zhang, 2018).In this paper, we re-examine the relationship between financial structure and economic growth, in terms of size, activity, and efficiency. However, our aims are different from the previous research and we make new contributions to the current literature in the following ways.First, we check whether the macro-economic volatility and banking instability affect the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999), Rousseau and Wachtel (2011), Schularick and Taylor (2012), and Ductor and Grechyna (2015) mention that macroeconomic volatility, financial, and banking crises caused by excessive financial deepening or rapid credit growthweaken the connection between the financial development and economic growth.Second, we propose that the relationship between financial structure and economic growth may vary according to the level of financial development. There has been a great number of research identifying that finance has a different impact on economic growth in different countries, regions, economic development levels, time periods, and financial development levels (Beck, Degryse, & Kneer, 2014; De Gregorio & Guidotti, 1995; Deidda & Fattouh, 2002; Huang & Lin, 2009; Rioja and Valev, 2004a, 2004b). De Gregorio and Guidotti (1995), Levine and Zervos (1998), Levine, Loayza, and Beck (2000), and Rioja and Valev (2004b) conclude that the impact of financial development on growth changes as the financial development level changes. They also point out several theoretical explanations for this relationship, including economies of scales, learning-by-doing effects, and the law of diminishing returns (Rioja & Valev, 2004b).Third, we investigate whether the effects of financial structure on economic growth in the balanced financial system are different from those in the unbalanced financial system. Previously, Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008)find that a more balanced financial structure is associated with higher economic growth. If there exists a difference, it can explain why some research concludes that the financial structure isirrelevant for economic growth.To achieve these objectives, we use a panel dataset of 99 countries over the period 1971–2015 and the system generalized method of moments (GMM) to estimate the impact of financial structure on economic growth. We employ two approaches of Levine (2002) and Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008) to measure financial structure and identify the unbalanced financial system. We allow for the interaction between the main variables of interest (financial structure indicators) and the variables that reflect macro-economic volatility, banking crisis, financial development, as well as the unbalancedness of the financial system.We obtain several interesting findings, which are stable in extensive robust analyses. First, financial structure activity and efficiency matter for economic growth but the size of financial structure does not. Second, banking crises and economic volatility do not significantly change the relationship between financial structure and economic growth. Third, the role of stock market over banks increases with the development of the financial sector. Fourth, the positive impact of higher stock market development relative to banking sector development is reverted if the country's financial structure is unbalanced toward stock markets. Although our result is in favor of the market-based view, it also implies that for a country to receive benefit from higher development in financialstructure, it must have a balanced financial system first.Literature reviewBased on four competing financial structure theories, there has been a growing number of literature on the effect of financial structure on economic activities. Overall, early research on the financial structure and growth nexus provide supporting evidence for the financial services and law. However, recent studies have verified that the financial structure, bank-based or market-based financial system, matters for economic growth.One of the pioneer studies on the financial structure and economic growth nexus is the seminar of Beck et al. (2000). In this paper, they use different methodologies for three cross-country-, industry-, and firm-level dataset to investigate the relationship between the financial structure and economic development. First, using a sample of 48 countries with data being averaged over the period 1980–1985, they find that the financial structure is not significantly related to economic growth while the financial development is positively correlated with economic growth. Second, the industry-level data of 34 countries and 36 industries indicate that the overall level of financial development, but not a specific structure of financial system, affects industry growth rate and the creation of new firms. Third, they use panel firm-level data from 1990 to 1995 to examine whether firms' access to external finance varies across financial systemwith different structures. Again, the result is similar to the above findings. Overall, firms do not grow faster in either market- or bank-oriented financial system. The financial development level and legal environment are critical determinants of economic growth. Demirguc-Kunt and Maksimovic (2002) use firm-level data from 40 countries to check whether firms' access to external funds for growth differs in bank-oriented and market-oriented financial systems. The result reveals that the effect of the financial development on firms' growth is associated with the development of a country's contracting environment. Moreover, the relative development of stock market over banking system is not a robust predictor of the firms' access to external financing. Their finding is consistent with the financial services and law views. A highly cited paper by Levine (2002) explores the financial structure and economic growth relationship under four competing theories, including bank-based, market-based, financial services, and law views. He proposes three measures of the financial structure, in terms of size, activity, and efficiency. Using a data set of 48 countries from 1980 to 1985, he finds that financial structure is not significantly associated with economic growth, capital allocation, and the individual sources of growth. This finding indicates that both bank-based and market-based theories are not relevant for economic growth but provides a strong support for the financial services view. Similarly, Ndikumana (2005) finds that thefinancial system development, not the financial structure, has a positive effect on the domestic investment. Beck and Levine (2002) investigate whether bank-based or market-based financial system has an impact on the growth, establishment of firms, and capital allocation efficiency across industries. The result does not support bank-based or market-based theory but the overall finance development and legal system efficiency are what matter for economic growth. Cuadro-Sáez and García-Herrero (2008) criticize the common measurement of financial structure (proposed by Levine (2002)) and recommend a new measure of the financial structure's balancedness. The result indicates that a more balanced financial structure, in terms of the banking relative to the capital market, supports economic growth. Their finding implies the complementary rather than substitution relationship between banks and capital markets.In sharp contrast, recent studies employing the same data set, larger sample size, and longer period, indicate that the financial structure exerts a significant effect on economic growth. Pinno and Serletis (2007) investigate the potential for heterogeneity in the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth in Levine (2002)'s cross-country data set. They find evidence that developing countries benefit from the bank-based financial system while developed ones profit from the market-based financial system. Ergungor (2008)research on howthe financial system structure affects economic growth for 48 countries from 1980 to 1995, which are previously analyzed in Levine (2002). Ergungor (2008) employs a variety of financial structure, financial development, as well as economic, social, and political variables. The result indicates that the financial system structure matters for economic growth. Specifically, a bank-oriented financial system boots economic growth, especially the capital stock component, in countries with inflexible judicial systems. Baum, Schäfer, and Talavera (2011) study whether a country's financial structure affects the firm's obstacles in obtaining external funds. They follow Levine (2002) to use two measures of financial structure, size and activity. Employing the data of 5500 manufacturing firms from 35 countries over the period 1989–2006, they find that both financial structure activity and size play an important role in reducing obstacles to firm's access to external finance. Although the result supports the bank-based view, the authors emphasize that both banks and stock markets have their own pros and cons. Luintel, Khan, Arestis, and Theodoridis (2008) criticize the research, which employ multi-country, -industry, and –firm level dataset. They propose the use of time-series and dynamic heterogeneous panel method to overcome the problems of cross-country heterogeneity and unbalanced cross-country growth path. The result indicates that both financial structure and development are predictors of economic growth. Moreover,there is little support for Boyd and Smith (1998)'s prediction that the role of market based financial system rises as the economy grows.ConclusionThis paper re-examines the effect of financial structure on economic growth. We use a variety of financial structure indicators and macro-economic variables to examine the relationship between financial structure and economic growth under unbalanced financial system, economic volatility, banking crisis, and financial development level. We apply the system GMM estimation for a panel data set of 99 countries over the period 1971–2015.The main findings can be summarized as follows. First, a more market-based financial system, in terms of activity and efficiency, helps country to grow faster while a more market-based financial system in terms of size does not. Second, although banking crises and macro-economic volatility negatively affect economic growth, they do not affect the relationship between the financial structure and economic growth. Third, the role of stock market over banks strengthens with the development of financial sector. Fourth, although the results obtained are in favor of market-based view, the dominating role of stock markets over banks is deteriorated if the financial structure is unbalanced toward stock market. In other words, in a country with under-developed banks but well-developed stock markets, increase the development of the stockmarkets relative to banks do not significantly promote economic growth. Our results are robust to country groups, alternative model specifications, and other proxies for financial structure.Our results indicate that a more developed toward stock market financial system is definitely not always better for economic growth. Understanding the relationship between financial structure and economic growth in different economic and financial system conditions is very important to guarantee the effective role of financial sector in boosting economic activities. In the case of under-developed banking system, increasing the financial development toward stock market is harmful for economic growth. The policymaker should focus on the strategies to balance financial structure to maintaining the positive long-run economic growth. Our result also urges for future research that identifies the mechanisms though which the marginal effect of financial structure on economic growth changes from positive to negative.中文重新审视金融结构和经济增长关系Lan Khanh摘要本文从实证上重新评估了金融结构与经济增长之间长期存在的关系。