Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth

Alomari, Mohammad W.; Marashdeh, Zyad; Bashayreh, Ala G. Article Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Alomari, Mohammad W.; Marashdeh, Zyad; Bashayreh, Ala G. (2019) : Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/245246 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: (Print) 2332-2039 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaef20 Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth Mohammad W. Alomari, Zyad Marashdeh & Ala G. Bashayreh | To cite this article: Mohammad W. Alomari, Zyad Marashdeh & Ala G. Bashayreh | (2019) Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth, Cogent Economics & Finance, 7:1, 1622483, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 © 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 05 Jun 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3541 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles FINANCIAL ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth Mohammad W. Alomari 1 *, Zyad Marashdeh 2 and Ala G. Bashayreh 1 Abstract: Purpose: The study aims at re-examining the relationship between financial market development and economic development in the context of competitiveness of developed and higher income countries. Methodology/approach: The study employs generalized least square (GLS) regression model to analyze the panel data of 21 higher income countries over the period (2009–2017). Further, the study checked the robustness of the results by introduces a lagged dependent variable in the regression models by employing the generalized methods of moments (GMM) for Dynamic Panel analysis. Findings: Results reveal that four independent variables: Financial market development (FMDG), trade openness (OPNG), Labor market efficiency (LMEG), and Technological readiness (TRG), were positive and significant, which indicates the existence of relationship from those variables to competitiveness in the context of growth. while one of the independent variables is Market size (MSG) was positive but insignificant. Moreover, the results from the GMM estimator remain robust in terms of directions and significance levels Mohammad W. Alomari ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Mohammad W. Alomari, Ph.D. in Business Economics. He is working as an Assistant Professor and Chair of Economics Department at the Hashemite University, Zarqa-Jordan, Since 2016 –present. worked as Assistant Professor in Economics Department at Nizwa University, Nizwa-Oman, from 2014 to 2016. His research interests are business economics; financial economics; industrial organization and managerial economics; efficiency analysis; economic development and econometrics. Dr. Zyad Marashdeh, Ph.D. in Banking and Finance. He is working as an Assistant Professor at the Hashemite University, Zarqa-Jordan, Since 2014 –present. He worked as full time lecturer at the Hashemite University from 2007 to 2011. His research interests are financial markets; corporate governance; capital structure. Dr. Ala G. Bashayreh, Ph.D. in Business Economics. She is working as an Assistant Professor at the Hashemite University, Zarqa- Jordan, Since 2016 –present. She worked as part time lecturer in the University of Jordan from 2014 to 2016. Her research interests are business economics, labor market, financial economics, econometrics, fiscal policy, monetary policy and economic development. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT The sources of global competitiveness and economic growth attract the most economists and business researchers’attention around the world. Some economists believe that the greater the financial development, the higher would be the economic growth and competitiveness. Others just believe that the relationship between financial development and economic growth is not important. To moderate such conflictions, this paper describes the contribution of financial market development besides other competitiveness sources in competitiveness growth. It was found that growing of financial market development, trade openness, labor market efficiency, and Technological readiness, will contribute positively in competitiveness growth. Understanding these effects can improve countries’competitiveness and future development programs and policies. Exploration of competitiveness sources can also help both public and private institutions to direct communities and individuals in the mobilization of savings and its allocation to high return projects which support economic growth and competitiveness. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 © 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 28 September 2018 Accepted: 17 May 2019 First Published: 24 May 2019 *Corresponding author: Mohammad W. Alomari, Department of Economics, The Hashemite University, Jordan E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: David McMillan, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Additional information is available at the end of the article Page 1 of 19 and confirm the robustness of the findings. Originality: This paper represents a significant contribution especially for the higher income countries that can help them in designing the policies and strategies in order to improve their performance and competitiveness by financial market development besides other competitiveness sources. Subjects: Economics; Econometrics; Development Economics; Finance Keywords: competitiveness; financial markets development; economic growth; higher income countries JEL classification: O16; O47 1. Introduction Financial market development can be defined as the factors, policies, and the institutions that lead to the efficient intermediation and effective financial markets. Therefore, it is improving the competence of the financial market to perform efficiently as an intermediary to stimulate economic growth and reduce poverty. According to neoclassical growth theory in 1950s, long run economic growth relies only on sustainable technological progress and other factors that impact economic growth is contained in Solow residual, non-illustrated part of the sources of economic growth. However, the endogenous growth theory, which raised in 1980s permitted endogeneity of other potential variables impacting economic growth in economic model. Thus, the effect of financial system could be better explained. The relationship among financial development and economic growth has drawn an important degree of attention recently. Yet, there are consisting thoughts concerning the effect that the financial system may cause to economic growth. Some economists believe that the greater the financial development, the higher would be the mobilization of savings and its allocation to high return projects which support economic growth and competitiveness (Beck, 2008; Fink, Haiss, & Mantler, 2005; Odedokun’s, 1996; Calderon & Liu, 2003). Others just do not believe that the relationship between financial development and economic growth is important (Koivu, 2002; Mehl, Vespro, & Winkler, 2005; Zang & Kim, 2007). To moderate such conflictions, this paper aims at re-examines this relationship in the context of competitiveness of developed and higher income countries. It will employ secondary data for 21 higher income countries, which were collected from the Global Competitiveness reports over the period (2009–2017). Thus, this study employs generalized least square (GLS) regression model to analyze the panel data and re-examining the relationship between financial market development and economic development in the context of competitiveness of developed and higher income countries. It is expected that results will highlight many views that benefit policy makers and enable them to work more directly and efficiently, which can improve country’s competitiveness and future development programs and policies. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2present the literature review on the link between financial market development and competitiveness, Section 3explains the research methodology in details, Section 4is for regression analysis followed by robustness check and finally the conclusion in Sections 5and 6. 2. Literature review on the financial market development and competitiveness The relationship between financial market development and competitiveness started to be one of the major topics as the financial market development is one of the global competitiveness index. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 2 of 19 Most of the previous studies investigate the effect of financial market development on economic growth as a strong indicator for competitiveness. The pillars of global competitiveness are strongly inspired by the theories of endogenous growth. Economic growth may also come from the following two channels: technological progress or enhanced production efficiency; growth factors of production. In general, economic growth related to a number of economic variables that ranged into two levels: first, the micro level, such as the productivity of factors of production; Second, the macro level, such as the availability of macroeconomic resources for growth. So that identification of economic growth sources is the cornerstone in activating the economic activity and making structural changes supporting it (Alfaro, Chanda, Kalemli-Ozcan, & Sayek, 2004; Barro, 1991; Chenery & Strout, 1966; Fields, 1980; Harris-Todaro, 1970; Landau, 1983; Lensink & Morrissey, 2006; Lewis, 1954; Lucas, 1988; Romer, 1986; Solow, 1956; Wolde-Rufael, 2009). Financial markets were not seen by the economic theory as directly relevant for development as technological progress and factors growth were (Christopoulos and Tsionas, 2004). This has changed with the development of endogenous growth models, which state that investment in research and development, physical capital and human capital 1 are major determinants of economic growth (Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt, & Levine, 2000). This means that growth is a positive function of the investment ratio. It states that in the long run, economic growth will depend on the policy measures contain openness, competition and innovation which will promote growth and competitiveness (Aghion & Howitt, 1998). But the question is about: how to finance these investments and how the financial intermediaries will allocate funds? Levine emphasized to consider the importance of financial sector in economic growth. Hicks (1969) argue that the financial system of England played a critical role in the industrial revolution. Schumpeter (1911) points out that a well-functioning financial system encourages technological innovations by increasing funding to entrepreneurs, which ultimately leads to economic growth. Subsequent supporting research studies mention that the development of financial system is positively correlated with current and future economic growth, physical capital accumulation and economic productivity. On the contrary, Kuznets (1955), Friedman and Schwartz (2008) suggest that the causation goes the other way, that is, the financial system developed as a result of economic growth. Levine (2004) reveals that countries with better functioning banks and financial markets expand faster and thus become more competitive. Hartmann, Heider, Papaioannou, Duca, and Marco (2007) clarifies that there are a number of ways in which the financial market framework conditions in Europe can be enhanced to rise the contribution of the financial system to innovation, productivity, growth and hence competitiveness. Classens (2009) reviews many previous studies and concluded that as financial services industries develop, and as financial markets and products become more complicated and global, new regulatory and competition policy issues emerge. Accordingly, approaches to competition issues need to modify, important since competition policy in the financial sector is often already behind. Wurgler (2000) explained that developed financial markets are associated with a better allocation of capital comparing to countries with weak financial markets, financially developed countries increase investments in growing industries and decrease them in contracting ones. Therefore, the core advantage of financially developed countries is beyond the higher investment rate to the better allocation of resources to profitable investment projects. Gray and Blejer (2006) reveals that the GCC countries have developed financial markets comparing to the other Arabic countries as a function of larger wealth besides the policies to enhance economic diversification and hence increase the competitiveness. Yokoi-Aria and Yoshino (2006) trade openness is important for competitiveness but such wide openness of the financial market to foreign firms could lead to the absolute dominance of foreign firms which could lead to inverse response in the host nation as well. It is important to get Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 3 of 19 a balance between the need to open markets and improve competitiveness with financial market tendency. They added that the developed financial markets that are liberalized tend focus more on qualitative competitiveness more than quantitative expansion. Whereas earlier economists reached a general consensus that the link between financial development and economic growth was positive, other studies have another point of view. Subsequent empirical study by Favara (2003) that the relationship between financial development and economic growth is very weak. On the other hand, Giovannini, Iacopetta, and Minetti (2013) reveal that there is an adequate degree of learning-by-doing in production in developing countries besides the prompt absorption of foreign technologies, the static loss of GDP translates into slower long-run growth. In addition, the visible enlargement of financial markets causes a more fragile economic environment and to more sharp impacts of financial crises. Arcand, Berkes, and Panizza (2012) have showed a negative relation between finance and growth under certain conditions. Ruiz (2018) found that financial development has negative effect on economic growth when the financial development is below the threshold. This study therefore re-examines this relationship in the context of competitiveness of developed and higher income countries. 3. Research methodology 3.1. Target population and sample size According to the World Economic Forum, 21 countries that classified as highest income countries in the world were included in this study during the years 2009–2017. Those countries are (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and Italy). 3.2. Types and sources of data since no quarterly data are available, this study employed annual secondary data for higher income countries, which were collected from the world Bank, and the Global Competitiveness reports that were issued by the World Economic Forum during the fiscal years of 2009 to 2017. Thus, this study will be utilizing the Panel data. 3.3. Variables with its measurement The various sources of economic growth—As an indicators of competitiveness—are strongly inspired by the theories of endogenous growth. Since most economists believe that the economic development confirms the positive effect of economic and resources growth, driven by the level of the global competitiveness and efficiency enhancers. Thus, Lucas (1988) developed an endogenous growth model centered on the human capital, which accumulated by education, training, health and the innovation. In the same way, Romer (1990); Aghion and Howitt (1992,1998)) developed two models of endogenous growth based on technological innovation. Pagano (1993) also analyzed theoretically the role of financial development in the efficient allocation of financial resources and therefore in economic growth. Moreover, Grossman and Helpman (1991) proposed a model where economic growth depends on the opening-up of the economy assuming that opening encourages technological transfers and opens new foreign markets. Accordingly, Table 1shows variables of the study with its measurement. According to world economic forum WEF, the study’s variables are defined as the following: First, The Competitiveness (COMP) is calculated within the Global Competitiveness index (GCI) by including a weighted average of many different components, each measuring a different aspect of competitiveness. Second, the Financial Market Development (FMD) measured by capital available for private-sector investment from the resources saved by a nation’spopulation, as well as those entering the economy from abroad as loans from a sound banking sector, Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 4 of 19 Table 1. The variables measurement Variable Formula Measures Expected Sign Dependent COMPG COMPGit ¼COMPit COMPit1 COMPit1 X100 Competitiveness growth rate Independent FMDG FMDGit ¼FMDit FMDit1 FMDit1 X100 Growth rate of financial market development Positive LMEG LMEGit ¼LMEit LMEit1 LMEit1 X100 Growth rate of labor market efficiency Positive MSG MSGit ¼MSit MSit1 MSit1 X100 Growth rate of Market size Positive TRG TRGit ¼TRit TRit1 TRit1 X100 Growth rate of Technological readiness Positive OPNG OPNGit ¼OPNit OPNit1 OPNit1 X100 Where: OPNit ¼EXPORTSit þIMPORTSit GDPit Growth rate of trade openness Positive GMEG GMEGit ¼GMEit GMEit1 GMEit1 X100 Growth rate of goods market efficiency Positive HETG HETGit ¼HETit HETit1 HETit1 X100 Growth rate of higher education and training Positive Sources: Prepared by the authors based on the World Bank data and World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness report. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 5 of 19 well-regulated securities exchanges, venture capital, and other financial products. Third,Labor Market Efficiency (LME) Measures the efficiency and flexibility of the labor market for ensuring that workers are allocated to their most effective use in the economy and provided with incentives to give their best effort in their jobs. Fourth, Market Size (MS) Measures the domestic demand by including both domestic and foreign markets in our measure. Fifth, Technological Readiness (TR) measures the agility with which an economy adopts existing technologies to enhance the productivity of its industries, with specific emphasis on its capacity to fully leverage information and communication technologies (ICTs) in daily activities and production processes for increased efficiency and enabling innovation for competitiveness. Sixth, Trade openness (OPN) measured by the sum of exports and imports to the Gross Domestic Production GDP, the higher value indicates more openness. Seventh, Good Market Efficiency (GME) measured based on demand conditions and Healthy market competition, both domestic and foreign. Eighth, Higher education and training (HET) Measures secondary and tertiary enrollment rates as well as the quality of education as evaluated by business leaders, the extent of staff training is also taken into consideration. 3.4. Model specification Panel data analysis becoming valuable for comparing the performance of firms and countries, whereas it is more common in economic studies that apply the econometric analysis (Bujari, Martínez, & Lechuga, 2017). This paper employs panel regression model to analyze the relationship between financial market development and economic development in the context of competitiveness of developed and higher income countries. Through literature review, this study constructs an empirical regression model below: COMPGit ¼αiþ∑ k j¼1 BjXit þUit (1) Where COMPG is the competitiveness growth rate, X it is independent variables for country “i”at time “t,”αis constant, βis the coefficient of j independent variables, and U is the error term. The use of panel data has many advantages and disadvantages. The most common advantage that it allows examining a large number of observations with heterogeneous information, and produces less data multicollinearity among the explanatory variables. Moreover, it allows using more data and can keep track of each unit of observation. It has also disadvantages as the data become more complex and heterogeneity appears and is not properly treated. If the properties of the country are not observable, then the errors will be correlated with the observations, and the OLS estimators are inconsistent (Baltagi, 1995). In this study we have to determine which of the two models (fixed effect (FE) and random effect (RE)) is best fit after conducting the Hausman test for random effects. Given Equation (1), each country ihas nobservations over time t. The FE model aims at determining the behavior of each country independently, by making the intercept (α) vary between countries. This model allows for differences between countries by estimating the intercept for each country assuming it is variable between countries and constant over time (Time Invariant), with constant coefficients of the explanatory variables of each country. Whereas the FE for each country is the most important as it allows the existence of a heterogeneity or individuality among countries allowing to have its own intercept value. Thus, the term of FE is due to the fact that although the intercept may differ across countries, but it does not vary over time. Several kinds of fixed effects differ in the assumptions about, the intercept and the slope coefficients. Introducing dummy variable is the simplest method of isolating individual or timespecific effect to avoid the problem of multicollinearity in a regression model (Greene, 2002). The individual effect is picked up by the dummy variable D mi where (m = n-1). The least squares method is then used to estimate the model. This method is called the least squares dummyvariables model (LSDV). The FE model involves fewer assumptions about the behavior of residuals. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 6 of 19 Allison (2009) says “In a fixed effects model, the unobserved variables are allowed to have any associations whatever with the observed variables”. By adding the phantom variables to Equation (1), the FE model becomes as follows: COMPGit ¼α1þ∑ n d¼2 αdDmi þ∑ k j¼1 BjXit þεit (2) Where the section α1þ∑ n d¼2 αdDmi ! refers to change of the intercept for each icountry. In the FE model, it is assumed that the error εtakes the form of normal distribution with a mean equals zero and a constant and a homoscedastic variance is σ 2 in order to produce unbiased estimators. The random effects model (RE) is appropriate in estimating coefficients if the above assumptions are not completed (Baltagi, 2005). This model treats the Intercept as a random variable that takes a weight equal to (μ) as the following equation: αi¼μþvi(3) Where the intercept αican be decomposed into two parts: a fixed part that remains constant for each country v i , and a random part µthat meets the requirements of OLS. The random effects model (RE) has the same specification as the fixed effects except that the term vi, rather than being fixed for each country and constant over time is a random variable with mean E[vi] and variance (vi)≠0. Where the RE model contains a compound error consisting of (v i + ε it ). Quoting Allison (2009), “In a random effects model, the unobserved variables are assumed to be uncorrelated with all the observed variables.”Thus, the RE model is given by: COMPGit ¼μþ∑ k j¼1 BjXit þviþεit (4) Now v i is a random term. Noting that the RE model is more efficient but less consistent than FE, because it contains a compound error. Thus, the RE model uses the GLS method to estimate the coefficients of the model. The GLS method assumes the homoscedastic variance, and white error (Baltagi Badi, 2005). In order to determine which of the two previous models (FE, RE) is suitable for the Panel data analysis, the Hausman Test is performed. The null hypothesis (H0) indicating the acceptance of the Random Effect model versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) indicating the acceptance of the Fixed Effect. The Hausman test takes the following formula: H¼β ^ FE β ^ RE  0 var β ^ FE var β ^ RE  1 β ^ FE β ^ RE  (5) The Hausman statistic takes the distribution of a Chisequare x2with a degree of freedom equal to K. 3.4.1. Data statistical description Before starting regression analysis, it is important to take a look at descriptive data and statistics that give an idea about the maximum, minimum, average, and standard deviation of study’s variables of higher income countries’competitiveness in 2017. Table 2shows the data statistics. The statistics in Table 2indicate that both Switzerland and United States achieved the highest competitiveness score among the higher income countries, respectively, whereas the United States got the first rank in FMD and MS and Switzerland got the first rank in LME and TR. Finland and France were the highest countries in the HET and GME, respectively. Belgium got the higher rank for OPN. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 7 of 19 According to Chi-square statistic1.405 and its probability 0.923, the Hausman test shows that RE is appropriate for the regression model. The results of regression analysis are given in Table 9. The regression results in Table 9show the relationship between competitiveness growth and the growth of some pillars of the competitiveness in higher income countries. Four independent variables (FMDG, LMEG, TRG, and OPNG) out of five were positive and significant at 1% significance level. That indicates the existence of relationship from those variables to competitiveness. Table 7. (Continued) Null Hypothesis: H0 F-Statistic P-value Decision Causality OPNG does not Granger Cause FMDG 1.512 0.224 Do not reject H0 No causality OPNG does not Granger Cause LMEG 0.323 0.724 Do not reject H0 No causality OPNG does not Granger Cause MSG 1.923 0.149 Do not reject H0 No causality OPNG does not Granger Cause TRG 5.014 0.007 Reject H0 unidirectional Decision Indicates reject H0 if P-value < 0.05. Table 8. Hausman test for random effects Null Hypothesis: RE is appropriate model x2Degree of Freedom Probability 1.405 5 0.923 Cross-section test comparisons Variable FE RE Variance Probability FMDG 0.149 0.146 0.000 0.574 LMEG 0.169 0.167 0.000 0.832 MSG 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.971 TRG 0.076 0.081 0.000 0.328 OPNG 0.042 0.044 0.000 0.589 Table 9. Panel RE model (GLS) regression results Variables Coefficient t-statistic p-value Constant 0.002 2.264 0.025** FMDG 0.146 5.317 0.000* LMEG 0.167 5.094 0.000* MSG 0.005 0.540 0.589 TRG 0.081 3.693 0.000* OPNG 0.044 3.288 0.001* R-squared 0.40 S.E. of Regression 0.011 F-statistic 24.99 (0.000) D.W- Statistic 1.89 Observation 180 * and ** indicates significance level 1% and 5%, respectively. () indicates for probability. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 14 of 19 Whereas economic growth will depend on the policy measures contain openness, competition and innovation which will promote growth and competitiveness (Aghion & Howitt, 1998). Further, the market size growth MSG was positive but insignificant, meaning the growth of domestic demand may not affect on competitiveness growth in our research model. The coefficient of the study’s main variable (FMDG) indicates that when the financial market development growing by 1% the competitiveness will grow by 15%. This result justifies the importance of the financial markets that has been regulated by governments to enhance productivity and economic development. For sure, the availability of venture capital and national savings as well as the well regulating of financial markets, will contribute in the countries competitiveness. Thus, the wealthy and regulated countries like USA, Australia, Finland, Canada,andSwitzerland, have high competitiveness scores. Our result is in line with the findings of the studies (Beck, 2008; De and Guidotti,1995;Finketal., 2005; Masoud & Hardaker, 2012) that the financial market is positively correlated with economic growth, where the financial markets represent the engine of economic growth. The coefficient of (LMEG) indicates that the growth by 1% in the labor market efficiency will increase the growth of country’s competitiveness by 16%. Meaning that, increasing the flexibility of the labor market, and the efficient allocation of workers in their most effective uses in the economy, will increase the labor productivity supported with incentives to give their best effort in their jobs. Thus, labor productivity has a positive effect on economic competitiveness (Rusu & Roman, 2018) that will contribute in competitiveness growth specially for those countries that provide incentives for their workers, and they have a flexible labor market like Switzerland USA, UK, and Canada. This fact shows that the growth of labor productivity per hour worked stimulates the competitiveness of a country. These results are in line with the findings of the studies (Atkinson, 2013;O’Mahony and Ark, 2003; Rusu & Roman, 2018). The Coefficient of (TRG) indicates that the growth by 1% in the technological readiness will increase the country’s competitiveness growth by 8%, where the competitiveness between the countries requires enabling innovations that adopts existing and new technologies with emphasis on fully leverage information and communication technologies. That results in enhancing the economic activities and efficient production processes enabling countries to compete between each of other. Our finding matches with Razavi, Mostafa, Rohollah, and Kashani (2011). Their findings show that there is a significant and positive relationship between the Technological readiness and Innovation, believing that the competitiveness requires enabling innovations that adopts existing and new technologies. Further, Duraisamy and Nedunchezhian (2015) found that there is a strong positive correlation between Global competitiveness ranking and Technical readiness ranking. The Coefficient of (OPNG) indicates that the growth by 1% in the trade openness will increase the country’s competitiveness growth by 4%. With regard to a theoretical relationship between trade openness and economic growth in the context of competitiveness, Tahir and Azid (2015); Musila and Yiheyis (2015) confirm it to be positive. Moreover, in higher income countries, trade policies are oriented toward regional trade cooperation with an explicit aim of integration in global economics (Pilinkiene, 2016). Where the higher exports may promote real output expansion (Helpman & Krugman, 1985), and higher imports may exert less pressures on the costs of production (Markusen, Rutherford, & Hunter, 1995).Thus, trade openness may contribute to more efficient distribution of resources, and allows to exploit country’s competitiveness advantages. The results in Table 9show that the value of R-square 40% is acceptable, meaning 40% of the competitiveness variation of higher income countries is explained by the independent variables. Durbin Watson coefficient (DW = 1.89) is close to 2, meaning that there is no evidence of autocorrelation between the residuals as a role of thumb. Moreover, F-statistic and its probability show that the overall regression model is statistically significant. And the standard error of regression model 1.1% is very low. Under these circumstances, the RE model seems to be appropriate for this study, after conducting the Robustness checks to control for potential endogeneity. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 15 of 19 5. Robustness check To check for the robustness of the results, this study introduces a lagged dependent variable in the regression models by employing the generalized methods of moments (GMM) for Dynamic Panel analysis instead of RE model. The panel GMM estimator allows controlling heterogeneity of countries and overcoming the endogeneity of the explanatory variables that may arise in the relationship between financial market development and competitiveness by using instruments, and therefore yields consistent estimates. The reliability of the GMM method depends critically on the validity of the instruments, which can be evaluated with Hansen’s test of over-identifying restrictions that produces J-statistic, and asymptotically distributed as Chi-square in the number of restrictions. A rejection of the null hypothesis that instruments are orthogonal to the errors would indicate that the estimates are not consistent (Baum, Caglayan, & Talavera, 2010). Therefore, if the J-statistic less than the critical value, or the probability of J-statistic exceeds 5%, then we fail to reject the null, 2 and conclude that the instruments are exogenous. Table 10 presents the GMM estimator analysis. The results of the GMM regression analysis reveal that all the independent variables (FMDG, LMEG, TRG, and OPNG) except MSG, were positive and significant, which indicates that the results are invariant with earlier results (RE model). The Hansen J-test with associated p-value, is proved as valid instruments for all tested equations. Therefore, the results from GMM estimator have proved the null hypothesis. As result, Hansen p-value test fail to reject the null hypothesis. In addition, the study present Arrelano–Bond test statistics for the first and second order serial correlations (AR(1) and AR(2)). Where in a dynamic panel data context, second order serial correlation should not be present if the instruments are appropriately uncorrelated with the errors (Baum et al., 2010). It can be observed from Table 10 that AR(1) and AR(2) tests show that at the 5% significance level our instruments are appropriately orthogonal to the error and no any first or second order serial correlation is detected, respectively. The results from the GMM estimator remain robust in terms of directions and significance levels. Whereas they keep the same sign, the same order of magnitude, they remain significant as they were so in the RE model, and the standard error of regression model 1.6% is very low. As can be observed, the GMM model confirms the robustness of our findings. 6. Conclusion The study aims at re-examining the relationship between financial market development and economic development in the context of competitiveness growth of developed and higher income countries. For this purpose, the study employs GLS regression model to analyze the panel data of 21 higher income countries over the period (2009–2017). The study tested the stationarity, multicollinearity, endogeneity, and serial correlation and rejected the existence of any problems among Table 10. Generalized methods of moments (GMM) regression results Variables Coefficient t-statistic p-value COMPG(−1) −0.064 −1.502 0.135 FMDG 0.110 5.071 0.000* LMEG 0.252 3.268 0.001* MSG 0.003 0.079 0.936 TRG 0.070 4.347 0.000* OPNG 0.024 2.848 0.005* AR(1) p-value 0.108 S.E. of Regression 0.016 AR(2) p-value 0.294 Observation 147 Hansen p-value 0.370 * indicates significance level 1%. Instruments are the lagged independent variables. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 16 of 19 the variables. According to Chi-square statistic (1.405), the Hausman test shows that random effects are appropriate for the regression model. The results of regression analysis reveal that four independent variables (FMDG, LMEG, TRG, and OPNG) were positive and significant at 0.99% confidence interval, which indicates the existence of relationship from those variables to competitiveness, while one of the independent variables (MSG) is positive but insignificant. Besides, the study checked, the robustness of the results and according to the Hansen J-test the results from GMM estimator have proved the null hypothesis which means that Hansen p-value test fail to reject the null hypothesis. In addition, the study present Arrelano–Bond test statistics, which shows that at the 5% significance level our instruments are appropriately orthogonal to the error and no any first- or second-order serial correlation is detected, respectively. The results from the GMM estimator remain robust in terms of directions and significance levels and confirm the robustness of the findings. The study recommends enhancing the dialogue between competition and financial authorities to enhance productivity and economic development besides more investing in human capital and information and communication technologies. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Mohammad W. Alomari 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9750-6715 Zyad Marashdeh 2 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0625-8067 Ala G. Bashayreh 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3957-1698 1 Department of Economics, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan. 2 Department of Finance, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan. Citation information Cite this article as: Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth, Mohammad W. Alomari, Zyad Marashdeh & Ala G. Bashayreh, Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483. Notes 1. The term “human capital”refers principally to workers’ acquisition of skills and know-how through education and training, the majority of studies have measured the quality of human capital using proxies related to education e.g. school-enrolment rates, tests of mathematics and scientific skills. A large number of studies have found evidence suggesting that educated population is key determinant of economic growth (e.g. Hanushek & Kimko, 2000). 2. The hypothesis that instrumental variables are not correlated with the set of residuals. References Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica,2, 323–351. doi:10.2307/2951599 Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1998). Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Sayek, S. (2004). FDI and economic growth. The Role of Local Financial Markets. Journal of International Economics, 64, 113–134. Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models (Vol. 160). California, USA: SAGE publications. Arcand, J., Berkes, E., & Panizza, U. (2012). Too much finance? International monetary fund. IMF Working Papers, 161. Atkinson, R. D. (2013, August 2–7). Competitiveness, innovation and productivity: Clearing up the confusion. The information technology & innovation foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nist.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/2017/05/09/2013- competitiveness-innovation-productivity-clearing-up -confusion.pdf Baltagi Badi, H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. Ebook (3rd ed.). USA: John Wiley and Sons TNC. Baltagi, B. H. (1995). Econometric analysis of panel data. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons TNC. Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics,106, 407–443. doi:10.2307/2937943 Baum, C. F., Caglayan, M., & Talavera, O. (2010). Parliamentary election cycles and the Turkish banking sector. Journal of Banking and Finance,34(11), 2709–2719. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.05.013 Beck, T. (2008). The econometrics of finance and growth. Policy Research Working Paper. No. 4608. Washington: World Bank. Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Levine, R. (2000). A new database on financial development and structure. World Bank Economic Review,14, 597–605. doi:10.1093/wber/14.3.597 Bujari, A. A., Martínez, F. V., & Lechuga, G. P. (2017). Impact of the stock market capitalization and the banking spread in growth and development in Latin American: A panel data estimation with System GMM. Contaduría Y Administración,62(5), 1427–1441. doi:10.1016/j.cya.2017.09.005 Calderon, C., & Liu, L. (2003). The direction of causality between financial development and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics,72(1), 321–334. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(03)00079-8 Chenery, H. B., & Strout, A. (1966). Foreign assistance and economic development. American Economic Review, 56, 679–733. Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 17 of 19 Christopolous, D. K., & Tsionas, E. G. (2004). Financial development and economic growth: evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Development Economics,73(1), 55–74. doi:10.1016/j. jdeveco.2003.03.002 Classens, S. (2009). Competition in the financial sector: Overview of competition policies. IMF working paper, WP/09/45. doi:10.5089/9781451871937.001 De Gregorio, J., & Guidotti, P. E. (1995). Financial development and economic growth. World Development, 23(3), 433–448. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(94)00132-I Dimitrios, A., & Hall Stephen, G. (2007). Applied econometrics (Revised ed.). USA: Palgrave Macmillan. Duczynski, P. (2000). Capital mobility in neoclassical models of growth: Comment. American Economic Review,90(3), 687–694. doi:10.1257/aer.90.3.687 Duraisamy, S., & Nedunchezhian, V. R. (2015). A study on the impact of technological readiness on global competitiveness index. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR),5(4), 18–26. Favara, G. (2003). An empirical reassessment of the relationship between finance and growth. International Monetary Fund Working paper series, wp/03/123, 1-46. Fields, G. S. (1980). Poverty, inequality, and development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Fink, G., Haiss, P., & Mantler, H. C. (2005) The finance-growth nexus. Market economies vs. transition countries. EI Working Papers/ Europainstitut,64. Europainstitut, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna. Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (2008). A monetary history of the United States, 1867–1960. New York, NY: Princeton University Press. Giovannini, A., Iacopetta, M., & Minetti, R. (2013). Financial markets, banks, and growth: Disentangling the links. Revue De l’OFCE,131(5), 105–147. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross spectral methods. Econometrica,37, 424–435. doi:10.2307/1912791 Gray, S., & Blejer, M. (2006). the gulf cooperation council region: Financial market development, competitiveness, and economic growth. IMF,1(4), 41–51. Greene, W. (2002, Septemebr 1). Alternative panel data estimators for stochastic frontier models (Unpublished manuscript). Department of Economics, New York University. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Massachusetts, USA: MIT press. Hanushek, E., & Kimko, D. (2000). Schooling, labor-force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review, 90(5), 1184–1208. Harris-Todaro, J. R. M. (1970). Migration, employment, and development: A twosector analysis. American Economic Review,60, 126–142. Hartmann, P., Heider, F., Papaioannou, E., Duca, L., & Marco, (2007). The role of financial markets and innovation in productivity and growth in Europe. ECB Occasional Paper No. 72. Retrived from SSRN https:// ssrn.com/abstract=1005850 Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. R. (1985). Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing returns, imperfect competition, and the international economy. Cambridge: MIT press. Hicks, J. (1969). A theory of economic history. Oxford: Clarendon press. Koivu, T. 2002.“Do efficient banking sectors accelerate economic growth in transition economies?”. Discussion Paper No. 14. Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition. Kuzin, D. (2007). Competitiveness of Russia: Problems and perspectives. Pecvia,4, 109–142. doi:10.18002/pec. v0i4.722 Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review,45,1–28. Landau, D. (1983). Government expenditure and economic growth: A cross-country study. Southern Economic Journal,49, 783–797. doi:10.2307/1058716 Lensink, W., & Morrissey, O. (2006). Foreign direct investment: Flows, volatility and the impact on growth. Review of International Economics,14(3), 478–493. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9396.2006.00632.x Levin, A., & Lin, C. F. (1992). Unit root test in panel data: Asymptotic and finite sample properties, University of California at San Diego, Discussion Paper No. 92-93. Levin, A., & Lin, C. F. (1993). Unit root test in panel data: New results, University of California at San Diego, Discussion Paper No. 93-56. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics,108(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/ S0304-4076(01)00098-7 Levine, R. 2004. Finance and growth: Theory and evidence. NBER Working Paper No. 10766, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w10766 Lewis, A. W. (1954). Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies,22, 139–191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.1954.tb00021.x Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanisms of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics,22(1), 3–42. doi:10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7 Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,61(S1), 631–652. doi:10.1111/obes.1999.61.issue-S1 Markusen, J. R., Rutherford, T. F., & Hunter, L. (1995). Trade liberalization in a multinational-dominated industry. Journal of International Economics,38(1–2), 95–117. doi:10.1016/0022-1996(94)01339-T Masoud, N., & Hardaker, G. (2012). The impact of financial development on economic growth: Empirical analysis of emerging market countries. Studies in Economics and Finance,29(3), 148–173. doi:10.1108/ 10867371211246830 Mehl, A., Vespro, C., & Winkler, A. (2005). The finance-growth nexus and financial sector environment: New evidence from Southeast Europe. Conference on European Economic Integration, 14–15 November, Vienna. Musila, J. W., & Yiheyis, Z. (2015). The impact of trade openness on growth: The case of Kenya. Journal of Policy Modeling,37(2), 342–354. doi:10.1016/j. jpolmod.2014.12.001 O’Mahony, M., & van Ark, B. (Eds.). (2003). EU productivity and competitiveness: An industry perspective, can Europe resume the catching-up process? Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Enterprise publications. Odedokun, M. O. (1996). Alternative econometric approaches for analyzing the role of the financial sector in economic growth: Time-series evidence from LDCs. Journal of Development Economics,50(1), 119–146. doi:10.1016/0304-3878(96)00006-5 Pagano, M. (1993). Financial markets and growth: An overview. European Economic Review,37, 613–622. doi:10.1016/0014-2921(93)90051-B Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 18 of 19 Pilinkiene, V. (2016). Trade openness, economic growth and competitiveness. The case of the central and eastern European countries. Engineering Economics, 27(2), 185–194. doi:10.5755/j01.ee.27.2.14013 Rastegar, A. A., Mahbanooei, B., & Ghasemi, R. (2012,May). Canonical correlation analysis between technological readiness and labor market efficiency: A secondary analysis of countries global competitiveness in 2011–2012. In 13th International Conference on Econometrics, Operations Research and Statistics (ICEOS-2012), Accepted for Regular Presentation (pp. 24–26). Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Razavi, S., Mostafa, G., Rohollah, A. B., & Kashani, M. (2011). Relationship between technological readiness and innovation: A secondary analysis of countries global competitiveness. European Journal of Scientific Research,59(3), 318–328. Robert, M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Springer,41, 673–690. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economies,94(5), 1002–1037. doi:10.1086/261420 Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy,5,71–102. doi:10.1086/ 261725 Ruiz, J. (2018). Financial development, institutional investors and economic growth. International Review of Economics and Finance,54, 218–224. doi:10.1016/ j.iref.2017.08.009 Rusu,V.D.,&Roman,A.(2018). An empirical analysis of factors affecting competitiveness of CEE countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja,31(1), 2044–2059. doi:10.1080/ 1331677X.2018.1480969 Sarkar, P. (2008). Trade openness and growth: Is there any link? Journal of Economic Issues,42(3), 763–785. doi:10.1080/00213624.2008.11507178 Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,70(1), 65–94. doi:10.2307/1884513 Tahir, M., & Azid, T. (2015). The relationship between international trade openness and economic growth in the developing economies: Some new dimensions. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies,8(2), 123–139. doi:10.1108/JCEFTS-02-2015-0004 Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2009). Re-examining the financial development and economic growth nexus in Kenya. Economic Modelling,26(6), 1140–1146. doi:10.1016/j. econmod.2009.05.002 Wurgler, J. R. (2000). Financial markets and the allocation of capital. Journal of Financial Economics,58(1–2), 187–214. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00070-2 Yokoi-Arai, M., & Yoshino, N. (2006). Concept of competitiveness in the financial sector. Financial Research and Training Center. Discussion paper series, No.24, Japan. Zang, H., & Kim, Y. C. (2007). Does financial development precede growth? Robinson and Lucas might be right. Applied Economic Letters,14(1), 15–19. doi:10.1080/ 13504850500425469 © 2019 The Author(s). Thisopen access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Economics & Finance (ISSN: 2332-2039) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: •Immediate, universal access to your article on publication •High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online •Download and citation statistics for your article •Rapid online publication •Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards •Retention of full copyright of your article •Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article •Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Alomari et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2019), 7: 1622483 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483 Page 19 of 19