Top

Empirical Economics

Published in:

27-04-2019

Reciprocity in bank regulatory reforms and income inequality: first evidence from a panel vector autoregression analysis

Authors: Lea Steininger, Michael Sigmund

Published in: Empirical Economics | Issue 4/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Our study examines the dynamics between variations in bank regulatory policies and the income distribution, using an IMF database of quantified measures for financial reforms as well as the Standardized World Income Inequality Database. The unbalanced panel comprises 36 developed countries and covers a period over three decades from 1973 to 2005. We assess the potential endogeneity between bank regulations and inequality via a panel vector autoregression model. Among the regulatory reforms, we consider the deregulation of securities markets, entry barriers, credit and interest rate controls as well as the extent of privatization, international capital flows and banking supervision. We are able to provide support for the hypotheses that (i) overall, abolishing bank regulations enhances inequality in income and (ii) higher levels in inequality encourage laissez-faire policies in the banking sector. Moreover, our results highlight the importance of examining each regulatory reform individually. In particular, we endorse a relaxation of entry barriers for financial intermediaries while promoting interest rate controls, capital account restrictions and deliberate government intervention in securities markets.

previous article Do banking sector and stock market development matter for economic growth?

next article GAS Copula models on who’s systemically important in South Africa: Banks or Insurers?

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Frequently dubbed “financialization” and comprising various phenomena such as increasing private household debt, securitization and financial deregulation (Koehler et al. 2016).

As H. P. Minsky (1919–1996) has argued since 1954.

Including the expansion of financial activities, improvements in financial markets and financial services, financial openness and direct access to capital.

Such as the neoclassical allocative efficiency theory, a structural Keynesian narrative or neo-Kaleckian approach.

We use the R package panelvar by Sigmund and Ferstl (2019) who basically extend the STATA code by Roodman (2009a) with the GMM estimators of Arellano and Bond (1991) and Blundell and Bond (1998) to panel vector autoregression models.

Unfortunately, Abiad et al. (2010) did not update their regulatory policy dataset beyond 2005.

\({\bar{y}} = \int _{0}^{\infty } y f(y) \mathrm {d}y\).

\(y_{i,t+1}^{\bot } = c_{i,t} (y_{i,t}-1/T_{i,t} \sum _{s>t} y_{i,s})\). Where \(c_{i,t} = \sqrt{T_{i,t}/(T_{i,t}+1)}\). This transformation is suggested by Arellano and Bover (1995) to minimize data losses due to data gaps.

The first difference transformation exists for \(t \in \{p+2, \ldots , T\}\), and the forward orthogonal transformation exists for \(t \in \{p+1, \ldots , T-1\}\). We denote the set of indexes t, for which the transformation exists by \({\mathbb {T}}_{\varDelta }\).

In the empirical literature, this problem is known as instrument proliferation (Roodman 2009b).

We can also rely on an alternative proof of Koenker and Machado (1999) that the first difference GMM estimator remains consistent and asymptotically normally distributed in the case of \(T \rightarrow \infty \). Koenker and Machado (1999) state the following condition: \(q^3/N \rightarrow 0\).

See also H. P. Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH).

Together with the exchange rate, par and the price level.

The private interest view suggests that in the circumstance of a (natural) monopoly or oligopoly, regulations ought to be imposed in order to improve social welfare and to correct market failure. However, in this view, politicians and supervisors of the government do not aim at maximizing public welfare but their own. Therefore, independent monitoring of banks rather than official oversight should be strengthened in order to limit the abuse of power.

Under “securitization” we understand the “process of turning illiquid assets, or certain aspect of that asset like their volatility, into financial assets that can be traded on markets. [...] This [is] supposed to slice risk into different parts and allocate it to those who [are] best equipped to hold it.” (Stockhammer 2016) On the role of banks as financial intermediaries, the “originate and distribute model of lending” (in contrast to the “originate to hold model,” banks originate credit and securitize or sell a fraction of it later or at the time of emergence) gives banks flexibility and reduces incentives so screen borrowers in the securitization process. That is, banks are building up riskier loans; the US sub-prime crisis 2007 has then infamously put securities markets back to the center stage of financial analysis.

Abiad A, Detragiache E, Tressel T (2010) A new database of financial reforms. IMF Staff Pap 57(2):281–302CrossRef

Alvarez J, Arellano M (2003) The time series and cross-section asymptotics of dynamic panel data estimators. Econometrica 71(4):1121–1159CrossRef

Andrews D, Lu B (2001) Consistent model and moment selection procedures for GMM estimation with application to dynamic panel data models. J Econom 101(1):123–164CrossRef

Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297CrossRef

Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econom 68(1):29–51CrossRef

Baldacci E, Mello L, Inchauste G (2002) Financial crises, poverty and income distribution. IMF working paper: Fiscal Affairs Department, vol 02(4)

Barro R, Lee J (2013) A new data set of educational attainment in the world 1950–2010. J Dev Econ 104:184–198CrossRef

Barth J, Caprio G, Levine R (2002) Bank regulation and supervision: what works best? NBER working paper, 9323

Bazillier H, Hericourt J (2014) The circular relationship between inequality, leverage, and financial crises: intertwined mechanisms and competing evidence. CEPII working paper

Beck T, Demirgüç-Kunt A, Levine R (2009) Financial institutions and markets across countries and over time. World Bank Policy Research working paper, 4943

Beck T, Levine R, Demirgüç-Kunt A (2007) Finance, inequality and the poor. J Econ Growth 12(1):27–49CrossRef

Beck T, Levine R, Levkov A (2010) Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States. J Finance 65(5):1637–1667CrossRef

Bertus M, Jahera J, Yost K (2007) The relation between bank regulation and economic performance: a cross-country analysis. Banks Bank Syst 2(3):32–45

Birdsall N, Nellis J (2003) Winners and losers: assessing the distributional impact of privatization. World Dev 31(10):1617–1633CrossRef

Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87(1):115–143CrossRef

Botero J, Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de Silanes F, Shleifer A (2004) The regulation of labor. Q J Econ 119(4):1339–1382CrossRef

Bryan D, Martin R, Rafferty M (2009) Financialization and marx: giving labor and capital a financial makeover. Rev Radic Polit Econ 41(4):458–472CrossRef

Delis M, Hasan I, Kazakis P (2013) Bank regulations and income inequality: empirical evidence. Rev Finance 18(5):1–36

Demirgüç-Kunt A, Laeven L, Levine R (2004) Regulations, market structure, institutions, and the cost of financial intermediation. J Money Credit Bank 36(3):623–626

Demirgüç-Kunt A, Levine R (2009) Finance and inequality: theory and evidence. Ann Rev Financ Econ 1(1):287–318CrossRef

Friedman M, Schwartz A (1969) The definition of money: net wealth and neutrality as criteria. J Money Credit Bank 1(1):1–14CrossRef

Gastwirth J (1971) A general definition of the Lorenz curve. Econometrica 39(6):1037–1039CrossRef

Greenwood J, Jovanovic B (1990) Financial development, growth, and the distribution of income. J Polit Econ 89(5):1076–1107CrossRef

Hamilton J (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50(4):1029–1054CrossRef

Holtz-Eakin D, Newey W, Rosen H (1988) Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica 56(6):1371–1395CrossRef

Jaumotte F, Strahan P (1997) The benefits of branching deregulation. Fed Reserve Bank N Y Econ Policy Rev 3:4

Jayadev A (2007) Capital account openness and the labour share of income. Camb J Econ 31:423–443CrossRef

Johansson A, Wang X (2014) Financial sector policies, poverty and income inequality. China Econ Rev 31:367–378CrossRef

Kapetanios G (2008) A bootstrap procedure for panel data sets with many cross-sectional units. Econom J 11(2):377–395CrossRef

Kearney M, Levine P (2016) Income inequality, social mobility, and the decision to drop out of high school. NBER working paper, vol 20195(1), pp 333–396

Klein M, Olivei G (2008) Capital account liberalization, financial depth, and economic growth. J Int Money Finance 27(6):861–875CrossRef

Koehler K, Guschanski A, Stockhammer E (2016) How does financialization affect functional income distribution? A theoretical clarification and empirical assessment. Socio-Econ Rev 15:1–26

Koenker R, Machado J (1999) GMM inference when the number of moment conditions is large. J Econom 93(2):327–344CrossRef

Kumhof M, Ranciére R, Winant P (2015) Inequality, leverage, and crises. Am Econ Rev 105(3):1217–1245CrossRef

La Porta R, Lopez-de Silanes F, Shleifer A (2002) Government ownership of banks. J Finance 57(1):265–301CrossRef

Lapavitsas C, Powell J (2013) Financialisation varied: a comparative analysis of advanced economies. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 6(3):359–379CrossRef

Lavoie M, Godley W (2002) Kaleckian models of growth in a coherent stock-flow monetary framework: a Kaldorian view. J Post Keynes Econ 24(2):277–311CrossRef

Lim G, McNelis P (2014) Income inequality, trade and financial openness. In: RES-SPR Conference on “Macroeconomic Challenges Facing Low-Income Countries”, IMF

Lorenz M (1993) Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publ Am Stat Assoc 9(70):209–219

Lucas R (1972) Expectations and the neutrality of money. J Econ Theory 4:103–124CrossRef

Luetkepohl H (2006) New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Springer, Berlin

Mehrhoff J (2009) A solution to the problem of too many instruments in dynamic panel data GMM. Technical report. Research Centre, Deutsche Bundesbank, Frankfurt

Minsky H (1993) On the non-neutrality of money. FRBNY Q Rev 18:77–82

Newey W, Smith R (2004) Higher order properties of GMM and generalized empirical likelihood estimators. Econometrica 72(1):219–255CrossRef

Nickell S (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49(6):1417–1426CrossRef

Ortiz I, Cummins M (2011) Global inequality: beyond the bottom billion. Social and Economic Policies: Working Paper, UNICEF

Ortiz-Ospina E, Roser M (2016) Our world in data: income inequality. https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/. Accessed 22 Nov 2016 (online resource)

Palley T (2007) Financialization: what it is and why it matters. The Levy Economics Institute working paper

Perraton J (2016) Macroeconomic implications of inequality and household debt: European evidence. Working paper: University of Sheffield

Pesaran H, Shin Y (1998) Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Econ Lett 58(1):17–29CrossRef

Piketty T, Saez E (2014) Inequality in the long run. Science 344(6186):838–843CrossRef

Reuveny R, Li Q (2003) Economic openness, democracy, and income inequality: an empirical analysis. Comp Polit Stud 36(5):575–601CrossRef

Roodman D (2009a) How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM in stata. Stata J 9(1):86–136CrossRef

Roodman D (2009b) A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 71(1):135–158CrossRef

Ryan-Collins J, Greenham T, Werner R, Jackson A (2012) Where does money come from? A guide to the UK monetary and banking system. New Economics Foundation, London

Saraceno F (2014) High inequality and its impact on the economy. Revue de l’OFCE, Presses de Sciences Po, pp 177–187

Sigmund M, Ferstl R (2019) Panel vector autoregression in R with the package panelvar. Q Rev Econ Finance (forthcoming)

Solt F (2016) The standardized world income inequality database: Swiid version 51. Soc Sci Q 97(5):1267–1281CrossRef

Stockhammer E (2016) Financialization: from financial deregulation to boom bust cycles. http://kcleconomics.com/financialization-and-growth/. Accessed 18 Jan 2017 (online resource)

Werner R (2005) New paradigm in macroeconomics. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRef

Wisman J (2013) Wage stagnation, rising inequality and the financial crisis of 2008. Camb J Econ 37(4):921–945CrossRef

Wolfson M, Epstein G (2013) The handbook of political economy of financial crises. Oxford University Press, New York

Title: Reciprocity in bank regulatory reforms and income inequality: first evidence from a panel vector autoregression analysis
Authors: Lea Steininger
Michael Sigmund
Publication date: 27-04-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Empirical Economics / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0377-7332
Electronic ISSN: 1435-8921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01693-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Average labour productivity dynamics over the business cycle

Modelling the dynamic effects of elective hospital admissions on emergency levels in England

The effects of test scores and truancy on youth unemployment and inactivity: a simultaneous equations approach

Inflation volatility and inflation in the wake of the great recession

Can social capital explain business performance in Denmark?

Peer gender and educational choices