This paper addresses the empirical question of whether trade and financial openness can help explain the recent pace in financial development, as well as its variation across countries in recent years. Utilising annual data from developing and industrialised countries and dynamic panel estimation techniques, we provide evidence which suggests that both types of openness are statistically significant determinants of banking sector development. Our findings reveal that the marginal effects of trade (financial) openness are negatively related to the degree of financial (trade) openness, indicating that relatively closed economies stand to benefit most from opening up their trade and/or capital accounts. Although these economies may be able to accomplish more by taking steps to open both their trade and capital accounts, opening up one without the other could still generate gains in terms of banking sector development. Thus, our findings provide only partial support to the well known Rajan and Zingales hypothesis, which stipulates that both types of openness are necessary for financial development to take place.

Using data from 72 countries for the period 1978-2000, we find that financial development has larger effects on GDP per capita when the financial system is embedded within a sound institutional framework. Moreover, we find that financial development is most potent in middle-income countries, where its effects are particularly large when institutional quality is high. Importantly, we also find that in low-income countries the influence of financial development is at its weakest; in these countries, more finance without sound institutions may not succeed in delivering long-run economic benefits. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

a b s t r a c tThis study provides new evidence on the relationship between finance and economic growth using an innovative dynamic panel threshold technique. The sample consists of 87 developed and developing countries. The empirical results indicate that there is a threshold effect in the finance-growth relationship. In particular, we find that the level of financial development is beneficial to growth only up to a certain threshold; beyond the threshold level further development of finance tends to adversely affect growth. These findings reveal that more finance is not necessarily good for economic growth and highlight that an ''optimal'' level of financial development is more crucial in facilitating growth.

a b s t r a c tThis study provides new evidence on the relationship between finance and economic growth using an innovative dynamic panel threshold technique. The sample consists of 87 developed and developing countries. The empirical results indicate that there is a threshold effect in the finance-growth relationship. In particular, we find that the level of financial development is beneficial to growth only up to a certain threshold; beyond the threshold level further development of finance tends to adversely affect growth. These findings reveal that more finance is not necessarily good for economic growth and highlight that an ''optimal'' level of financial development is more crucial in facilitating growth.

This paper addresses the empirical question of whether trade and financial openness can help explain the recent pace in financial development, as well as its variation across countries in recent years. Utilising annual data from developing and industrialised countries and dynamic panel estimation techniques, we provide evidence which suggests that both types of openness are statistically significant determinants of banking sector development. Our findings reveal that the marginal effects of trade (financial) openness are negatively related to the degree of financial (trade) openness, indicating that relatively closed economies stand to benefit most from opening up their trade and/or capital accounts. Although these economies may be able to accomplish more by taking steps to open both their trade and capital accounts, opening up one without the other could still generate gains in terms of banking sector development. Thus, our findings provide only partial support to the well known Rajan and Zingales hypothesis, which stipulates that both types of openness are necessary for financial development to take place.