This paper evaluates (1) whether the exogenous component of financial intermediary development influences economic growth and (2) whether cross-country differences in legal and accounting systems (e.g., creditor rights, contract enforcement, and accounting standards) explain differences in the level of financial development. Using both traditional cross-section, instrumental variable procedures and recent dynamic panel techniques, we find that the exogenous components of financial intermediary development is positively associated with economic growth. Also, the data show that cross-country differences in legal and accounting systems help account for differences in financial development. Together, these findings suggest that legal and accounting reforms that strengthen creditor rights, contract enforcement, and accounting practices can boost financial development and accelerate economic growth.

Recent research on corporate governance has documented large differences between countries in ownership concentration in publicly traded firms, in the breadth and depth of financial markets, and in the access of firms to external finance. We suggest that there is a common element to the explanations of these differences, namely how well investors, both shareholders and creditors, are protected by law from expropriation by the managers and controlling shareholders of firms. We describe the differences in laws and the effectiveness of their enforcement across countries, summarize the consequences of these differences, and suggest potential strategies of reform of corporate governance. We argue that the legal approach is a more fruitful way to understand corporate governance and its reform than the conventional distinction between bank-centered and market-centered financial systems.

We document five stylized facts of economic growth. (1) The “residual ” rather than factor accumulation accounts for most of the income and growth differences across nations. (2) Income diverges over the long run. (3) Factor accumulation is persistent while growth is not persistent and the growth path of countries exhibits remarkable variation across countries. (4) Economic activity is highly concentrated, with all factors of production flowing to the richest areas. (5) National policies closely associated with long-run economic growth rates. We argue that these facts do not support models with diminishing returns, constant returns to scale, some fixed factor of production, and that highlight the role of factor accumulation. Empirical work, however, does not yet decisively distinguish among the different theoretical conceptions of “total factor productivity growth.” Economists should devote more effort towards modeling and quantifying total factor productivity.

We present a model of the effects of legal protection of minority shareholders and of cash-flow ownership by a controlling shareholder on the valuation of firms. We then test this model using a sample of 539 large firms from 27 wealthy economies.

We show that equity market liberalizations, on average, lead to a one percent increase in annual real economic growth over a five-year period. The effect is robust to alternative definitions of liberalization and does not reflect a business cycle effect. The channel of growth is both increased investment post liberalization which partially reflects a decreased cost of capital and increased factor productivity. The additional investment is largely financed by foreign capital leading to deteriorating trade balances. Some of the liberalization effect can be accounted for by coincidental macroeconomic reforms as well as financial development. However, our analysis shows that even after controlling for a broad range of variables, a statistically significant and economically important role is played by equity market liberalization. We appreciate the helpful comments of Wayne Ferson, Peter Henry, Ross Levine, Graciela Kaminsky,

This paper reviews, appraises, and critiques theoretical and empirical research on the connections between the operation of the financial system and economic growth. While subject to ample qualifications and countervailing views, the preponderance of evidence suggests that both financial intermediaries and markets matter for growth and that reverse causality alone is not driving this relationship. Furthermore, theory and evidence imply that better developed financial systems ease external financing constraints facing firms, which illuminates one mechanism through which financial development influences economic growth. The paper highlights many areas needing additional research.

Financial markets appear to improve the allocation of capital. Across 65 countries, those with developed financial sectors increase investment more in their growing industries, and decrease investment more in their declining industries, than those with undeveloped financial sectors. The efficiency of capital allocation is negatively correlated with the extent of state ownership in the economy, positively correlated with the amount of firm-specific information in domestic stock returns, and positively correlated with the legal protection of minority investors. In particular, strong minority investor rights appear to curb overinvestment in declining industries.

For over a century, economists and policy makers have debated the relative merits of bank-based versus market-based financial systems. Recently, however, proponents of the legal-based view of financial development have argued that the century long debate concerning bank-based versus market-based financial systems is analytically vacuous. According to this view, the critical issue is establishing a legal environment in which both banks and markets can operate effectively. This paper represents the first broad, cross-country examination of which view of financial structure and economic growth is most consistent with the data.

Are market-based or bank-based financial systems better at financing the expansion of industries that depend heavily on external finance, facilitating the formation of new establishments, and improving the efficiency of capital allocation across industries? We find evidence for neither the market-based nor the bank-based hypothesis. While legal system efficiency and overall financial development boost industry growth, new establishment formation, and efficient capital allocation, having a bank-based or market-based system per se does not seem to matter much.

In the last decade, economists have produced a considerable body of research suggesting that the historical origin of a country’s laws is highly correlated with a broad range of its legal rules and regulations, as well as with economic outcomes. We summarize this evidence and attempt a unified interpretation. We also address several objections to the empirical claim that legal origins matter. Finally, we assess the implications of this research for economic reform.