In newly collected data on 46 economies over 1990-2011, we show that financial development since 1990was mostly due to growth in credit to real estate and other asset markets, which has a negative growth coefficient. We also distinguish between growth effects of stocks and flows of credit. We find positive growth effects for credit flows to nonfinancial business but not for mortgage and other asset market credit flows. By accounting for the composition of credit stocks and for the effect of credit flows, we explain the insignificant or negative growth effects of financial development in recent times. What was true in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when the field of empirical credit-growth studies blossomed, is no longer true in the 1990s and 2000s. New bank lending is not primarily to nonfinancial business and financial development may no longer be good for growth. These trends predate the 2008 crisis. They prompt a rethink of the role of banks in the process of economic growth.

This invites a reinterpretation of the Great Moderation. Our methodology may help understand when a credit boom turns into a credit bubble, and contributes to the development of methods of measuring financial fragility.

During the Great Moderation, financial innovation in the U.S. increased the size and scope of credit flows supporting the growth of wealth. We hypothesize that spending out of wealth came to finance a wider range of GDP components such that it smoothed GDP. Both these trends combined would be consistent with a decrease in the volatility of output. We suggest testable implications in terms of both growth of credit and output and volatility of growth. In a multivariate GARCH framework, we test this view for home mortgages and residential investment. We observe unidirectional causality in variance from total output, residential investment and non-residential output to mortgage lending before, but not during the Great Moderation. These findings are consistent with a role for credit dynamics in explaining the Great Moderation.

This paper makes an attempt to determine the factors influencing exchange rate and exchange rate uncertainty, as well as output and output variability. In the context of a small open economy under flexible exchange rates regime it is found that the level both of exchange rate and output is affected by monetary and inflationary shocks, as well as shocks in government spending, output, and trade balance. Further, the uncertainty of exchange rate and output is associated positively with the uncertainty of all shocks while the contemporaneous occurrence of selected shocks imposes either a positive or negative impact on exchange rate and output volatility. Finally, it is shown that the effect of the determinants either of exchange rate volatility or output volatility is very sensitive to the parameter values

Absenteeism in higher education has motivated the investigation of its effect on academic performance. This paper examines the effect of implementing an incentive scheme on seminar PPA (prior preparation and attendance) and performance focusing on a cohort of international postgraduate students over two academic years in two conversion economics (quantitative and non‐quantitative) modules at a Scottish business school. The results show that the scheme leads to an increase in the class PPA in both modules and in the probability of passing the quantitative module, however academic performance is affected at a lesser extent.