The effects of financial liberalization on economic growth case study for ASEAN countries by using KAOPEN index

UNIVERSITY of ECONOMICS ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM HO CHI MINH City INSTITUTE of SOCIAL STUDIES VIETNAM The NETHERLANDS VIETNAM – NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS The Effects of Financial Liberalization on Economic Growth Case Study for ASEAN Countries By Using of KAOPEN Index BY NGUYEN HUNG MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY, NOV 2016 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES VIETNAM THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM – NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS The Effects of Financial Liberalization on Economic Growth Case Study for ASEAN Countries By Using of KAOPEN Index A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS By NGUYEN HUNG Academic Supervisor: Professor, Doctor Nguyen Trong Hoai HO CHI MINH City, November 2016 ii DECLARATION “This is to certify that this thesis entitled “The Effects of Financial Liberalization on Economics Growth Case Study for ASEAN Countries by Using of KAOPEN Index”, which is submitted by me in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art in Development Economics to the Vietnam – The Netherlands Programme (VNP) The thesis constitutes only my original work and due supervision and acknowledgement have been made in the text to all materials used.” Nguyen Hung iii ACKNOWLEGEMENT This thesis has been completed with a great deal of supports and encouragements that I have been receiving from many people To whom I am indebted I owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Nguyen Trong Hoai, my academic super visor, for his invaluable instructions and guidance during my work He has been stimulating my critical thinking skills and guiding me to rethink and to deconstruct my thesis topic Hence, his expertise has helped me very much to compile necessary skills in thinking, writing, and fulfilling this thesis Moreover, he took time to diligently review my final thesis draft and help to correct the errors and the wrong words usages Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr Truong Dang Thuy for his enthusiasm of keeping me in schedule of thesis writing I would like also to thank Dr Pham Khanh Nam and Dr Le Van Chon for their helping in developing concept note, thesis research design, and searching data I must show my gratitude toward all lecturers VNP who have broadened my perspectives and encouraged me to fulfill my knowledge as this program requirements Then, I want to say thanks to VNP officers as well as VNP librarian for their support of good conditions and study materials during the study period Next, I wish to express my thank you to all my friends here at VNP Together we have walked and struggled through this whole treasured journey of learning and shared memorable and priceless moments Last but not least, I am very deeply grateful to my family that is an indispensable element to constitute my achievement ABSTRACT This study aims to verify the association between financial liberalization and economic growth in ASEAN countries, by using the annual panel data set from 1990 to 2013 at the country level The regression model is base on the form of growth model and similarly with Bekaert et al (2005) model, in which the ChinnIto index (KAOPEN) serves as proxy for financial liberalization (KAOPEN) is frequently used in recent researches, since it is updated annually, available in Internet, and cover about 180 countries in the world The Fixed effect model (FEM) and random effect model (REM) techniques are used to estimate the effect of financial liberalization on economic growth The result of the regression provides the evidence that financial liberalization have positive effects on economic growth in ASEAN countries, including Viet Nam However, the significant level is not strong in (REM) model, but strong significant in (FEM) This result is also illustrated by the recently integration process of ASEAN The experiment of ASEAN shows that as one form of financial liberalization, FDI have not only brought foreign capital inflows but also the collateral benefit to the host countries Key Words: Financial Liberalization, economic growth, ASEAN, relationship, association, total factor of production (TFP), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) ABBREVIATION AEC ASEAN Economic Community APEC The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation AREAER Annual Report on Exchange Arrangement and Exchange Restrictions ASEAN the Association of Southeast Asian Nations EU European Union FEM Fixed Effect Model IMF International Monetary Fund GDP Gross Domestic Product GNP Gross National Product OECD the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development REM Random Effect Model WTO the World Trade Organization TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………… LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem statements 1.2 Research objectives 1.3Research questions: 1.4 The scope of study 1.5 Research structure CHAPTER 2: LTERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical literature 2.1.1 Economic Growth and Growth Theory: 2.1.2 Financial Development 2.1.2.1 Financial Deepening 2.1.2.2 Financial Repression………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.1.2.3 Financial Liberalization …………………………………………………………………………………… 2.1.2.4 Financial Liberalization and Economic Growth………………………………………………… 2.2 Empirical Studies…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.3 Chapter Remarks ………………………………………………………………………………………………… CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Model Specification 3.2 Measuring Financial liberalization 3.2.1 The IMF’s AREAER 3.2.2 Quinn’s Measure 3.2.3 KAOPEN Measure 3.2.4 KA Measure ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.2.5 SHARE Measure ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.3 Endogenous Problem from the relationship between Financial Liberalization and Economic Growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.3.1 Instrumental Variables …………………………………………………………………………………… 3.4 Measurement of Variables ………………………………………………………………………………… 3.4.1 Dependent variable ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.4.2 Independent Variables ……………………………………………………………………………………… 3.4.2.1 KAOPEN indicator (kaopen1) ………………………………………………………………………… 3.4.2.2 Log Initial GDP (lgdp90) ………………………………………………………………………………… 3.4.2.3 Government consumption / GDP (gconsume) ……………………………………………… 3.4.2.4 Secondary school enrollment (second) ………………………………………………………… 3.4.2.5 Population growth (pop) ……………………………………………………………………………… 3.4.2.6 Log life expectancy (llife) ……………………………………………………………………………… vii Page viii x xi 1 4 5 6 10 10 11 13 18 23 26 26 30 31 32 34 35 35 36 37 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 3.4.2.7 Dummy Variables: (dlegal) ……………………………………………………………………………… 42 3.5 Data collection …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44 3.6 Model Specification …………………………………………………………………………………………… 44 3.7 Chapter Remarks ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS 46 4.1 Overview Economic Growth and Financial Liberalization in ASEAN………………………… 46 4.1.1 Overview the economic growth in ASEAN in the period 1990 – 2013………………… 46 4.1.2 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Inflows into ASEAN…………………………………………… 48 4.1.3 ASEAN Banking Sector………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 4.1.4 Capital account openness in ASEAN countries ………………………………………………… 53 4.2 Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………………………………………… 56 4.3 Model Estimation Result …………………………………………………………………………………… 64 4.3.1 Result of Test for Panel Data Model ………………………………………………………………… 65 4.3.2 Discussion on the Research Result …………………………………………………………………… 67 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 73 5.1 Conclusions 73 5.2 Policy implications 75 5.3 Research limitations 77 5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 77 ……………………………………………………… REFERENCES 79 APPENDIX A: PANEL REGRESSION MODEL 83 APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF HAUSMAN TEST 85 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: The role of financial Liberalization in economic growth ……… 24 Table 3.1: The expected sign of variables in model ……………………… 43 Table 4.1: Summary statistics of Variables used in the regressions ……… 56 Table 4.2: The Correlation on the sample observations …………………… 64 Table 4.3: The results of Hausman Test …………………………………… 65 Table 4.4: The Result of Regression ……………………………………… 66 End LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1: The average of real GDP growth …………………………………… 47 Figure 4.2: Emerging Asia - FDI inflow, 2000-2013 …………………………… 48 Figure 4.3: FDI in ASEAN-4, Singapore and Viet Nam (value in US$ million) 49 Figure 4.4: FDI in VIETNAM …………………………………………………… 50 Figure 4.5 Domestic credit to private sector by banks (% of GDP)……………… 52 Figure 4.6 Financial liberalization in ASEAN-4, Singapore and Viet Nam …… 54 Figure 4.7 Financial liberalization in some Asia countries and Viet Nam……… 55 Figure 4.8: The scatter diagram for economic growth rate and financial Liberalization………………………………………………………… 58 Figure 4.9: The scatter diagram among dependent variable and financial liberalization variable for each ASEAN country …………………… 59 Figure 4.10: The scatter diagram among dependent variable and control variables 62 End but this not much confident Government consumption to GDP given the negative sigh (β3 = -0.035, p=0.350), it provides the evidence that increasing Government consumption lead to decreasing in growth rate per capita, but it is not significant In theory, that in some situations lower level of government spending would improve economic growth and in other situations higher levels of government spending would be good impact in the economic When government spending is zero, it is likely that there will be small economic growth since enforcing contracts, protecting property, and constructing infrastructure would be very hard works if there were no government performances In the case of ASEAN countries, as Almekinders et al (2015) suggest that there is high requirement in improving infrastructure in urban communities, and links between production locations and domestic consumption centers to develop the economies For this reason, the need is more government spending in infrastructure development Hence, in this situation government consumption is good for economic growth The true experience is in rich countries the population growth is lower the poor countries It is also correct with the result of this study when it has the negative sigh (β5 = -0.044, p=0.655), but insignificant Furthermore, the true over the world show that in rich countries life expectancy is higher than in poor countries Therefore, the logarithm of life expectancy (llife) entered in the model with the hoped sigh is positive At the result, this is corrected when it has a positive coefficient (β6 = 1.184, p=0.536), proving that long life expectancy is correlated with higher economic growth, but it is insignificant It is true for the most of ASEAN countries, but not true for the case of Viet Nam Although the country is in the group of poorer countries in ASEAN, but Viet Nam has obtained the high life expectancy value that is approximate with degree of Singapore and Brunei, the two richest countries in ASEAN The three countries have the highest “life expectancy” at higher than 75 year olds The last variable, legal origin (dlegal) is dummy variable, it is entered the model as instrument variable, that separate countries to the legal origin This is an exogenous to economic growth and is correlated with financial development The expected sign is explicit that the English legal system performs the good institutions, propitious investment profile for foreign investors and higher investor protection, hence associated with higher economic growth In the result, the (dlegal) has the right sign and positive coefficient, but insignificant (β7 = 0.581, p=0.212) As Bekaert et al (2005) assert that generally, the different from rich or developed countries and the never liberalization countries have some features such as: higher population growth, but lower secondary school enrolment and lower life expectancy Therefore, the secondary school enrollment (second) entered to the model with expected having a positive sign However, in regression result of this study, it has the wrong sigh (β4 = -0.013, p=0.081), this is similar with the result of Bekaert et al (2005) but less strong significant That may be had some changes in the developed countries from the 1960s decade, the associated of secondary school enrollment is not much clear with economic growth, since the level of education has risen in new higher level, as a whole The new higher levels, for example, high school enrollment or tertiary education may be given the positive sign in growth model In briefly, except the secondary school enrollment (second) having the wrong sign, all the control variables have the expected sign coefficient, suggesting that this regression model is corrected to theory of growth model In addition these results of (FEM) model, including the wrong sign of secondary school enrollment variable, are similar in the sign and the significant levels to one of models of Bekaert et al (2005) study This give more confirmed for the accuracy of applying regression model in this study CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION This chapter presents the summarizing of major findings in the study basing on analysis results from previous sections It is also giving the suggestions for policy implications to enhance financial liberalization in ASEAN countries In addition, the study has several limitations which must be overcome in the future studies, through that some suggestions are presented for further studies, and that will present in this chapter 5.1 Conclusions Up to now the controversy between the costs and benefits of financial liberalization has been continuing through the past two decades and continuing in the future This is the most intensely debated topics in recent year as Kose et al (2010) suggested, for this provides the evidences that financial liberalization having the benefits also the harms to economic growth In this study, through the above analysis, the result finding here is a positive and highly statistically significant coefficient, which proves that financial liberalization is associated with economic growth in ASEAN countries Although this study inherits the ideas from Bekaert et al (2005), Quinn & Toyoda (2008), the data sample and proxy for financial liberalization are different from the previous studies This study focus just on ASEAN countries, that have the region’s specific in history, legal, policy and economic conditions are some different from other region in the world Moreover, the updated period covering in 24 years, from 1990 to 2013 Despite the difference in data set, the result is in line with studies of Bekaert et al (2005), Quinn & Toyoda (2008) and more other studies in the main stream literature that support for the hypothesis, in which financial liberalization have positive associated with economic growth Furthermore, the empirical finding here is supported by the experience in the economic growth of ASEAN economies, in which FDI play a pivotal role in contributing to the growth rate of GDP As illustration of growth in ASEAN countries, this studies also emphasizes the collateral benefits of financial liberalization could bring to the economies, for example through one form of financial liberalization that is FDI As aforementioned, FDI Could not only give the foreign resources but also lead to increasing labor productivity, arising standard of living, reducing unemployment, speeding up the progress in fighting poverty Because of the above reasons, the result of this study is also different from the results of the studies that find no evidence in the nexus between financial liberalization and economic growth, such as the studies of Grilli & Ferretti (1995); Rodrik (1998); Kraay (1998) However, there is the need of concerns about the contrary ideas that financial liberalization could lead to financial volatile, or even drive to crisis, as Hellmann et al (2000) and Stiglitz (2000) asserted This is true for the case of ASEAN in Asian financial crisis in 1997, the massive capital out flight from ASEAN collapsing the financial system of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and more Stiglitz (2000) specially suggested that the countries should pay an attention on the “short-term speculative capital flows”, for this will turn to rush out as quick as like when it rushes in to the countries Short term speculative capital flows with the unstable nature could not provide a basis for investment, but could generate the property bubble, and if impose the restriction on it, the other longer term investment that including FDI are still unaffected Giving more illustration for the conclusion is that this study using KAOPEN index of Chinn & Ito (2007) to proxy for financial liberalization, because it is often used to proxy for financial liberalization recently as Almekinders et al (2015) also used KAOPEN to measure the financial liberalization of ASEAN countries The prominent of KAOPEN that is concentrated in the intensity or the stringency in the restriction policy that could reflect more sophisticated type of restrictions For example, one country is in state of the capital account openness, but at the same time, can impose some restrictions to limit current account transactions, or implement the multi-exchange rate policy, or placing requirement on surrender export proceeds The case may have been similar with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand while implementing the openness on capital account, gathering more FDI inflows, but on the same time, perform or tie up some restriction on current account restriction including giving more verification in export proceeds and service payments To compare with previous studies, such as Bekaert et al (2005), Quinn & Toyoda (2008) using “CAPITAL” of Quinn (1997) to proxy for financial liberalization, in spite of the difference of proxy for financial liberalization, the regression results of this study is similar above other studies in providing evidence that financial liberalization associated with higher economic growth With the used of KAOPEN as proxy for financial liberalization it is likely to be more accurate for the case of ASEAN countries 5.2 Policy Implications Through this study, there are enough evidences to demonstrate the issues that financial liberalization leads to economic growth in ASEAN countries Because of this, to reach the higher economic growth rate targets, the policies that have the tendency of financial liberalization may be applied Moreover, as the member countries of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), Viet Nam and other ASEAN countries should have the paces forward to more integration into the region and world market, which including process of financial liberalization Hence, the choice is adoption financial liberalization as the trend to develop the economies During the process of financial liberalization, there are some aspects that need to concern As Chinn & Ito (2005) suggested that there are three main channels through this financial liberalization has positive impact to financial development The first effect is this influencing to protection financial market by lightening financial restriction, increasing real interest rate in the competitive market equilibrium (Mckinnon, 1973) Second, it improves more portfolio diversification that helps to increase risk sharing The two channels effect that have result in reducing the cost of capital, hence enhance more investments The third is its effects on financial institutions, in that the weak institutions are eliminated by the competition For this reason, it could put a greater pressure on the requirement of financial reform As the above mentions, KAOPEN is created by the mix calculated of four aspects of restriction, such as: (i)imposing varied exchange rates, (ii)putting limited in current account transactions, (iii)imposing restriction on capital account transactions and, (iv)placing requirement in surrender of export proceeds In the light of Chinn & Ito (2005), Chinn & Ito (2007) suggestions as above mentioned, to adopt financial liberalization, a country need to impose some movements as below: Firstly, implements the unique interest rate Secondly, removes restrictions on capital account also current account transactions and thirdly, eliminate requirement in surrender export proceeds Some attentions in practices are that the process of financial liberalization should be conducted, but in smoothly steps to ensuring the drive towards stable macroeconomic policies, strong monetary and financial system and try to keep the process always in controlled To this, need to increase the volume of trade and strengthen the banking sector Chinn & Ito (2005) find that the precondition for capital account liberalization is the liberalization in trade transactions, and precondition for equity market development is the development in the banking sector Kose et al (2006) through several studies summarize the “threshold”, at that a county could yield the benefits of financial liberalization They find many contrary ideas and then, they conclude that when an economy is more open to trade and financial flows, it is likely to be able to tolerate higher levels of volatility This means the “threshold” is no meaningful and apply financial liberalization give more benefits for the nations In addition, according to Stiglitz (2000) suggestion, it is clear that the countries could apply the intervention to restricting on the form of “short-term speculative capital inflows.” At the same time, try to provide a good business environment for foreign direct investment (FDI), because FDI could give the host countries not only resources, but also technologies, accessing to world market and improving human capital In briefly, trade openness and development banking are preconditions for financial liberalization process When adopting financial liberalization a country needs to applying the unique interest rate, removing restrictions on capital account also on current account transactions, and eliminating requirement in surrender export proceeds This process should be smoothly conducted, to ensuring the paces towards stable macroeconomic policies, strong monetary and financial system In addition, “short-term speculative capital inflows” must to reduce or constrain on the one hand, and promoting FDI inflows on the other hand 5.3 Research limitations There may have been several limitations in this research The first concern belong to the variable that proxy for financial liberalization Because there are some indicator could be used and estimated in more than one model to analyzing the relationship between financial liberalization then, the results are more convincing The second problem is the quality of data, for all countries not have sufficient data for all years For example, several variables are lacked of observations in some years, especially measures the secondary school enrollment ratio and government consumption This is scattering missing data that could be remedied by finding in different sources outside World Bank database The third issue roots from the relationship between financial liberalization and financial development This relationship looms large in the studies about financial liberalization However, there is a little mentioning for it in this study 5.4 Suggestions for Further Research From the limitations above, some suggestions maybe given to develop for further researches The first is that there are several indicators proxy for financial liberalization, one could choose one or more that most suitable for the research and the control variables that could be find in some sources Moreover, the research will be more attractive if the researcher pay more concerned about the relationship between financial liberalization and financial development The second, as Henry (2007) advices that analyzing at the firm level instead of the country level finds out more clarity channels, that link up financial liberalization and economic growth On the other hand, Bumann et al (2013) suggested, the study about the combined impact of financial liberalization and other government policies on economic growth may be fruitful for future research REFERENCE ADB (2013) The Road to ASEAN Financial Integration (Manila, Philippines, ADB) Retrieved on July 20, 2016 from: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30202/road-aseanfinancial-integration.pdf ADB (2014) Vietnam financial sector assessment, strategy and roadmap Retrieved on March 20, 2015 from: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutionaldocument/42848/files/viet-nam-financial-sector-assessment-strategy-androad-map.pdf Aghion,P and Howitt,P (1998) Endogenous Growth Theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Almekinders, G., Fukuda, S., Mourmouras, A., Zhou, J & Zhou Y S (2015) ASEAN Financial Integration IMF Working Paper WP/15/34 International Monetary Fund Bailliu, J N (2000) Private capital flows, financial development, and econo growth in developing countries: Bank of Canada Ottawa Barro, Robert J (1991) Economic growth in a cross section of countries The quarterly journal of economics, 106(2), 407-443 Beck, T., Levine, R., & Loayza, N (2000) Finance and the Sources of Growth Journal of Financial economics, 58(1), 261-300 Bekaert, G., Harvey, C R., & Lundblad, C (2005) Does financial liberalization spur growth? Journal of Financial economics, 77(1), 3-55 Bekaert, G., Harvey, C R., & Lundblad, C (2011) Financial openness and productivity World development, 39(1), 1-19 Bonfiglioli, A (2008) Financial integration, productivity and capital accumulation Journal of International Economics, 76(2), 337-355 Bumann, S., Hermes, N., & Lensink, R (2013) Financial liberalization and economic growth: A meta-analysis Journal of International Money and Finance, 33, 255-281 Chinn, M D., & Ito, H (2006) What matters for financial development? Capital controls, institutions, and interactions Journal of development Economics, 81(1), 163-192 Chinn, M D., & Ito, H (2008) A new measure of financial openness Journal of comparative policy analysis, 10(3), 309-322 Cline, W R (2010) Financial globalization, economic growth, and the crisis of 2007-2009: Peterson Institute Crotty, J (2008) Structural Causes of the Global Financial Crisis: A Critical Assessment of the ‘New Financial Architecture’ Economics Department Working Paper Series, University of Massachusets - Amherst De Gregorio, Jose, & Guidotti, Pablo E (1995) Financial development and economic growth World development, 23(3), 433-448 De Silanes, F L., La Porta, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R (1998) Law and finance Journal of political economy, 106 Demirgỹỗ-Kunt, A., & Levine, R (1996) Stock market development and financial intermediaries: stylized facts The World Bank Economic Review, 10(2), 291321 Edison, H J., Klein, M W., Ricci, L A., & Sløk, T (2004) Capital account liberalization and economic performance: Survey and synthesis IMF Staff Papers, 51(2), 220-256 Edwards, S (2001) Capital mobility and economic performance: Are emerging economies different ?: National bureau of economic research Galindo, A., Schiantarelli, F., & Weiss, A (2007) Does financial liberalization improve the allocation of investment? Micro-evidence from developing countries Journal of development Economics, 83(2), 562-587 Garrett, G (1995) Capital mobility, trade, and the domestic politics of economic policy International organization, 49(04), 657-687 Goldsmith, R W (1969) Financial structure and development (Vol 1): Yale university press New Haven Grilli, V., & Milesi-Ferretti, G M (1995) Economic effects and structural determinants of capital controls Staff Papers, 42(3), 517-551 Hekman, C R., & Sweeney, R J (1997) Capital Controls in Emerging Economies (Vol 174): Westview Press Hellmann, T F., Murdock, K C., & Stiglitz, J E (2000) Liberalization, moral hazard in banking, and prudential regulation: Are capital requirements enough? American economic review, 147-165 Henry, P B (2007) Capital account liberalization: Theory, evidence, and speculation Journal of Economic Literature, 45(4), 887-935 Howitt, P.(1999).Steady endogenous growth with population and R&D inputs growing Journal of Political Economy 107,715–30 King, R G., & Levine, R (1993) Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right The quarterly journal of economics, 717-737 Klein, M W (2003) Capital account openness and the varieties of growth experience: National Bureau of Economic Research Klein, M W., & Olivei, G P (2008) Capital account liberalization, financial depth, and economic growth Journal of International Money and Finance, 27(6), 861-875 Kose, M A., Prasad,E S., Rogoff, K & Wei,S-J (2006) Financial Globalization: A Reappraisal NBER Working Papers, no 12484 Kose, M.A., Prasad, E.S & Terrones, M.E (2009) Does openness to international financial flows raise Productivity growth? Journal of International Money and Finance 28(2009)554–580 Kose, M A., Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., & Wei, S.-J (2010) Financial globalization and economic policies: Centre for Economic Policy Research Kraay, A (1998) In search of the macroeconomic effects of capital account liberalization: unpublished Levine, R (2005) Finance and growth: theory and evidence Handbook of economic growth, 1, 865-934 Levine, R., Loayza, N., & Beck, T (2000) Financial intermediation and growth: Causality and causes Journal of monetary Economics, 46(1), 31-77 McKinnon, R I (2010) Money and capital in economic development: Brookings Institution Press Menon, Jayant, (2009) Managing Success in Viet Nam: Macroeconomic Consequences of Large Capital Inflows with Limited Policy Tools, ADB Working paper series on regional economic integration No.27 (Manila, Philippines, ADB) Montazemi, A R., & Qahri-Saremi, H (2015) Factors affecting adoption of online banking: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling study Information & Management, 52(2), 210-226 Pongsaparn, R and Olaf, U (2011) Financial Integration and Rebalancing in Asia”, IMF Working Paper 11/243 (Washington: International Monetary Fund) Quinn, D (1997) The correlates of change in international financial regulation American Political science review, 91(03), 531-551 Quinn, D., Schindler, M., & Toyoda, A M (2011) Assessing measures of financial openness and integration IMF Economic Review, 59(3), 488-522 Quinn, D P., & Toyoda, A M (2007) Ideology and voter preferences as determinants of financial globalization American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 344-363 Quinn, D P., & Toyoda, A M (2008) Does capital account liberalization lead to growth? Review of Financial Studies, 21(3), 1403-1449 Rodrik, D (1998) Who needs capital-account convertibility? Essays in international finance, 55-65 Rodrik, D (1999) The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work Overseas Development Council, Policy Essay No 24 (Washington: Johns Hopkins University Press) Rodrik, D (2000) How Far Will International Economic Integration Go? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (1),177–186 Sachs, J.D., & Warner, A (1995) Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, ( 1)1995 Schindler, M (2009) Measuring financial integration: A new data set IMF Staff Papers, 56(1), 222-238 Schumpeter, J., & Backhaus, U (2003) The theory of economic development Joseph Alois Schumpeter (pp 61-116): Springer Shaw, E S (1973) Financial deepening in economic development (Vol 39): Oxford University Press, New York Stiglitz, J E (2000) Capital market liberalization, economic growth, and instability World development, 28(6), 1075-1086 APPENDIX A : PANEL REGRESSION MODEL Figure D.1-1: The OLS model The Pooled OLS Model regress y kaopen1 lgdp90 gconsume second pop llife dlegal Source Model Residual Total y kaopen lgdp90 gconsum second pop llife dlegal _cons SS df MS 8.7296812 19.196888 1.24709733 84 228534385 27.926569 91 306885381 Coef .119017 -.2448665 -.0347552 -.0125812 -.0439009 1.184131 5808318 -.9830698 Std Err .0720873 2221514 0371697 0072168 0981865 2.049545 4651991 8.570817 Number of obs F( 7, 84) = Prob > F = R-squared = Adj R-squared = Root MSE = t P>|t| 1.65 -1.10 -0.94 -1.74 -0.45 0.58 1.25 -0.11 0.102 0.274 0.352 0.085 0.656 0.565 0.215 0.909 92 5.46 0.0000 0.3126 0.2553 47805 [95% Conf Interval] -.0243365 -.6866389 -.1086713 -.0269325 -.2391555 -2.891614 -.3442676 -18.02708 5.25987 1.50593 16.0609 Figure D.1-2: The FEM model The FEM Model xtreg y kaopen1 lgdp90 gconsume second pop llife dlegal,fe note: lgdp90 omitted because of collinearity note: dlegal omitted because of collinearity Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: code Number of obs Number of groups = = 92 R-sq: within = 0.1772 between = 0.0539 overall = 0.1021 Obs per group: = avg = max = 15.3 22 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.6973 F(5,81) Prob > F y Coef kaopen1 lgdp90 gconsume second pop llife dlegal _cons 1977843 (omitted) -.0460028 -.0155022 -.0379303 8.589342 (omitted) -33.3933 sigma_u sigma_e rho 50279683 45711002 54748748 F test that all u_i=0: Std Err = = 3.49 0.0066 t P>|t| [95% Conf Interval] 0927076 2.13 0.036 0133253 0389569 0076952 2374902 3.731218 -1.18 -2.01 -0.16 2.30 0.241 0.047 0.874 0.024 -.1235149 -.0308132 -.5104613 1.165389 -.000191 16.013 15.50639 -2.15 0.034 -64.24615 2.540443 (fraction F(5, 81) = of variance due 2.17 to u_i) Prob > F = 0.0649 Figure D.1-3: The REM Model The REM MODEL xtreg y kaopen1 lgdp90 gconsume second pop llife dlegal,re Random-effects GLS regression Group variable: code Number of obs = Number of groups = 92 R-sq: within = 0.1322 between = 0.5127 overall = 0.3126 Obs per group: = avg = max = 15.3 22 Random effects u_i ~ Gaussian corr(u_i, X) = (assumed) Wald chi2(7) Prob > chi2 y kaopen1 lgdp90 gconsum second pop llife dlegal _cons sigma_ u sigma_ e Coef Std Err .119017 -.2448665 -.0347552 -.0125812 -.0439009 1.184131 5808318 -.9830698 0720873 2221514 0371697 0072168 0981865 2.049545 4651991 8.570817 45711002 (fraction z 1.65 -1.10 -0.94 -1.74 -0.45 0.58 1.25 -0.11 P>|z| 0.099 0.270 0.350 0.081 0.655 0.563 0.212 0.909 = = 38.20 0.0000 [95% Conf Interval] -.0222715 -.6802752 -.1076065 -.0267258 -.2363429 -2.832904 -.3309416 -17.78156 of variance due to u_i) 5.20116 1.49260 15.8154 APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF HAUSMAN TEST Figure D.1-4: Hausman test for FEM and REM The RESULTS OF HAUSMAN TEST hausman fixed random Coefficients (b) (B) fixed random kaopen gconsum second pop llife 1977843 -.0460028 -.0155022 -.0379303 8.589342 064053 -.0105422 -.0203603 -.0879749 2.448316 (b-B) Difference 1337314 -.0354606 0048581 0500446 6.141027 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E .0729013 0224837 0067724 2189792 3.275003 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(5) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 16.46 Prob>chi2 = 0.0057 (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) ... of Financial Liberalization on Economic Growth Case Study for ASEAN Countries By Using of KAOPEN Index A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF. .. of Financial Liberalization on Economics Growth Case Study for ASEAN Countries by Using of KAOPEN Index? ??, which is submitted by me in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of. .. estimate the effect of financial liberalization on economic growth The result of the regression provides the evidence that financial liberalization have positive effects on economic growth in ASEAN countries,