Ali prevelik bančni sektor škoduje rasti?

Slabo razvit bančni sektor je seveda problematičen iz vidika rasti. Ker pač potencialno produktivne naložbe ne morejo priti do financiranja in zato BDP raste počasneje. Toda problematičen je tudi prevelik bančni sektor. Zadnje študije kažejo, da so razlogi različni. Eden od razlogov je, da hitro rastoč bančni sektor privablja najboljše kadre iz drugih panog, ki (tudi zato) počasneje rastejo. Drugi razlog je v tem, da banke financirajo projekte, ki imajo “collateral”, materialno zavarovanje, torej premoženje, s katerim lahko zavarujejo kredit, in pri tem nerade financirajo naložbe v raziskave in razvoj, ki pa imajo dolgoročno največji potencial za rast.

Seveda pa je problem tudi v samih študijah. Tim Harford spet, v sebi lastnem lucidnem slogu, piše, zakaj gre lahko večinoma za navidezne povezave (spurios correlation) – ker po krizi razvite države, ki imajo največje bančne sektorje (kot delež v BDP), rastejo zelo počasi, bomo avtomatsko dobili negativno povezavo med velikostjo bančnega sektorja in rastjo v razvitih državah. V nekih drugih časih, denimo obdobje pred krizo, pa bi dobili pozitivno povezavo.

In 1980, the econometrician David Hendry (now Sir David) investigated a key economic question: what causes inflation? Hendry looked to the data for insight. He speculated that a particular variable, X, was largely responsible. He assembled data on variable X, performed a few deft mathematical tweaks and compared his transformed X with the path of consumer prices in the UK. Graphing the result showed an astonishingly close fit.

The only snag: X was cumulative rainfall. Since consumer prices and cumulative rainfall both rise over time, Hendry had an excellent platform for finding his spurious correlation. Statistical sleight of hand did the rest.

Hendry wanted to demonstrate just how easy it was to produce plausible nonsense by misusing the tools of statistics. “It is meaningless to talk about ‘confirming’ theories when spurious results are so easily obtained,” he wrote.

All this is by way of preamble, because a hot topic in economics at the moment is the role of finance in the health of the economy. For many years, economists have tended to believe that a larger financial sector tends to be good news for economic growth, with statistical evidence to back this up.

It won’t surprise anyone to hear that this belief is now viewed with some scepticism, and the statistical studies now back up the scepticism too. Several recent research papers have found that finance can be bad for economic growth.

Given this statistical volte-face, Hendry’s conjuring trick comes to mind. Are our statistical studies simply serving as decoration for our existing prejudices?

A recent note by William Cline of the Peterson Institute for International Economics worries that new anti-finance research rests on a statistical illusion. Rich countries tend to grow more slowly than poorer ones. But rich countries also have larger banking sectors. A naive analysis, then, would show that large banking sectors are correlated with slower growth. But, points out Cline, the same statistical methods show that doctors are bad for growth and that telephones are bad for growth and even that research and development technicians are bad for growth. In reality, all that is being shown is that being rich already is bad for further growth.

Cline makes a good point but a narrow one. It’s not particularly helpful to analyse banking like salt in cooking or water on your vegetable patch, and conclude that “some is good, too much is bad”. Unlike salt and water, banking services are complex and diverse. There’s a difference between a mortgage, a payday loan, life insurance, a credit derivative, a venture capital investment and an equity tracker fund. They’re all financial services, though.

More persuasive analyses of the relationship between finance and growth are asking not just whether finance can grow too big to be helpful but what kind of finance, and why.

In two working papers for DNB, the Dutch central bank, Christiane Kneer explores the idea that the trouble with banking is that it sucks talent away from the rest of the economy. Kneer looked at the process of banking deregulation state by state in the US and found that banks hired skilled individuals away from manufacturing, where labour productivity fell. If Kneer is right, too much finance is bad for growth because the banks are gobbling up too many of the smartest workers.

Another possibility, explored by economists Stephen Cecchetti and Enisse Kharroubi, is that large banking sectors aren’t doing their classic textbook job of funding the most productive investments. Instead, they like to lend money to organisations that already have collateral. Mortgages make attractive loans for this reason. Loans to a business that already owns an office block or an oil refinery are also tempting. But lending to a business with more intangible assets, such as an R&D department or a set of strong consumer relationships, is less attractive. Perhaps it is no surprise when Cecchetti and Kharroubi find that larger banking sectors are correlated with slower growth in R&D-intensive parts of the economy. But it is not encouraging.

Vir: Tim Harford

One response

  1. Rast o kateri nenehno problematiziramo, ima svoje meje, pa če to priznamo ali ne. Še posebej ima meje v razvitih gospodarstvih, saj je trg nasičen z vsem, blagom, storitvami in proizvodi, tehnološke rešitve so na visoki ravni in preprosto, ne ostaja veliko prostora za novosti, ki bi zagotavljale visoko rast. Zahodni razviti trgi preprosto ne dosegajo rasti, ki jo lahko nerazviti trgi, ki so lačni vsega, kar imajo razviti, tudi orožja za vojne… Logično je, da finančni kapital beži na trge, kjer je to rast mogoče dosegati, a je to velik riziko, tako za bančni sistem kot države, saj smo to že doživeli. Sedaj vse to doživljajo azijski in grški trgi.
    Osebno menim, da je žalostno, da bančni sektor obvladujejo finančni lobiji, ki sledijo le nenehni in po možnosti enormni rasti. Kaj pa je narobe s trgom, ki raste počasi, a zelo konstantno, ki zagotavlja delovna mesta in socialo? kaj je narobe z bančnim sistemom, katerega osnovna naloga je kreditiranje gospodarstva in prebivalstva in služenje z obrestmi?
    Mednarodni trg žal obvladujejo špekulanti, ki ne ustvarjajo nobene nove vrednosti, ampak teoretični denar na njihovih računih dela le nov denar, ki ga seveda spravljajo v žepe, čeravno ga niso zaslužili z ničemer drugim kot s špekulacijami. Služijo na govoricah, s tem, da sesuvajo določene trge in države, ki se ne odzivajo skladno z njihovimi željami po prekupčevanju, privatizaciji, ne glede, da zatem stojijo resnični ljudje in resnični kapital… Do kdaj bomo državljani še plačevali špekulacije, ki jih omogočajo prav bančni sistemi?

%d bloggers like this: