This study assesses dynamics of openness and finance in Africa by integrating financial development dynamics of depth, activity and size in the assessment of how financial, trade, institutional, political and other openness policies (of second generation structural and institutional reforms) have affected financial development. The empirical evidence is based on Generalized Method of Moments with data from 28 African countries for the period 1996-2010. The following findings are established:(i) While the de jure (KAOPEN) indicator of financial openness improves financial depth, the de facto (FDI) measurement decreases it, with the effect of the latter measure positive on financial size. (ii) Whereas trade openness improves financial depth, its effect on financial activity and size is negative. (iii) Institutional openness has a positive effect on financial dynamics of depth and activity, while its effect on financial size is negative. (iv) Political openness and economic freedom are detrimental to financial depth and activity. Justifications for these nexuses are discussed.

This paper analyzes the links between financial and trade openness and financial development in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. It is based on a panel dataset using methods that tackle slope heterogeneity, cross-sectional dependence and non-stationarity, important econometric problems that are often ignored in the literature. The results do not point to a general direct robust link between trade and capital account openness and financial development in SSA, once we control for other factors such as GDP per capita and inflation. But there is some indication that trade openness is more important for financial development in countries with better institutional quality. The findings might be due to a number of factors including distortions in domestic financial markets, relatively weak institutions and/or poor financial sector supervision. Thus, African policy makers should be cautious about expectations regarding immediate gains for financial development from greater international integration. Such gains are more likely to occur through indirect channels.

This paper examines how regionalization in the face of globalization has affected financial development in the context of banking system efficiency in Africa. Results which are robust to financial system efficiency and growth-led-finance nexus reveal that in the post-regionalization era: (1) UEMOA and CEMAC regional banks' ability to finance credit by deposits has reduced; (2) financial institutions of COMESA have improved their capacity to fund openness related activities/projects with deposits; (3) increase in welfare has positively affected the intermediary role of banks; (4) globalization tends to be more detrimental to financial systems of 'economic and monetary' regions than to those of purely economic regions. As a policy implication, national and regional authorities should gain knowledge of the fact that with openness, the role of domestic and regional banks seems to lessen in the funding of openness related activities and projects. Much needs to be done on the improvement of infrastructure that curtails information asymmetry in the banking industry.

Purpose - The issue of which financial initial conditions are necessary to materialize the benefits of financial globalization remains open to debate in the literature. In this paper, we try to put some empirical structure on the concept of financial threshold conditions in order to give policymakers guidance on the Kose et al. (2011) and Henry (2007) hypothesis. Its object is to assess if financial benefits of financial globalization are questionable until greater domestic financial development has taken place in African countries.Design/Methodology/Approach - In framing the financial dimension in a more concrete and tractable manner, we examine the concerns of how domestic financial initial dynamics of depth (economic and financial systems), efficiency (banking and financial systems), activity (banking and financial systems) and size, play out in the financial development benefits of financial globalization. The estimation approach consists of assessing the impact of financial globalization through-out the conditional distributions of domestic financial development dynamics. Findings - The introduction of previously missing financial dimensions into the debate generates a number of important findings. Only financial initial (threshold) conditions of size are necessary to materialize the benefits of financial globalization. While financial depth only partially validates the hypothesis, dynamics of efficiency and activity (credit) do not confirm the hypothesis.Practical Implications - Addressing the issue of surplus liquidity in African financial institutions could improve the benefits of financial size and potentially reverse the trends of financial efficiency and activity. Depending on the context of sampled countries, the appropriate role of policy has always been either to stem the tide of capital flows or encourage them. Policymakers who have been viewing their challenges exclusively from the latter perspective for benefits in growth (finance) might be getting the financial dynamics badly wrong. Originality/Value - Blanket financial development policies may not reap the financial benefits of financial globalization until domestic financial dynamics of depth, efficiency, activity and size are critically considered. The introduction of the last three previously missing components in the literature sheds more light on the globalization-development nexus.

This paper examines the empirical relationship between long–run growth and the degree of financial development, proxied by the ratio of bank credit to the private sector as a fraction of GDP. We find that this proxy enters significantly and with a positive sign in growth regressions on a large cross–country sample, but with a negative sign using panel data for Latin America. Our findings suggest that the main channel of transmission from financial development to growth is the efficiency of investment, rather than its volume. We also present a model where the negative correlation between financial intermediation and growth results from financial liberalization in a poor regulatory environment.