This paper examines whether nancial development facilitates economic growth by scrutinizing one rationale for such a relationship; that nancial development reduces the costs of external nance to rms. Speci cally, we ask whether industrial sectors that are relatively more in need of external nance develop disproportionately faster in countries with more developed nancial markets. We nd this to be true in a large sample of countries over the 1980s. We show this result is unlikely to be driven by omitted variables, outliers, or reverse causality. (JEL O4, F3, G1) A large literature, dating at least as far back as Joseph A. Schumpeter (1911), emphasizes the positive in uence of the development of a country's nancial sector on the level and the rate of growth of its per capita income. The argument essentially is that the services the nancial sector provides { of reallocating capital to the highest value use without substantial risk of loss through moral hazard, adverse selection, or transactions costs { are an essential catalyst of economic growth. Empirical work seems consistent with this argument. For example, on the

Abstract not found

We show that equity market liberalizations, on average, lead to a one percent increase in annual real economic growth over a five-year period. The effect is robust to alternative definitions of liberalization and does not reflect a business cycle effect. The channel of growth is both increased investment post liberalization which partially reflects a decreased cost of capital and increased factor productivity. The additional investment is largely financed by foreign capital leading to deteriorating trade balances. Some of the liberalization effect can be accounted for by coincidental macroeconomic reforms as well as financial development. However, our analysis shows that even after controlling for a broad range of variables, a statistically significant and economically important role is played by equity market liberalization. We appreciate the helpful comments of Wayne Ferson, Peter Henry, Ross Levine, Graciela Kaminsky,

Abstract not found

forthcoming Journal of Finance Non-U.S. firms cross-listing shares on U.S. exchanges as American Depositary Receipts earn cumulative abnormal returns of 19 percent during the year before listing, an additional 1.20 percent during the listing week, but incur a loss of 14 percent during the year following listing. We show how these unusual share price changes are robust to changing market risk exposures and are related to an expansion of the shareholder base and to the amount of capital raised at the time of listing. Our tests provide support for the

especially grateful for the thoughtful and thorough comments of the referee which greatly improved the paper. Geert Bekaert thanks the NSF for financial support.

Abstract not found

NOTE: International Finance Discussion Papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. References in publications to International Finance Discussion Papers (other than an acknowledgment that the writer has had access to unpublished material) should be cleared with the author or authors. Recent IFDPs are available on the Web at www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/.A SIMPLE MEASURE OF THE INTENSITY OF CAPITAL CONTROLS

Given the cross-sectional and temporal variation in their liquidity, emerging equity markets provide an ideal setting to examine the impact of liquidity on expected returns. Our main liquidity measure is a transformation of the proportion of zero daily firm returns, averaged over the month. We find that it significantly predicts future returns, whereas alternative measures such as turnover do not. Consistent with liquidity being a priced factor, unexpected liquidity shocks are positively correlated with contemporaneous return shocks and negatively correlated with shocks to the dividend yield. We consider a simple asset pricing model with liquidity and the market portfolio as risk factors and transaction costs that are proportional to liquidity. The model differentiates between integrated and segmented countries and time periods. Our results suggest that local market liquidity is an important driver of expected returns in emerging markets, and that the liberalization process has not fully eliminated its impact.

Contagion in equity markets refers to the notion that markets move more closely together during periods of crisis. One of the most interesting aspects of the contagion debate is the disagreement