美国金融学硕士论文文献综述范文

美国金融学硕士论文文献综述范文

来源:www.51fabiao.org作者:cinq发布时间:2013-09-30 10:52
自戈德史密斯(1969),麦金农(1973)和肖(1973)创建了金融发展理论,一些学者逐渐注意到他金融发展与家庭关系的分配,但他们都没有把这项任务作为一个值得研究的重大问题,但只是附带

自戈德史密斯(1969),麦金农(1973)和肖(1973)创建了金融发展理论,一些学者逐渐注意到他金融发展与家庭关系的分配,但他们都没有把这项任务作为一个值得研究的重大问题,但只是附带涉及。
直到1990年,绿林和javanovic(1990)发表了他们的论文“金融发展,增长和收入分配”,他们在讨论经济增长之间的关系,金融发展与收入分配。这使金融发展与收入分配的关系成为金融发展理论的主题。格林伍德和javanovic建立了动态模型(GJ模型)来讨论经济增长之间的关系,金融发展与收入分配。在这个模型中,金融发展影响收入分配的良性关系,金融发展与经济增长。该模型假设有个人两种投资方法(一个选择在每一个时期),也可以选择一个较低的回报率无风险投资(如储蓄),或可投资资产具有较高的预期收益和高风险(如企业)。由于业务的投资回报率的回报和具体项目的经济回报率的产业经济率影响较大,对个人投资都是未知的,有大量的人力和信息资源,金融体系成为一个重要的部门提供金融信息服务的投资。在经济增长的早期阶段,由于除了经济水平低和不发达的金融中介机构,对,因为投资应支付的固定成本融资获得金融服务的金融市场,在这一点上,只有丰富的用于融资运作的金融市场的高风险,高收益的投资项目,但是穷人只能投资于那些低回报率无风险的项目。由于不同的初始财富,从而以不同的速度积累财富,富人和穷人的收入差距将扩大。在经济发展的成熟阶段,由于经济增长与金融中介的发展,在对金融市场享受的服务费用是固定的前提下,穷人必须进入金融市场融资由于较高的收入和财富积累财富的能力。因此,富人和穷人的收入差距应逐渐减少,收入分配将最终稳定在平等的水平。因此,科学和javanovic GJ模型(1990)预测的“倒U型”的金融发展和家庭分配之间的关系。
The relationship between the financial development and household allocation
Since Goldsmith (1969), McKinnon (1973) and Shaw (1973) created the theory of financial development, some scholars have gradually noted the relationship he financial development and household allocation, but they all did not regarded this task as a major problem to be studied, but only incidental involved.


Until 1990 years, Greenwood and Javanovic (1990) published their paper “Financial Development, Growth and the Distribution of Income”, in which they discussed the relationship between economic growth, financial development and income distribution. Which made the relationship between financial development and income distribution became a topic of financial development theory. Greenwood and Javanovic established a dynamic model (GJ model) in order to discuss the relationship between economic growth, financial development and income distribution. In this model, the financial development makes influences on the income distribution through the virtuous relationship between the financial development and economic growth. The model supposes that there are two alternative investment methods for the individual (one selection made in every period), or it can choose a risk-free investment with lower rate of return (e.g. savings), or it can invest the assets with higher expected return and higher risks (e. g. corporate). Because the return of business investment is greatly affected by the industry economic rates of return and specific project's economic rate of return, both are unknown for the individual investment, the financial system with a large number of human and information resources becomes an important sector providing finance and information services for investment. At the early stage of economic growth, due to the low economic level and the underdeveloped financial intermediaries, in addition, because investment should pay a fixed cost for the use of financial market for financing and access to financial services, at this point only the rich used the financial market for financing to operate high-risk, high-yield investment projects, but the poor can only invest in those risk-free project with low rates of return. Because the different initial wealth, and thus the accumulation of wealth at different speeds, the gap between the income of the rich and the poor should widen. At the mature stage of economic development, due to the economic growth and the development of financial intermediary, on the premise that the costs for the enjoyment of financial market services are fixed, the poor have the ability to access to financial markets for financing due to higher revenues and wealth accumulation and wealth. Therefore, the gap between the income of the rich and the poor should gradually be reduced, and income distribution will eventually stabilize at the level of equality. Thus, GJ model of Greenwood and Javanovic (1990) predicted “inverted U-shaped” relationship between the financial development and household allocation.


Agihon and Bolton (1997), Piketty (1997) and Matsuyama (2000) respectively built their own model to analyze the Trickle-Down Effects of the wealth, namely how the distribution of initial wealth and credit market development can make influences on the distribution of long-term wealth. All of these models predicted the “inverted U-shaped” relationship between the financial development and household allocation. However, the differences of these three models are that the mechanism of the Trickle-Down Effects that the wealth transferring from the rich to the poor varies. Townsend and Ueda (2003) improved the GJ model and conducted econometric analysis based the improved model, discussing the effects of financial deepening in developing countries on the income distribution and the evolution pathway. In addition, they also demonstrated the “inverted U-shaped” relationship between the financial development and income distribution. 


In contrast with Greenwood and Javanovic (1990), Agihon and Bolton (1997), Piketty (1997) and Matsuyama (2000), Galorand and Zeira (1993) and Banerjee and Newman () came up with their own idea: in the economy with imperfect financial markets, as well as individual human capital and physical capital inextricably linked, the income of the poor and the rich will not converge. Galorand and Zeira (1993) established a model in which two departments involving intergenerational legacy was supposed, discussing the role of income distribution in the macro economy, and put forward the conclusions that “financial development is beneficial”. In their model, the financial markets are imperfect, then only those with more initial wealth (namely the borrowing capacity is strong) can afford to the human capital and physical capital investment. Therefore, the inequality of the income will continue though intergenerational legacy, the future income distribution gap should be directly affected by the initial wealth differences. And the comparison between different countries also showed: compared to low-income countries, rich countries have more equal wage gap and income distribution; and those countries with different initial wealth would follow different paths of economic growth and convergent in the different steady states. Banjerjee and Newman (1993) established a three-sector model, obtaining similar conclusions through the analysis about the relationship between occupation selection and income distribution. Therefore, they considered that one of the prerequisites for financial development to reduce the income gap is that a perfect financial market exists. In addition, about the idea that financial development is beneficial, Ghatak and Jiang (200) confirmed the view that financial development can reduce the income gap.


Of course, about the relationship between financial development and income distribution, some scholars held completely different point of view. For example, Maure and Haber (2003) was a typical representative of such theory, and they pointed out that the income distribution may be worse due to the development of financial intermediation.


The prosperity of theoretical researches about the relationship between financial development and income distribution led to the rise of empirical researches in related fields. Benbaou (1996), Li, Square and Zou (LSZ, 1998) firstly provided empirical evidences about the relationship between financial deepening and the income inequality. Holden and Prokopenko (2001), Jalilian and Kirkpatrick (2001) and Honohan (2004) took some developing countries (e. g. China, Russia and Korea) as the samples, and conducted an relative empirical study, finding out that financial development can reduce the proportions of poverty. Iyigun and Owen (2004) pointed out there was “Kuznets” relationship between financial development, income distribution and short-term economic fluctuations through comparative analysis of high-income countries and low-income countries.


Clark, Xu and Zou (2003) used the empirical data of 91 countries during 1960-1965 as samples, firstly systematically verified the relationship financial development and income distribution through multiple regression analysis. Through study, they found out that the financial development of certain country and significantly reduce the income inequality of this country during the sampling period. However, the “inverted U-shaped” hypothesis about the relationship between financial development and income inequality was not confirmed in their study. At the same time, they proposed that financial development will impact income distribution through a country's industrial structure, and if financial development reduced the threshold for labor forces shifting from the traditional sector to the modern sector, then with the increase of the proportion of modern industrial sector, the income gap will be widened. This phenomenon was named as extended “Kuzners” effects. Of course, their conclusions also have some limitations. For example, population movements during the sampling period were not controlled in Gini coefficient selection. This requires to be considered in our future researches. Beck, Demirguc-Kunt and Levine (2004) re-examined the relationship between financial development, income gap and poverty level using cross-country data, and they considered that financial development enhanced the development, and then reduced the poverty, and the gap between rich and poor.


本留学论文选自http://www.51fabiao.org/usalw/