金融學(xué)外文翻譯---在中國銀行和非銀行機構(gòu)對地方經(jīng)濟的影響-金融財政-全文預(yù)覽
【正文】 cern that financial reforms were initiated exactly at the time that the economy was expected to boom should then be less of a concern. The growth rates have shown a decreasing trend during our sample period, as the Chinese government has managed to ―soft land‖ the economy since the mid1990s. Our results show that a clear difference exists between the impact of financial development of banks and nonbank financial institutions on growth. While having extended most of their loans to the large and medium sized firms, banks contribute significantly to local growth. This effect is more pronounced in provinces with foreign entry. As a parison, nonbank financial institutions, while granting most of their loans to smaller firms in China, seem to be not important for local growth. Such results are robust across different specifications controlling for omitted variables or reverse causality. We attribute this difference to the fact that banks, relative to nonbank financial institutions, have benefited much more from the Chinese ongoing financial reforms. In particular, the reforms include mercialization of stateowned banks, market entry deregulation, and liberalization of interest rates. Our results suggest that, despite the relatively weak Chinese financial sector, at margin banks played an important role in the allocation of funds, and in turn spurred growth. Our 5 finding sharpens the insights of Allen et al. (2020) on the one hand, and Ayyagari et al. (2020), Demetriades et al. (2020), and Rousseau and Xiao (2020), on the other hand, which mainly argue that only the informal and formal financial sector drive growth, respectively. There is a large literature investigating the link between financial development and Recent empirical evidence employing crosscountry datasets show that finance is positively correlated with growth (see . King and Levine (1993a) or Levine and Zervos (1998)). While the initial crosscountry studies may suffer from simultaneity bias, the more recent studies focus on finding proper instruments to extract the exogenous part of financial development when trying to deal with the issue of causality (see . La Porta et al. (1998), Levine et al. (2020) or Demirg252。我們的研究結(jié)果顯示，銀行業(yè)發(fā)展呈現(xiàn)出對地方經(jīng)濟 有顯著 增長，經(jīng)濟上更 有 明顯的影響。在中國了解金融與增長問題是有特別重要的意義，中國的情況是不是唯一的。 金融和中國經(jīng)濟增長在最近一次辯論歸結(jié)為中國的企業(yè)是如何資助和監(jiān)督的問題。 我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，銀行業(yè)發(fā)展在中國經(jīng)濟增長中起重要的作用。首先，通過在分類，啟發(fā)我們的研究開發(fā)與銀行和非銀行金融機構(gòu)的非均質(zhì)性和正規(guī)和非正規(guī)金融對經(jīng)濟增長的影響的獨立銀行融資，其中包括地方商業(yè)銀行和外資商業(yè)銀行，還包括來自非正規(guī)金融 ，如非銀行金融非正式渠道融資。這些事實表明，盡管中國的非銀行金融機構(gòu)可能屬于非正規(guī)金融，但 他們實際上已經(jīng)有正規(guī)部門的特點，并在這方面可比銀行。如農(nóng)村和城市信用社，信托投資公司，財務(wù)公司的等非銀行金融機構(gòu)已經(jīng)迅猛發(fā)展，我們應(yīng)正視它在正規(guī)銀行系統(tǒng)的重要性，在制度上的差異，如政治和文化差異，以及會計準(zhǔn)則的異質(zhì)性，使其難以直接比較 它們的國際同行 —— 中國銀行，中國的非銀行金融機構(gòu)可以作為一個更適當(dāng)?shù)摹皡⒖冀M”。 例如，在中國，雖然銀行已收到的 改革好處 更早，更深刻的金融改革，主要是大中型企業(yè)為了獲得貸款。否則，鑒于小型和私營企業(yè)是中國的增長引擎，金融發(fā)展可能只是反應(yīng)到實際部門。財政在每個省的金融機構(gòu)的發(fā)展是傳統(tǒng)的衡量方式，由當(dāng)?shù)氐膬π詈唾J 款占 GDP的比率。 我們的研究結(jié)果表明，一個明顯的存在差異的財務(wù)的非銀行金融機構(gòu)影響銀行的發(fā)展和經(jīng)濟增長。 這樣的結(jié)果是在對省略變量或相反的因果關(guān)系控制不同規(guī)格強迫。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的見解的 一方面。 另一種方法，以避免跨國的差異性，可能不把鑒定重點放在一個國家。研究在地方金融發(fā)展差異在意大 9 利經(jīng)濟活動的影響。 。我們促進這方面的研究路線，專注于一個國家，研究不同的融資渠道被曝光不同的金融改革。他們利用在 70年代初在美國作為一個外生的沖擊本地金融業(yè)的發(fā)展設(shè)置放松金融管制。 有一個大型
畢業(yè)設(shè)計相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1