We leverage a 'catch-all' measure of financial innovation-research and development spending in the financial sector-to assess the net relationship between financial innovation and economic growth and evaluate the influence of macroprudential policy on this relationship. Using a panel of 23 countries over the period of 1996-2014, our results demonstrate a net-positive relationship between financial innovation and gross capital formation. We find no evidence of a net-negative impact of financial innovation on economic growth, challenging the popular and political stigma surrounding financial innovation. We also find little robust evidence of macroprudential policy influencing the relationship between financial innovation and economic growth. Our results support a functional approach to the regulation of financial innovation, which improves the intermediation process, leading to increased capital formation. Highlights:  Financial-sector spending on research and development is used as a proxy for aggregate financial innovation.  Financial innovation is positively related to economic growth through gross capital formation, but demonstrates no significant link with per capita GDP growth or new firm density.  Macroprudential policy does not influence financial innovation's impact on capital formation, and its effect on financial innovation's relationship with other growth measures is specification dependent.

Recent research in international political economy has begun to explore the implications of producer heterogeneity for trade politics. Variations in productivity and size lead to systematic variations in market behaviors, especially with respect to firms' abilities to engage foreign markets. This heterogeneity similarly leads to systematic variations in policy stances: highly productive firms are more likely to favor trade liberalization than their less productive counterparts. I test the role of firm heterogeneity on trade-policy stances using original and representative survey data of Japanese manufacturers. I find that highly productive firms are more likely to favor liberalization than others, while a large portion of producers is indifferent to trade-policy reform. Other producers do not know how they would be impacted by liberalization; these tend to be smaller than their counterparts. The relationship between productivity and pro-trade attitudes is robust, even when controlling for a wide range of internationalization modes.

Analyses of monetary policy posit that exchange-rate pegs, inflation targets, and central bank independence can help anchor private-sector inflation expectations. Yet there are few direct tests of this argument. We offer cross-national, micro-level evidence on the effectiveness of monetary anchors in controlling private-sector inflation concerns. Using firm-level data from eighty-one countries (approximately 10,000 firms), we find evidence that “international” anchors (exchange-rate commitments) correlate significantly with a substantial reduction in private-sector concerns about inflation while “domestic” anchors (inflation targeting and central bank independence) do not. Our conjecture is that private-sector inflation expectations are more responsive to exchange-rate anchors because they are more transparent, more constraining, and more costly than domestic anchoring arrangements.

Recent research in international political economy has begun to explore the implications of producer heterogeneity for trade politics. Variations in productivity and size lead to systematic variations in market behaviors, especially with respect to firms' abilities to engage foreign markets. This heterogeneity similarly leads to systematic variations in policy stances: Highly productive firms are more likely to favor trade liberalization than their less productive counterparts. I test the role of firm heterogeneity on trade-policy stances using original and representative survey data of Japanese manufacturers. I find that highly productive firms are more likely to favor liberalization than others, while a large portion of producers is indifferent to trade-policy reform. Other producers do not know how they would be impacted by liberalization; these tend to be smaller than their counterparts. The relationship between productivity and pro-trade attitudes is robust, even when controlling for a wide range of internationalization modes.