10
Comments on “State-Owned Banks: Do They Promote or Depress Financial Development and Economic Growth?” Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Comments on “State-Owned Banks: Do They Promote or Depress Financial Development and Economic Growth?”. Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005. New(ish) cross-national evidence. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

Comments on “State-Owned Banks: Do They Promote or Depress Financial Development and

Economic Growth?”

Dani Rodrik

February 25, 2005

Page 2: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

New(ish) cross-national evidence • Regressing private sector credit growth or

economic growth on state ownership of banks yields negative coefficient on state ownership

• The relationship is not very strong or robust…

• … but it is almost always negative• Therefore, evidence of negative impact is

weaker than previously thought, but still no evidence of positive impact.

Page 3: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

What do we make of these results?• Theory suggests state ownership of banks

responds to– market imperfections, or– political motives

• Neither is directly observable• Problem not so much omitted variables, as

endogeneity due to one motive or another (or both)– so introducing rule-of-law or other policy variables

does not solve problem

• With such endogeneity, interpretation of results quite problematic (as I will show)

Page 4: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

A key problem:• Under reasonable formulations of the two motives stated

above (market-failures versus political)– the cross-national association between state banks and economic

performance should be always negative

– this is true regardless of which motive is dominant in practice

– and, in particular, even if governments maximize social welfare and state banks serve a useful purpose, we will not get a positive association between state banks and economic performance

• So a more correct interpretation of the cross-national evidence would be that “it is uninformative” (not just that “it is weak”).

• Here is a simple model to see why

Page 5: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005
Page 6: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005
Page 7: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005
Page 8: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005
Page 9: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

IV might solve the problem

• But need the instrument to satisfy both the exogeneity and the exclusion conditions

• SOE share of the economy not appropriate as instrument, since presumably it responds to the same motives as state banks do.

• Need different empirical strategies

Page 10: Dani Rodrik February 25, 2005

So do state banks promote or depress financial development and economic

growth?

• We don’t know

• No need for anyone to alter their priors on the basis of the cross-national work to date.