SpringerLink
Log in

Moderating effect of inflation on the finance–growth nexus: insights from West African countries

  • Published:
Empirical Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the moderating effect of inflation on the finance–growth nexus in the West African region during 1980–2014. We find that the linear financial development has a positive impact on economic growth, while the interaction term between financial development and the inflation rate has a negative impact on growth. The marginal effect of financial development evaluated at the minimum level of inflation rate is positive, while that evaluated at the maximum level is negative, suggesting that the impact of finance on growth varies with the level of inflation. The inflation threshold level is found at 5.62%. When inflation rises above this level, the total effect of finance on growth turns negative. We also find that the marginal effects of financial development computed at the maximum level of inflation are negative in the high-inflationary countries but positive in the low-inflationary countries. The implication of these findings is that, in the West African region, an increase in financial development and a decrease in inflation appear to have greater long-run economic benefits than a simultaneous increase in both variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The positive impact of finance on growth has been reported in the literature (see Beck et al. 2000; Levine et al. 2000; Muhammad et al. 2016; Rousseau and D’onofrio 2013; Stolbov 2017). However, other views, such as demand-following, feedback and neutrality hypotheses are also gathering momentum in recent studies (see Acaravci et al. 2009; Apergis et al. 2007; Demetriades and James 2011; Gozgor 2015; Kalaitzoglou and Durgheu 2016; Peia and Roszbach 2015).

  2. The level of financial development, level of per capita income, quality of institutions, financial integration, financial structure and political structure are some of the variables highlighted in the literature that moderate the impact of finance on growth (see Gehringer 2013; Law et al. 2013; Law and Singh 2014; Rioja and Valev 2004a, b).

  3. For an excellent survey on the linear and nonlinear impact of inflation on economic growth, see these studies Barro (1996), Bruno and Easterly (1998), Eggoh and Khan (2014), Fischer (1993) and Gillman and Kejak (2005).

  4. The inflation rates data were obtained from the World Economic Outlook (2016), while the data on credit to private sector relative to GDP were obtained from the World Development Indicators (2016).

  5. Hung (2003) used the endogenous growth model to provide the theoretical background concerning the influence of inflation on the relationship between finance and growth. He posited that in countries with relatively high inflation rates, financial development raises inflation and diminishes economic growth, whereas financial development reduces inflation and spurs growth in countries with relatively low initial inflation.

  6. In the finance-growth literature, many studies have used real GDP per capita as the dependent variable with varying connotations such as economic growth, output or economic development (see Chortareas et al. 2015; Demetriades and Hussein 1996; Demetriades and Law 2006; Law et al. 2013; Wolde-Rufael 2009). Specifically, Law et al. (2013) showed that irrespective of whether the growth rates of real GDP per capita or real GDP per capita are used as the dependent variable in the examination of the finance–growth nexus, the estimation results are essentially similar.

  7. The PMG and MG estimators are appropriate for this study given the length of time series (T) and number of countries (N). These techniques have been employed in recent studies (see Demetriades and Law 2006; Iwata et al. 2011; Kim and Lin 2010).

  8. See Demetriades and Law (2006), Iwata et al. (2011), Pesaran and Smith (1995), and Pesaran et al. (1999) for more information on the derivation of the MG and PMG estimators.

  9. See Wooldridge (2012) for more details concerning the IV approach. The order condition for identification states that for each included endogenous variable, there should be at least one instrument (exogenous variable) that satisfies an exclusion restriction so that the equation can be identified.

  10. SUR was proposed by Zellner (1962). This empirical strategy was also used by Bittencourt (2011). Pesaran (2006) revealed that parameters estimates could be substantially biased, and their sizes could be distorted if cross-sectional dependence is overlooked. To test for the presence of cross-sectional dependence among the countries in the panel, this study uses the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test proposed by Breusch and Pagan (1980); the scaled CDLM and general CD tests developed by Pesaran (2004) as well as the bias adjusted LM test developed by Pesaran et al. (2008). The results of the test statistics are 940.6***, 51.937***, 18.6*** and 51.7***, respectively. All the tests are statistically significant at the 5% level, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis of no cross-sectional dependence. This implies that cross-sectional dependence is present, and, hence, justifies the use of SUR.

  11. For more information on the computation of marginal effects, see some empirical studies (Baltagi et al. 2009; Brambor et al. 2006; Law et al. 2017; Moradbeigi and Law 2016).

  12. We chose to evaluate the marginal effects using the minimum, mean, and maximum levels of inflation rates since the marginal effects vary within the sample depending on the level of the inflation rate (see Baltagi et al. 2009).

  13. The regression that included dummy variables to control for structural breaks has similar results.

  14. Result is available on request.

  15. Irrespective of whether or not the data are averaged over a 5-year non-overlap** period, Checherita-Westphal and Rother (2012) showed that the instrumental variables (IV) techniques produce similar estimation results in terms of the sign and significance of the coefficients.

  16. We thank the anonymous reviewer for this comment. We acknowledge that the parameters in Eq. (1) could be estimated using different estimators. We chose to use the MG and PMG approaches because of the integration and cointegration properties of the variables in our model, as well as to obtain the inherent advantages in these estimators. The variables in our model are a mixture of I(0) and I(1), and the time period (T) is larger than the number of cross sections (N). Hence, we are of the opinion that it would be prudent to employ the MG and the PMG, which are based on the ARDL, and can be used irrespective of the order of the integration of the variables. Nonetheless, we are aware that the use of the MG and PMG estimators may not be able to fully address the issue of endogeneity as adequately as compared to the generalized method of moments (GMM). However, for this study, we are constrained in this respect because the GMM approach requires a criteria of N > T. So, in order to address the issue of endogeneity, we have chosen to employ the IV approach as a compensating measure. Although we have included time trends in our IV regression, we are acutely aware that some of these instruments do not vary over time. Hence, we should conservatively advise that the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Furthermore, we suggest that any future research undertakings should possibly try to increase the number of sample countries being researched or that such future studies should utilize a five-year average of the data to enable it apply to the GMM system, which is far more potent in addressing the question of endogeneity.

  17. In other countries where the coefficients of the linear financial development and interaction terms are positive, the average credit to private sector and inflation rates are, respectively, presented in parenthesis: Niger (10.79 and 3.20%), Cape Verde (26.93 and 6.25%), Benin (18.25 and 4.08%), Burkina Faso (14.28 and 3.76%). Conversely, in other countries where the coefficients of the interaction terms are negative or statistically insignificant, the average credit to private sector and inflation rate are, respectively, presented in parenthesis: Guinea (4.42 and 18.85%), Guinea-Bissau (6.71 and 28.31%), Gambia (12.18 and 9.17%), Nigeria (14.92 and 19.74%), Liberia (11.24 and 10.36%), Sierra Leone (4.20 and 33.67%), Togo (21.81 and 4.62%).

  18. The eight UEMOA members (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo) have one common regional central bank, one common stock market, one common currency as well as one legal/regulatory framework for the banking system for all member countries. Conversely, the other eight non-UEMOA members (Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone) have different central banks, currencies, stock markets and banking legal/regulatory frameworks.

References

  • Acaravci SK, Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2009) Financial development and economic growth: literature survey and empirical evidence from Sub-Saharan African countries. S Afr J Econ Manag Sci 12(1):11–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion P, Bacchetta P, Ranciere R, Rogoff K (2009) Exchange rate volatility and productivity growth: the role of financial development. J Monet Econ 56(4):494–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apergis N, Fillippidis I, Economidou C (2007) Financial dee** and economic growth linkages; a panel data analysis. Rev World Econ 143(1):179–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcand JL, Berkes E, Panizza U (2015) Too much finance? J Econ Growth 20(2):105–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asongu SA (2014) Law, finance and investment: does legal origin matter in Africa? Rev Black Polit Econ 41(2):145–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi BH, Demetriades PO, Law SH (2009) Financial development and openness: evidence from panel data. J Dev Econ 89(2):285–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro RJ (1996) Inflation and Growth. Fed Reserve Bank St Louis Rev 78:153–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck T, Levine R, Loayza N (2000) Finance and the sources of growth. J Financ Econ 58:261–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittencourt M (2011) Inflation and financial development: evidence from Brazil. Econ Model 28(1):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd JH, Levine R, Smith BD (2001) The impact of inflation on financial sector performance. J Monet Econ 47(2):221–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brambor T, Clark WR, Golder M (2006) Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Polit Anal 14(1):63–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47(1):239–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno M, Easterly W (1998) Inflation crises and long-run growth. J Monet Econ 41(1):3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checherita-Westphal C, Rother P (2012) The impact of high government debt on economic growth and its channels: an empirical investigation for the euro area. Eur Econ Rev 56(7):1392–1405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn MD, Ito H (2006) What matters for financial development? Capital controls, institutions and interactions. J Dev Econ 81(1):163–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chortareas G, Magkonis G, Moschos D, Panagiotidis T (2015) Financial development and economic activity in advanced and develo** open economies: evidence from panel cointegration. Rev Dev Econ 19(1):163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudik A, Pesaran MH (2013) Large panel data models with cross-sectional dependence: a survey. CAFE research paper (13.15)

  • Demetriades PO, Hussein KA (1996) Does financial development cause economic growth? Time-series evidence from 16 countries. J Dev Econ 51:387–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demetriades PO, James GA (2011) Finance and growth in Africa: the broken link. Econ Lett 113(3):263–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demetriades P, Law HS (2006) Finance, institutions and economic development. Int J Finance Econ 11(3):245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economic Data (2016) of Federal Reserve Bank, St Louis, USA

  • Eggoh JC, Khan M (2014) On the nonlinear relationship between inflation and economic growth. Res Econ 68(2):133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English WB (1999) Inflation and financial sector size. J Monet Econ 44(3):379–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer S (1993) The role of macroeconomic factors in growth. J Monet Econ 32(3):485–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehringer A (2013) Growth, productivity and capital accumulation: the effects of financial liberalization in the case of European integration. Int Rev Econ Finance 25:291–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillman M, Kejak M (2005) Contrasting models of the effect of inflation on growth. J Econ Surv 19(1):113–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gozgor G (2015) Causal relation between economic growth and domestic credit in the economic globalization: evidence from the Hatemi-J’s test. J Int Trade Econ Dev 24(3):395–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati D, Porter D (2008) Basic econometric. McGraw-Hill, Irwin

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang HC, Lin SC, Kim DH, Yeh CC (2010) Inflation and the finance–growth nexus. Econ Model 27(1):229–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Development Reports (2015) of United Nations Development Programme

  • Hung FS (2003) Inflation, financial development, and economic growth. Int Rev Econ Finance 12(1):45–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 115(1):53–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S (2011) A note on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2: a pooled mean group approach. Appl Energy 88(5):1986–1996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzoglou I, Durgheu B (2016) Financial and economic growth in Europe: is the Euro beneficial for all countries? J Econ Integr 31(2):414–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim DH, Lin SC (2010) Dynamic relationship between inflation and financial development. Monet Dyn 14(3):343–364

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1997) Legal determinants of external finance. J Finance 52(3):1131–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law SH, Singh N (2014) Does too much finance harm economic growth? J Bank Finance 41:36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law SH, Azman-Saini WNW, Ibrahim MH (2013) Institutional quality thresholds and the finance–growth nexus. J Bank Finan 37(12):5373–5381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law SH, Kutan AM, Naseem NAM (2017) The role of institutions in finance curse: evidence from international data. J Comp Econ 000:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CS (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econ 108(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine R, Loayza N, Beck T (2000) Financial intermediation and growth: causality and causes. J Monet Econ 46(1):31–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Villavicencio A, Mignon V (2011) On the impact of inflation on output growth: does the level of inflation matter? J Macroecon 33(3):455–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moradbeigi M, Law SH (2016) The role of financial development in the oil-growth nexus. Res Policy 53:164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad N, Islam ARM, Marashdeh HA (2016) Financial development and economic growth: an empirical evidence from the GCC countries using static and dynamic panel data. J Econ Financ 40(4):773–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peia O, Roszbach K (2015) Finance and growth: time series evidence on causality. J Financ Stab 19:105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo working paper series No.1229, IZA discussion paper no 1240

  • Pesaran MH (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74(4):967–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Smith R (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Econ 68(1):79–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Ullah A, Yamagata T (2008) A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econ J 11(1):105–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Rioja F, Valev N (2004a) Finance and the sources of growth at various stages of economic development. Econ Inq 42(1):127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rioja F, Valev N (2004b) Does one size fit all? A re-examination of the finance and growth relationship. J Dev Econ 74(2):429–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94(5):1002–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau PL, D’Onofrio A (2013) Monetization, financial development, and growth: time series evidence from 22 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev 51:132–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau PL, Wachtel P (2002) Inflation thresholds and the finance–growth nexus. J Int Money Finance 21(6):777–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau PL, Wachtel P (2011) What is happening to the impact of financial deepening on economic growth? Econ Inq 49(1):276–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau P, Yilmazkuday H (2009) Inflation, financial development and growth: a trilateral analysis. Econ Syst 33(4):310–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock JH, Watson MW (2003) Introduction to econometrics, vol 104. Addison Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolbov M (2017) Causality between credit depth and economic growth: evidence from 24 OECD countries. Empir Econ 53(2):493–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todaro MP, Smith CS (2009) Economic development, 10th edn. Addison-Wesley Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolde-Rufael Y (2009) Re-examining the financial development and economic growth nexus in Kenya. Econ Model 26(6):1140–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge JM (2012) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, 5th edn. South-Western (Cengage Learning) Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • World Development Indicators (2016) of World Bank

  • World Economic Outlook (2015, 2016) of International Monetary Fund

  • Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57(298):348–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Kizito Uyi Ehigiamusoe wishes to appreciate the support from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) through Teaching Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economics Program, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

    Kizito Uyi Ehigiamusoe & Hooi Hooi Lean

  2. Department of Finance, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Chien-Chiang Lee

Authors
  1. Kizito Uyi Ehigiamusoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hooi Hooi Lean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chien-Chiang Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hooi Hooi Lean.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ehigiamusoe, K.U., Lean, H.H. & Lee, CC. Moderating effect of inflation on the finance–growth nexus: insights from West African countries. Empir Econ 57, 399–422 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1442-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1442-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation