区域金融一体化发展问题-毕业论文外文文献翻译.docx

毕业论文（设计）外文翻译一、外文原文DOES LOCAL FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT MATTER?We study the effects of differences in local financial development within an integratedfinancial market. We construct a new indicator of financial development by estimating aregional effect on the probability that, ceteris paribus, a household is shut off from the creditmarket. By using this indicator we find that financial development enhances the probability an individual starts his own business, favors entry, increases competition, and promotes growth of firms. As predicted by theory, these effects are weaker for larger firms, which can more easily raise funds outside of the local area. These effects are present even when we instrument our indicator with the structure of the local banking markets in 1936, which, because of regulatory reasons, affected the supply of credit in the following 50 years. Overall, the results suggest local financial development is an important determinant of the economic success of an area even in an environment where there are no frictions to capital movements.Since the seminal work of King and Levine (1993), a large body of empirical evidencehas shown that a countrys level of financial development impacts its ability to grow.1 Much ofthis evidence, however, comes from a period when cross-border capital movements were very limited. In the last decade, international capital mobility has exploded. Private capital flow to emerging market economies have grown from close to nothing in the 1970s, to 170 billion in the 1980s, to 1.3 trillions in the 1990s.2 During the same period the amount of U.S. private equity money invested abroad and the number of foreign firms listed in the United States has experienced a similar growth rate. The phenomenon is so dramatic that many countries have started wondering whether they need a national stock market once their firms can list on NASDAQ.In light of these changes, the question of whether national financial institutions andmarkets still matter for growth once domestic agents have access to foreign markets has become very important from a policy perspective. Unfortunately, it is a difficult question to answer empirically. The integration of national financial markets is so recent that we lack a sufficiently long time series to estimate its impact in the data. At the same time, the pace of integration is so fast that if we were to establish that national financial development mattered for national growth during the last decade, we could not confidently extrapolate this result to the current decade.To try and assess the relevance for growth of national financial institutions and marketsin an increasingly integrated capital market we follow a different approach. Rather than studying the effect of financial development across countries we study the effect of local financial development within a single country, which has being unified, from both a political and a regulatory point of view, for the last 140 years: Italy. The level of integration reached within Italy probably represents an upper bound for the level of integration international financial markets can reach. Hence, if we find that local financial development matters for growth within Italy, we can safely conclude national financial development will continue to matter for national growth in the foreseeable future. Of course, the converse is not true. If we do not find the effect within Italy, it is still possible that the effect is present across countries. Moving the focus from cross-country comparisons to within country analysis exacerbates some of the problems also present in the cross-country analysis. A first challenge is to find an appropriate measure of financial development. Measures such as stock market capitalization to GDP or stock market turnover to GDP make no sense when applied at the local level. We address this problem by developing a new indicator, which enables us to measure financial development at the local level, relying on the theoretically-sound notion that developed financial markets grant individuals and firms an easier access to external funds. Second, cross-country comparisons assume that differences in financial development areexogenously determined. This assumption becomes more questionable when we move to within country differences: across countries one can hope that exogenous differences in history, culture,and regulation drive differences in financial development. This is harder to imagine within acountry. We address this problem by instrumenting our indicator with some variables that describe the regional characteristics of the banking system as of 1936. The Banking Law introduced in 1936, which was intended to protect the banking system from instability, strictly regulated entry up to the middle 1980s. Since the law treated different types of institutions(savings and loans and national banks) differently, the composition of branches in 1936 greatly influenced the availability of branches in the subsequent 50 years. Hence, we use the structure of the banking market in 1936 as an instrument for the exogenous variation in the supply of credit in the 1990, when the market was fully deregulated.Moving the focus from cross-country comparisons to within country analysis alsoprovides new opportunities. Rather than restricting our analysis to the macro effect of financial development we also study its micro effects, showing its impact on individual households and4 firms. We then study how this micro effect translates into a macro effect. If financial development affects economic growth by facilitating the creation of new firms, it must be the case that in more financially developed areas it is easier for an individual to become an entrepreneur and, at the same time, these areas should experience a higher rate of new firms creation. In doing so, we provide additional support to the causal link between finance and growth, showing the mechanisms through which this link operates. We find strong effects of local financial development. Ceteris paribus an individualsodds of starting a business increases by 5.6 percent if he moves from the least financiallydeveloped region to the most financially developed one. Furthermore, he is able to do so at ayounger age. As a result, on average entrepreneurs are 5 years younger in the most financiallydeveloped region than in the least financially developed one. Similarly, the ratio of new firms to population is .46 percentage points higher in the most financially developed provinces than in the least financially developed, and the number of existing firms divided by population is almost two standard deviation higher. In more financially developed regions firms exceed the rate of growth that can be financed internally 67% more than in the least financially developed ones. Interestingly, this effect is entirely concentrated among small and medium firms. This is consistent with the view that larger firms can easily raise funds outside of the area they are located in. Finally, in the most financially developed region per capita GDP grows 2% per annum more than in the least financially developed one.Overall all the evidence suggests that local financial development plays an important role even in a perfectly integrated market. Hence, finance effects are not likely to disappear as the world become more integrated or as Europe becomes unified.While there is a large literature on financial development and growth across countries(see the excellent survey by Levine (1997), the only papers we know of that studies withincountry differences are Jayaratne and Strahan (1996) and Dehejia and Lleras-Muney (2003).Using the de-regulation of banking in different states of the United States between 1972 and 1991 as a proxy for a quantum jump in financial development, Jayaratne and Strahan (1996) show that annual growth rates in a state increased by 0.51 to 1.19 percentage points a year after deregulation. Dehejia and Lleras-Muney (2003) study the impact of changes in banking regulation on financial development between 1900 and 1940. Both papers show that local financial development matters. They do that, however, in a financial market that was not perfectly integrated yet. In fact, even in Jayaratne and Strahan (1996)s sample period there were still differences in banking regulation across states and interstate branching was restricted. By contrast, during our sample period there was no difference in regulation across Italian regions nor was interregional lending restricted. The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 1 describes the data. Section 2introduces our measure of financial development and discusses its robustness. Section 3 analyzes the effects of financial development on firms creation and section 4 on firms and aggregate growth. Section 5 explores whether the impact of local financial development on firms mark-up and growth differs as a function of the size of the firm, as predicted by theory. Section 6 discusses the relation between our findings and the literature on international financial integration. Conclusions follow.Financial markets are becoming increasingly integrated throughout the world. Does this mean that domestic financial institutions become irrelevant? Our paper suggests not. We show that even in a country (Italy) that has been fully integrated for the last 140 years, local financial development still matters. Therefore, domestic financial institutions are likely to remain important in a financially integrated Europe and, more broadly, in a financially integrated world for time to come.Our evidence also suggests that, as predicted by theory, local financial development is differentially important for large and small firms. Not only does this result support the existence of a causal link between local financial development and real economic variables, but it also raises some questions on the economic effects of financial integration. As Europe and the world are becoming more integrated, large firms will become increasingly uninterested of the conditions of the local financial system, while small firms will continue to rely on it. Hence, depending on the initial size distribution of firms and the minimum threshold to access foreign capital markets, the political support in favor of domestic financial markets might vanish or strengthen as the world becomes more financially integrated. Policy makers working at the European integration should seriously consider this effect, which might explain the persistent underdevelopment of vast areas in Italy 140 years after unification.二、翻译文章区域金融一体化发展问题 我们研究区域金融发展差异对金融市场一体化的影响。我们构造了一个金融发展的新指标用来估计区域效应的可能性。通过使用这一指标，我们发现金融发展提高的可能性就像一个人开始了自己的事业，进入竞争，然后竞争加剧，并促进了公司的发展。根据理论预测，这些影响是较弱的大公司，他们更容易获得本区域外的资金。用我们的指标检验1936年当地银行市场结构，这些影响仍然存在，由于监管的原因，影响到50年后的信贷供应。总而言之，结果表明即使是在没有资本流动摩擦的环境中，区域金融发展仍是一个地区经济腾飞的重要因素。根据King和Levine在1993年具有开创性的研究，大量的证据已经表明：一个国家的金融发展水平影响其增长能力。但是大量证据来源于一段跨国资本流动受限的非常时期。在过去的十年间，国际资本流动呈现爆炸性增长，流入新兴市场经济体的私人资本已经从20世纪70年代接近0增长到20世纪80年代的1700亿元，再到20世纪90年代的1.3万亿。在同一时期，美国的私人资本在海外投资的金额和外国企业在美国上市的数量经历了类似的增长速度，这种现象是如此的戏剧性，以至于许多国家开始考虑他们是否需要一个国际股票市场，以方便他们的公司在纳斯达克上市。鉴于这些变化，一旦国内代理商都进入外国市场，无论是国家金融机构的问题还是市场对于经济增长的问题，从政策角度来看，都变得非常重要。不幸的是，这是一个难以用经验回答的问题。国际金融市场的一体化是如此近代才发生的事，我们缺乏足够的时间用数据估计它的影响。我们按照不同的方法，尝试评估在日益一体化的资本市场中，国家金融机构和市场增长的相关性。我们研究一个国家区域金融的发展，而不是研究影响不同国家金融发展的因素，对于过去140年的意大利来说，无论从政治还是监管角度这都是统一的。在意大利达成的集成度可能代表了国际金融市场一体化可到达的上限。因此，如果我们发现意大利区域金融发展影响经济增长，那么我们可以有把握的断定在可预见的未来，国际金融发展将会持续影响其经济增长。当然，反之则不然。焦点从跨国比较向在国家之内进行分析，第一个挑战是找到一个金融发展的适当措施：例如以股票市值总额表示的GDP或者是以股市成交额表示的GDP，但在区域应用是无效的。我们开发了一个新指标来解决这个难题，这样我们就能够衡量区域金融发展问题了。理论上，在发达的金融市场中，个人和企业更容易获得外部资金。其次，跨国比较想当然的认为金融发展差异是外生因素决定的。当我们研究国家内差异时这种假设变的更加可疑：不同国家的人们可以认为是历史、文化、监管这些外源性的差异引起了金融发展的差异。这是很难想象的。我们运用变量指标来描绘了1936年银行体系的区域特色。1936年推出的银行法，其目的是保护银行系统稳定，进行严格调控。由于法律对不同类型的机构（储蓄、贷款以及国家银行）影响不同，1936年的分行结构大大影响了随后50年分行的可用性。因此，我们将1936年的银行市场结构作为1990年市场全面开放后的一个外源变化的信贷投放工具。从跨国比较到国家内分析也提供了新的机遇。我们研究其微观作用，显示其对个别用户和公司的影响而不仅仅研究其宏观金融发展效应。然后我们研究如何把一个微观的效应转化成一个宏观的效应。如果金融发展通过影响新企业来促进经济增长，它必须是让人更容易在经济发达地区成为企业家，并在同一时间内，这些区域要经历一个新兴公司的高增长阶段。这样做，我们提供了额外的金融增长支持，显示了促使这个环节运作的机制。我们发现了区域金融的强大影响力。如果其他因素相同，一个人从金融发展最落后的地区到金融最发达的区域，他起动一个业务的机会可以增长5.6个百分点。此外，他还能够从更年轻开始做起。因此，经济最发达的区域比不发达的区域创业者平均年龄少5岁。同样，金融最发达地区的新公司的人数要比不发达地区高0.46%，而现存企业数与人口的比率几乎差了2个标准差。在金融更发达区域的公司的内部资助的增长率要比不发达地区高67%。有趣的是，这种影响完全集中在中小型企业上。这是因为大企业可以很容易的在区域外获得资金。最后，在金融最发达的地区要比不发达的地区人均国内生产总值多增长2%。总的来说所有的证据都表明，区域金融发展在完全一体化市场中起着非常重要的作用。因此，即使当世界变得更加一体化或者像欧洲一样成为完全统一的经济体，金融的影响也不太可能消失。虽然有一个关于金融发展和国家经济增长的大文献（参见莱文的优秀调查（1997），我们知道的唯一的研究Jayaratne和Strahan（1996）和Dehejia和Lieras-Muney（2003）。利用美国1972年和1991年在不同州实行的银行放松监管作为一个金融发展量子跳跃代表，Jayaratne和Strahan（1996）表明，在解除管制后，国家的年增长率从0.51上升到1.19个百分点。Dehjia和Lieras-Muney（2003）研究了1900到1940年金融发展对银行监管变化的影响。这2个文件显示了区域金融发展事宜。然而，他们是在一个并不完全一体化的金融市场中做的研究。事实上，即使在Kayaratne和Strahan（1996）的样本期间，各州和州际分支的银行监管仍存在差异。相反的，在我们简单的样本期间，在意大利各地区间就没有区域借贷限制的监管差异。本文的其余内容如下。第一节描述数据，第二节介绍了我国金融发展的措施，并讨论其稳健性。第三节分析了金融发展对企业创新性的影响。第四节主要是厂商的总增长。第五节探讨区域金融发展是否会对企业的商标、注册和成长以及规模产生影响。第六节讨论我们的研究结果与国际金融一体化文献的关系结果之间的关系。世界各地的金融市场日益走向一体化，这是否意味着国内金融机构变得无足轻重？我们的研究结果表明不是。我们发现，即使是在一个过去140年已完全一体化的国家（意大利），区域金融发展仍然很重要。因此，国内金融机构对于一体化的欧洲甚至在将要到来的世界经济一体化中仍然很重要。我们的证据还表明，正如理论所预测的，区域金融发展差异的重要性对大、小公司而言是不同的。这个结果不仅支持了区域金融发展与实体经济变量的因果关系，它也提出了关于金融一体化的经济影响的一些问题。当欧洲和世界变得更加一体化时，大型企业将会对区域金融系统越来越不感兴趣，而小企业将继续依赖它。因此，根据各公司的初始大小分布和进入外国资本市场的最低门槛，当世界变得更加一体化后，政治对国内金融市场的影响，可能消失也可能加强。欧洲一体化的政策制定者应该更加认真的考虑这种影响，这或许可以解释意大利统一后140年广大区域持续不发达的原因。