Financial development may affect poverty directly and indirectly through its impact on income inequality, economic growth, and financial instability. Previous studies do not consider all these channels simultaneously. To proxy financial development, we use the ratio of private credit to GDP or an IMF composite measure. Our preferred measure for poverty is the poverty gap, i.e. the shortfall from the poverty line. Our fixed effects estimation results for an unbalanced panel of 84 countries over the 1975–2014 period suggest that financial development does not have a direct effect on the poverty gap. However, as financial development leads to greater inequality, which, in turn, results in more poverty, financial development has an indirect effect on poverty through this transmission channel. Only if we use poverty lines of $3.20 or $5.50 (instead of $1.90 a day as in our baseline model) to define the poverty gap, we find that economic growth reduces poverty. This implies that in those cases the overall effect of financial development on poverty may be positive or negative, depending on which indirect effect, i.e. that of income inequality or growth, is stronger. Financial instability does not seem to affect the poverty gap. These results are consistent across various robustness checks.
Instead of empirically finding that higher levels of financial development reduce the positive impact of financial liberalization on inequality, as others do, we come up with the opposite result: financial development strengthens the inequality-raising impact of financial liberalization. We suggest that by, e.g., allowing financial liberalization to lead to more volatility and uncertainty, the model of Bumann and Lensink (2016 "Capital Account Liberalization and Income Inequality." Journal of International Money and Finance 61: 143-162.) can be extended as such that also an amplifying instead of reducing effect of financial depth on the impact of financial liberalization on income inequality can be theoretically justified.
We examine the effect of economic globalisation on income redistribution and hypothesise that it depends on ethnic fractionalisation. In highly fractionalised countries, powerful ethnicities are able to extract globalisation-induced benefits, whereas their governments face substantial political obstacles when redistributing income between ethnic groups. Using the newly constructed KOF Globalisation Index, we find supportive evidence for the interactive effect of ethnic fractionalisation and de jure financial globalisation on redistribution. In particular, the total effect of de jure financial globalisation on redistribution is negative in highly fractionalised countries. Governments in these countries are apparently not only reluctant to offset potential consequences stemming from de jure financial globalisation, but they even reduce redistribution to lower levels.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.