金融业和经济发展的关系[文献翻译].doc

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Financial and economic development relations 出 处：The World Bank Economic Review 作 者：Mansor H. Ibrahim 原 文：Financial and economic development relationship Mansor H. Ibrahim The World Bank Economic Review3 The Connection Between the Capital Market and Development Casual observation suggests that an efficient financial system is one of the salient prerequisites promoting a country's effective development and competitiveness, or as in the case of financial system distortions, a major impediment. Among the components advancing a country's welfare, capital allocation, intertemporal smoothening, and risk sharing are continuously cited. Conversely, market losses at major stock exchanges at the beginning of the new millennium demonstrated the potentially volatile impacts of financial systems on development and challenged economic policies on national and international levels. Several diverging theoretical concepts and empirical studies have investigated whether a nexus between finance and economic growth or finance and economic development actually does exist. Yet, the main focus of research has been to analiyse the impact of the finance sector on growth or on economic development, and in particular, the role of banks and stock markets therein. Other aspects, albeit they could be considered important for an overarching development point of view, have been only partially included, among them the versatile reciprocal relationship of finance and development and a capital market perspective covering both stock and bond markets. The main obstacle to constructing a comprehensive model of the finance-growth or finance-development linkage consists of the complex causalities between finance and economic activity, not to mention the broader scope of developmental approaches that integrate social and environmental dimensions.Having these considerations in mind, this work will proceed wdth brief notes on some essential aspects which form the basis of any financial system design (Chapter 3.1) and an outline of theoretical concepts and empirical studies pertinent to the finance and economic growth or finance and economic development linkage (Chapter 3.2). Thereafter, a look at the capital market and development connection follows. China's peculiarities, above all its highly dynamic development and comparatively brief history of stock and bond markets' re-emergence, as well as the objective of this work, which goes beyond a purely economic growth perspective, require an approach other than that of utilising econometric models for financial market analysis. Thus an alternative concept, the functional perspective, is employed and combined with a look at capital market data and indicators as well as influential parameters to investigate the impact a capital market can have on development (Chapter 3.3).3.1 General Aspects of Financial System Design Three aspects of the financial system are discussed in the following section, as they describe ground rules which determine the capital market's role and characteristics within a financial system. Generally speaking, a financial system is defined as ". the collection of markets, institutions, laws, regulations, and techniques through which bonds, stocks, and other securities are traded, interest rates are determined, and financial services are produced and delivered around the world. This statement points to the first feature to be reviewed in this section, the relevance of the long-lasting discourse surrounding the advantages attributed to a bank-based and to a market-based financial system (Chapter 3.1.1). Similarly, there have been broad considerations regarding what constitutes an efficient financial system at all. While theoretical finance models describe fiilly competitive, fiictionless markets, reality shows that imperfections, including asymmetric information and transaction costs, are an inevitable facet of even highly developed financial systems (Chapter 3.1.2). Beyond that, the third facet considered at this point pertains to the continuous change requiring constant innovation and a long-term evolutionary perspective (Chapter 3.1.3).3.1.1 Resuming the Bank-based Versus Market-based Debate For many years, economists have been debating whether or not a bank-based system, in which most of the credit is deHvered by banks, or a market-based system, in which most of the capital is raised by stock and bond markets, is more suitable for economic development. Most studies have focussed on Germany and Japan as bank-based systems and England and the United States as market-based systems. However, the debate on whether a bank-based or a market-based system produces greater efficiency in performing financial services is unresolved and has not really been of avail to effective policy formulation. The bank-based perspective claims that banks are more efficient in savings mobilisation, capital allocation, and corporate control, especially in initial stages of economic development and in the case of a rather ineffective institutional framework. The market-based perspective, in turn, is based on the assumption that financial services promoting innovation and long-term economic growth are performed by stock and bond markets.' However, the comparative studies of Germany and Japan on the one side and England and the United States on the other lack the range of information and depth of insight that an investigation focussing on a broader range of countries would allow. Actually, the four countries are characterised by similar per capita GDP and long-term growth rates. This allows the conclusion that the prevalence of either a bank-based or a market-based system is not of major significance for long-run growth. This was also the result of a cross-country study by Ross Levine, covering forty-eight countries with large differences in financial systems and growth rates from 1980 to 1995. After measuring the financial structure in terms of activity, size, and efficiency and considering regulatory constraints on commercial banks, the results showed no significant relationship between a particular financial structure and economic growth and did not support the bank-based versus market-based perspective. Instead, the investigation demonstrated that an altogether better developed financial system has a positive impact on economic growth and that the predominant legal system is a major factor influencing the financial system. Similar conclusions were reached by Sergio Schmukler and Esteban Vesperoni when examining the financing choices made by non-financial firms in five emerging countries that were challenged by a sequence of financial repression, financial liberalisation, and crisis throughout the 1980s and 1990s, namely Argentina and India, which are bank-based, and Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, and Thailand, which are market-based. Their results of an investigation of leverage levels, debt maturity, and external / internal financing choices revealed that firm-specific features impact the financial structure in both systems and that the difference between bank-based and market-based systems is not as important as the gap between emerging and developed markets.As a general rule, development is a complex process in which private and public households as well as businesses have multifaceted financing needs. In respect thereof, Franklin Allen and Douglas Gale observed that one financing channel alone cannot be optimal for all projects, as different parameters, such as the degree of investor optimism and costs for information on the project's profitability, will result in different optimal financing channels. Besides, it has been observed that capital market transactions are becoming increasingly complex and swifter, which denotes a growing significance of financial intermediaries in capital market processes. Eventually, financial markets and intermediaries do perform their roles concurrently and complementarily. By the same token, informal financing channels, among them funds provided by family, friends, and business angels, do play an important role in promoting development as well.* Hence, a comprehensive financing system with an appropriate combination of efficient financial markets, intermediaries, and informal financing alternatives suits comprehensive development needs best. This is a clear indication for financial policy: instead of focussing on establishing either a so-called bank-based or a market-based system, a viable framework for financial system evolution needs to be created, which allows for an appropriate system, including different markets, intermediaries, and informal financing with complementary tasks. On this note, an important line of reasoning has been put forward by Colin Mayer and Oren Sussman: "The implication of the view that different systems are suited to different activities is that policy should be enabling rather than restrictive or prescriptive. It should promote diversity and innovation in financial institutions, rather than attempting to pick winners.3.1.2 Limited Applicability of an Overall Concept of Efficiency Financial system development is qualified by its extent, that is the share of private and public households and firms with easy access to financial markets and services provided by financial intermediaries, and its efficiency pertinent to how well financial markets and intermediaries allocate capital into most productive uses, while withdrawing it from less or even non-productive uses. Textbooks usually refer to an efficient market as: "A competitive market in which the prices of financial instruments traded there fully reflect all the latest information available. Eugen F. Fama, who proposed the efficient market hypothesis in the 1960s, stated in more detail: "In an efficient market, competition among the many intelligent participants leads to a situation where, at any point in time, actual prices of individual securities already reflect the effects of information based both on events that have already occurred and on events which, as of now, the market expects to take place in the future. In other words, in an efficient market at any point in time the actual price of a security will be a good estimate of its intrinsic value. According to this perspective, any new information of relevance will alter the asset price immediately and thus reflect its real value because all investors are searching for this information and utilise it rationally for optimising their investment strategies. Hence, it is not generally possible to achieve continuously above-average returns.However, information asymmetries constitute a major challenge for translating theoretical results into practice. In fact, markets are characterised by various persons having access to diverse information which leads to transaction prices deviating from the actual value or the transactions not being accomplished, a well-known challenge in the investor-manager relationship and the corporate governance debate to date. Sanford J. Grossman and Joseph E. Stiglitz furthermore show that, as a consequence of the trade-off between efficiency in information dissemination and incentives to obtain information, the efficient market hypothesis does not work when acquisition of information inheres costs: if asset prices reflect all information available, there would be no incentive for investors to pay for information because they could not realise a return on their investment. Viewed from a more pragmatic angle, a financial system can be considered efificient when asset prices reflect the actual value of an asset adequately and timely and thereby fulfil its capital allocation function with regard to the particular situation on local, national, and international levels. Over time, this maximises its capability to evolve the most appropriate structure according to the financing needs of private and public households and of the business community at any particular moment. Yet there is no blueprint answer to an efficient financial system design. As Franklin Allen and Douglas Gale emphasised, financial markets and intermediaries, by and large, do not accurately operate in line with theoretical models. In addition, any financial system is characterised by the particular political environment as well as prevailing property rights, accounting and disclosure rules, and regulatory arrangements as established by the government. And it has to be taken into account that, even if institutional issues are addressed in ways appropriate to the demand of a given period on the whole, there always remains the potential to fail by not setting applicable incentives for some of the market participants, which could lead to the possible outcome of corruption or incompetence, and in doing so have an adverse effect on efficiency.译 文：金融业和经济发展的关系 3资本市场之间的联系与发展根据平时的观察表明，一个有效的金融体系是促进一个国家的有效的发展和竞争力的突出先决条件之一，或者是防止金融发展扭曲的出现。在一个国家不断提升的福利中，资本配置，跨期平滑，以及风险分担部分不断被引用。相反，在新千年开始之际，主要股市市值损失展示了金融系统的潜在动荡对发展国家以及国际层面上的经济政策的影响。分歧的几个理论概念和实证研究调查显示，关于是否有金融与经济增长或财政和经济发展之间的关系实际上是存在的。然而，主要研究重点是分析对经济增长或经济发展的金融部门的影响，特别是，银行和股市在其中的作用。在其他方面，尽管他们可以考虑的一个重要观点的总体发展来看，只有部分已列入其中，多功能的金融和资本市场发展和角度涵盖股票和债券市场的相互关系。而主要障碍是构建财政增长和金融的发展之间的联系综合模型的金融和经济活动之间复杂的因果关系，不在于能否使他整合社会和环境方面有更广阔的适用范围。其中要考虑到这些因素，这项工作将继续对一些构成任何金融体系的设计（第3.1章）以及理论概念和实证研究相关的金融和经济财政和经济增长或基本方面在大纲的基础上简要说明发展之间的联系（第3.2章）。此后，在资本市场和发展方面看如下。中国的特殊性，首先是它的高度动态的发展和相对短暂的股票和债券市场的重新崛起的历史，以及这项工作中，超越了纯经济增长的角度的客观性，需要一种方法比利用计量经济学，其他金融市场的分析模型。因此，用一个替代的概念，从功能的角度来看，是在就业和资本市场的数据和指标以及影响参数的研究下，来探讨资本市场可能的发展影响（第3.3章）。3.1金融体系设计的一般方面 金融体系从以下三个方面进行了讨论，因为它们描述的基本规则是决定金融体系内的资本市场的作用和特点。一般来说，金融系统被定义为“.收集的市场，机构，法律，法规和技术，通过它的债券，股票和其他证券进行交易，这些存在于利率的确定。这项声明指向第一个功能，在本节审查，对长期围绕优势话题归结为银行为基础，以市场为基础的金融体系（第3.1.1）。同样，也有关于什么构成一个有效的金融体系在所有广泛的考虑。尽管融资模式的理论描述竞争力与市场，现实表明，不完善之处，包括信息不对称和交易成本，这是一个高度发达的金融系统不可避免的一面（第3.1.2）。除此之外，第三个方面在这一点上考虑涉及的不断变化，需要从不断的创新和长期进化的角度来看（第3.1.3）。3.1.1恢复银行为基础与市场为基础的辩论多年来，经济学家一直在争论到底该不该有银行为基础的系统，其中最重要的是Hvered信贷银行，或以市场为基础的系统，其中大部分资金是由股票和债券市场的成长，是更适合经济发展。大多数研究都集中为银行为基础的系统和以市场为基础的系统的是英格兰和美国。不过，对于德国和日本，在银行是否或基于市场为基础的系统产生更高的效率辩论在执行金融服务是悬而未决，并没有真正被有效利用德政策的制定。从这家银行为基础的角度声称，银行更在调动储蓄，资本配置，以及高效率的公司控制权，特别是在经济发展初始阶段在一个相当无效的体制框架的情况。以市场为基础的角度，又是基于这样一个鼓励创新和长期经济增长的金融服务是由股票和债券市场表现的假设。但是，一项调查在更广泛的国家进行则会显示出其他不足，德国和日本为一方和比较研究英国和美国的信息和洞察力。其实，这四个国家的特点是人均国内生产总值和长期增长率相似。这使得结论是，无论是银行为基础或以市场为基础的系统都对长期增长具有重要意义。这也是一个由罗斯列文的跨国研究，包括从1980至95年48个国家的结果表明在金融系统和生长率之间的差异很大。经过测量活动，大小和效率方面的财务结构，并考虑对商业银行的监管约束，结果显示，他们之间没有特定的金融结构与经济增长的重大关系，不支持银行与市场为基础的角度为。相反，调查表明，一些友好发达的金融体系对经济增长的积极影响，而主要的法律制度是一个重要因素影响的金融体系。 达成了类似的结论由Sergio Schmukler和Esteban Vesperoni在研究融资的非金融企业在整个80年代和90年代在五个新兴的有那些由金融抑制，金融自由化，挑战和危机序列的国家的选择，即阿根廷和印度，这些是以银行为基础，巴西，马来西亚，墨西哥，韩国和泰国，这些是以市场为基础的。一个杠杆水平，债务期限，和外部/内部融资选择他们的调查结果显示，企业的特定功能的影响，并在两个系统之间，即银行为基础，以市场为基础的系统差的金融结构在新兴市场和发达的市场有不一样的差距。程