8/6/2019 Project Draft1
1/14
ROLE OF
FINANCIAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
IN ECONOMIC GROWTH
(THE CASE OF FIJI)
By: Tebaio Ioane
Research Project
Course: EC410 Monetary Economics
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
2/14
1
1. AbstractThe literatures such as those from King and Levine (1993), Levine (1997), Mishkin (1999), Khan
and Senhadji (2000) have found empirical evidence which highlights a positive role of the financial
sector in aiding growth and development in both developing and developed countries. Most implied
that the financial sector in its role of pooling savings and diverting them to innovative investment
opportunities does contribute to economic growth and development because it facilitate and
stimulate capital accumulation and technological progress, the factors which according to neo-classical growth models, contribute to economic growth. In that connection, they recommended that
if countries wish to develop their economies, their financial sector needs to be supported and
developed both in its deepening, variety and access to the population especially the rural areas so
that it can perform its intermediation functions properly.
To see whether the same observations also holds in Fiji, we analyse the data for Fiji on financial
deepening, domestic credit and interest spread for the years 1995 to 2007 and compare their growth
with GDP and found that there is a strong positive correlation especially between interest spread,
quasi money, credit to the private sector and GDP. We also noted a fast transmission time within
one year, in a change in interest spread and the increase in the quasi money, the credit to private
sector and the growth of GDP indicating an efficient intermediary functions performed by thefinancial sector in Fiji implying their development advancement.
In view of those factors, we conclude that the financial sector in Fiji does play a positive role in the
economic growth of Fiji.
2. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to find out whether financial sector does play some role in aiding
growth in Fiji. To do that we need to find what the measures or indicators show financial
development from researchers who have done similar studies and then see their results on the role
which these variables have on growth. We then apply the same principal and approach using Fijidata to assess whether financial sector does play a role in aiding growth here in Fiji.
However, before we begin we must first define the terms financial sector andeconomic growth
so that we can limit the scope of the paper within the economics definitions of these terms.
According to Wikidepia, Financial sector is simply a collection of institutes and markets whichtransact money and credit instruments. They include the banking sector composed of commercial
banks and the reserve bank plus the non-bank institutions such as National Provident Funds (NPF),
Development Financial Institution (DFI), Insurance Companies, Credit Institutions such as miro-
finance institutions, merchant banks, etc. In that connection therefore, financial sector development
means the ability of these institutions to perform their intermediary functions in such a way that it
stimulate growth. Economic growth is an increase in the countrys aggregate output or income over time and it Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is often used as the indicator especially its per
capita value. Hence when GDP per capita increases from the previous year, economic growth is
then achieved.
But sometimes the role of money and financial sector are confused as some may treat them as the
same therefore we have decided to also include a study to differentiate money and financial sector
in the growth theory.
Section 3 will discuss selected literatures, section 4 the analysis on the data for financial deepening,
domestic credit, and interest rates and their spread. In section 5 we discuss our findings on those
analyses and then make some conclusions in section 6.
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
3/14
2
3. Literature ReviewTo fully understand the connection between the financial sector development and economic growth,
it is better if we start from the growth theory so that we can grasp the main variables which
stimulate growth. According to the neo-classical or the exogenous growth model and the Solow
model (Solow, 1956) in particular, the factors that affect economic growth are capital stock
accumulation and improvement in technology. The model is given in a Cobb-Douglas production
function given as:
1)}()({)()( tLtAtKtY 0 < < 1 (1)
Where Y is output, K capital, L labour, A is the level of technology and t is time. A and L are
assumed to grow exogenously at the rates n and g: nteLtL )0()( and gteAtA )0()( . In the
extended form of the Solow model, human capital is included to make the model more accurate in
the level of its prediction with stylized facts (Mankiw et. al, 1992). Accordingly they extended the
model as below:
1
)}()({)()()( tLtAtHtKtY (2)
Where H is the stock of human capital which is knowledge, training and experience while the other
variables remain as in equation (1). In addition, the authors also stated that the inclusion of human
capital now divides or splits the amount invested as a fraction goes to capital while the other
fraction or the rest is invested in human capital.
The endogenous growth model on the other hand postulates that human capital and technological
progress are also the main drivers for growth. Its difference with the neoclassical growth model is
that the input factors are endogenous or are part of the model and therefore they can be manipulated
through savings rate, training or learning by doing and research and development to get the desired
growth rate.
The question then is how the financial sector is involved in the growth theory? Does it has any role
in stimulating and facilitating growth and if so is it direct or indirect. Some economists (Sinai and
Stokes, 1972) argued that money has a direct role in the growth theory and they used the extended
Solow model as in equation (1) and also including various definitions of real money balances into a
non-constant Cobb-Douglas production function as below:
teMKALY (3)
Where M is M1 or M2, t is time trend and is the error term and other variables are the same asthose in equation (1). They used the US data for 1929 67 and statistical manipulation, they
concluded that real money was a significant input and its contribution was mistakenly attributed as
technological progress. Similar conclusions were also made by Ali F Darrat and Yousif K Al-
Yousif (1998) who applied a similar econometric approach using data from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates. These findings implies that there may be no need for society to
educate itself and invest to find new technologies as these investments would not contribute to
growth.
Other researchers were not convinced and according to Hong V Nguyen (1996) who reviewed the
Sinai and Stokes (1972) study but instead of using only one time period, he used two times periods,
the 193067 originally used by Sinai-Stokes (1972) and sub-periods 1947 67 and 1947 78 toevaluate the stability of the previous results with respect to the role of money as an input. The
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
4/14
3
regression results indicated that money played a statistically significant role as an input for period
1930 67 however the results were opposite for periods 1947 67 as they showed that money,
either M1 or M2 is not statistically significant with or without time trend. The 1947 78 data also
did not support that trend is a proxy for money hence these implied that the Sinai-Stokes (1972)
conclusion that money is an input in the growth model was not plausible.
Nguyen (1996) then reformulated the Sinai-Stokes (1972) equation to capture the effects of changesin money as well as changes in technology on productivity. The new formulation is given below:
teMKALY (4)
)/( MMrd (4a)
Where M/M is proportionate change in M, d captures changes in the rate of productivity due to
technological change and r captures the interaction between the rate of growth of real money
balances and technological change. Other variables are the same as those in equation (3). After
running the regressions, Nguyen (1996) found that coefficients for interaction variables are not
sensitive to adding or dropping money variables for 194767 and 194778. Money (M1 and M2)
coefficient in 1947 67 and 1947 78 is significantly reduced and remain insignificant when the
interaction variable is added and for periods 193067, M2 is no longer significant in the regression
with the interaction and trend variables. He then concluded that money is related to and affected by,
exchange innovations and that money plays a role not as an input but as a factor whose growth rate
contributes to productivity growth which is then transformed into higher per capita output and
ultimately to higher growth.
It is now clear that money does not affect economic growth directly as it is not an inputs to the
production function. However as Nguyen (1996) concludes, the availability of money in the
production system does improves productivity.
This may imply that anyones productivity may increase as the level of salary is increased but in
looking at the firm, increased productivity of its employees due to increased in salary may notnecessary mean increased efficiency of the firm as if the capital-labour ratio falls because there is a
relative decrease in capital accumulation because the firm cannot find additional money to buy
replacement capital to replace the depreciated units, then the workers productivity would fall
regardless whether the pay is increased. In addition, the firm also needs transactions between other
firms and its customers to be efficient as well and that where the role of the financial system comes
into playthat is, it is not just the money being introduced into the system but also the financial
system itself and its efficiency to fulfil its roles like pooling of capital resources and transmitting
them to investment capitals and in facilitating trade transactions and contracts, to say a few wouldhave a very important impact on the efficiency of the monetary economics system, the productivity
of the firms and therefore economic growth.
How can the financial sector perform its intermediary function and transmit savings into
investments and in the process help stimulate growth? As it is known, the banking system operate
on a fractional-reserve banking practice where for any amount deposited, Commercial Banks(CBs) deposit the required reserve portion of the deposit with the Reserve Bank (RB) and lend outthe remainder to the appraised and selected prospective investors. It is assumed that the dealers,
whom the investors bought the machinery from, would redeposit that same loan money into the
banking system to complete the money-making cycle so that the process can start over again. This
cycle if carried out efficiently by the CBs, would help to accelerate the expansion of the economysimply through introducing new businesses or capitals and/or expanding the existing ones. In
addition it also creates new money into the system.
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
5/14
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
6/14
5
supply (MS) or broad money (M2) which is made up ofnarrow money (consists of currency anddemand deposits) plus quasi money (made up of savings and time deposits). They concluded thatthese components of MS and quasi money in particular as well as M2 because they contain longer
term deposits which the Commercial Banks (CBs) can lend out to borrowers, have a strongcorrelation with growth. Table 1 below tabulates the components of M2 for Fiji for the years 1995
to 2007 and I will try to determine if their growths are also correlated with GDP growth.
Table 1: Fijis GDP and Financial Deepening Statistics (F$ million)
YearNominal
GDP CurrencyNarrowmoney
Quasimoney M2
1995 2373.0 117.8 386.2 1089.6 1475.7
1996 2578.4 125.4 456.3 1032.1 1488.4
1997 2590.9 134.0 445.3 913.2 1358.5
1998 2776.2 159.8 493.9 859.9 1353.8
1999 3080.8 189.9 694.5 851.6 1546.1
2000 3063.1 163.3 693.7 920.1 1513.9
2001 3249.1 181.7 620.9 846.2 1467.12002 3386.9 202.6 712.0 870.6 1582.5
2003 3564.0 226.2 900.0 1080.5 1980.5
2004 3856.1 252.3 1018.0 1167.7 2185.7
2005 3977.4 280.1 1197.1 1316.7 2513.8
2006 4647.7 294.2 1142.4 1869.9 3012.3
2007 4555.4 290.0 1638.0 1686.0 3325.9Source: Reserve Bank of Fiji
As shown in figure 1 below, all the M2 components increased as GDP grew. In other words, none
declined while GDP increased. This implies that M2 and its components have a strong link withGDP in Fiji also as the other researchers found for other countries and this suggests that financial
deepening also helps to enhance economic growth in Fiji. Figure 1 also shows that quasi money
curve sort of mimic the GDP curve implying that CBs lend out all of the short term deposits with
them.
Figure 1
Financial Deepening and GDP
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
4500.0
5000.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
F$(million)
Currency Narrow money Quasi money M2 GDP (at market price)
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
7/14
6
Table 2 below shows the same components of M2 and compare them with GDP by means of ratio
or percent of GDP.
Table 2: Fiji Financial Deepening Statistics (percent of GDP)
Year Currency
Narrow
money
Quasi
money M21995 5.0 16.3 45.9 62.2
1996 4.9 17.7 40.0 57.7
1997 5.2 17.2 35.2 52.4
1998 5.8 17.8 31.0 48.8
1999 6.2 22.5 27.6 50.2
2000 5.3 22.6 30.0 49.4
2001 5.6 19.1 26.0 45.2
2002 6.0 21.0 25.7 46.7
2003 6.3 25.3 30.3 55.6
2004 6.5 26.4 30.3 56.72005 7.0 30.1 33.1 63.2
2006 6.3 24.6 40.2 64.8
2007 6.4 36.0 37.0 73.0Source: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Now even though GDP grew for the years 1995 to 2007 as shown in Figure 1 above, the share of
M2 as well as quasi money to GDPs growth however have been declining since 1995 and increased
again in 200203. This may indicate a decline in the level of term deposits in those periods may be
due to decrease in interest on deposits shown in table 5 and figure 7, which may have forced
potential term depositors to opt for the next best form of deposit or investment.
Figure 2
Financial Deepening Indicators (percent of GDP)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Percent
Currency Narrow money Quasi money M2
Now that we have analysed the deposits made by the commercial banks we can now analysewhether they lend out the said deposits to make money and in the process stimulate economic
growth by contributing to pay for the new capital and technologies. According to King and Levine
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
8/14
7
(1993), they claimed that the loan to private sector is a better measure as they are the sector which
uses the said loans to accumulate national capital and new ideas or technologies. Table 3 below is
Fiji financial sector credit or loan values for 1995 to 2007 to both the private and public sector or
government.
Table 3: Fiji GDP and Domestic Credit Statistic (F$ million)
Year NominalGDP
Credit toPrivateSector
Credit toPublicSector
TotalDomesticCredit
1995 2373.0 1112.2 156.7 1268.9
1996 2578.4 1165.0 157.0 1322.0
1997 2590.9 1013.9 173.6 1187.5
1998 2776.2 1072.2 160.0 1232.2
1999 3080.8 1143.3 141.8 1285.1
2000 3063.1 1145.9 212.9 1358.8
2001 3249.1 1081.8 242.8 1324.6
2002 3386.9 1136.1 255.7 1391.82003 3564.0 1326.4 336.4 1662.8
2004 3856.1 1565.8 305.4 1871.2
2005 3977.4 1949.3 419.4 2368.7
2006 4647.7 2411.5 516.1 2927.6
2007 4555.4 2479.0 540.0 3019.0Source: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Figure 3 below compared the growth of the said credits with GDP and it is clearly shows that the
majority of the credits handed out each year go to the private sector. This implies that the financial
system is arranged in such a way that the private sector is not crowed out from the credits madeavailable by the banking system.
Figure 3
Composition of Domestic Credit
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
F$(millio
n)
Credit to Private Sector Credit to Public Sector
It then follows that the loan arrangements implied above would assist to stimulate growth because
most of the loan is made to private sector. To find out if that view is true, we go to figure 4 below.
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
9/14
8
Figure 4
Domestic Credit and GDP
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
4500.0
5000.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
F$(million)
Credit to Private Sector Credi t to Public Sector Total Domestic Credi t GDP (at market price)
It can be seen in figure 4 above that the credit to private sector curve kind of copies the GDP curve
but at the lower level. This implies that it does influence GDP growth pattern. The credit to public
sector curve on the other hand does not copy the GDP curve as even though it grows, it does so at a
very minimal rate while GDP and the private sector curves grew and declined almost at the same
rate through out the periods under study.
Table 4: Fiji Domestic Credit Statistic (percent of GDP)
Year
Credit toPrivateSector
Credit toPublicSector
TotalDomestic
Credit
1995 46.9 6.6 53.5
1996 45.2 6.1 51.3
1997 39.1 6.7 45.8
1998 38.6 5.8 44.4
1999 37.1 4.6 41.7
2000 37.4 7.0 44.4
2001 33.3 7.5 40.82002 33.5 7.5 41.1
2003 37.2 9.4 46.7
2004 40.6 7.9 48.5
2005 49.0 10.5 59.6
2006 51.9 11.1 63.0
2007 54.4 11.9 66.3Source: Reserve Bank of Fiji
If we analyse the domestic credit components opposed to GDP as shown in table 4 above and figure
5 below, we can see that it represent a similar graph as that shown in figure 2 above especially forthe curves credit to private sector and M2 and quasi money. That is both curves show an initial
decline and then a rise from 2002 onwards. As discussed earlier, CBs use the deposits to make more
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
10/14
9
money through loans hence the pattern makes sense because when the deposit money decreases,
then that would affect the level of money which banks lend out therefore both the savings and
lending curves would be similar.
Figure 5
Domestic Credit (% of GDP)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Percent
Credit to Private Sector Credit to Public Sector Total Domestic Credit
Now if we combine the M2 and credit to private sector with GDP and determine their growth rates,
we can see in figure 6 below that they grow pretty much in a same manner through out the years
under study. All of them declined in 1997 and in 2001 and grow in the other years.
Figure 6
Growth rates: M2, Credit to Pvt Sector & GDP
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Year
Percent
M2 0.9% -8.7% -0.3% 14.2% -2.1% -3. 1% 7.9% 25.2% 10.4% 15.0% 19. 8% 10.4%
Credit to Private Sector 4.7% -13.0% 5.8% 6.6% 0.2% -5.6% 5.0% 16.8% 18.0% 24.5% 23.7% 2.8%
GDP (at market price) 8.7% 0.5% 7.2% 11.0% -0.6% 6.1% 4.2% 5.2% 8.2% 3.1% 16.9% -2.0%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
A further analysis on their growth rate and pattern of growth indicates that they are highly
correlated as shown in figure 7 below. All of them sort of grow and decline in the latter parts of
1990s and early 2000s but increased sharply in mid 2000s. The Excels internal analysis forecasted
each of the curves linear trend lines and equations where x stand for the year multiplied by theelasticity or growth rate per year plus the value at the origin. The R
2for each curve showed a very
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
11/14
10
high figure for the GDP curve indicating a high probability while the other curves have lower
figures hence lower probabilities.
Figure 7
GDP, M2 and Credit to Pvt Sector
y = 184.16x + 2072.4
R2
= 0.9566
y = 147.12x + 878.21
R2
= 0.752
y = 109.96x + 661.23
R2 = 0.6865
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
4500.0
5000.0
Year
F$(million)
M2 1475.7 1488.4 1358.5 1353.8 1546.1 1513.9 1467.1 1582.5 1980.5 2185.7 2513.8 3012.3 3325.9
Credit to Private Sector 1112.2 1165.0 1013.9 1072.2 1143.3 1145.9 1081.8 1136.1 1326.4 1565.8 1949.3 2411.5 2479.2
GDP (at market price) 2373.0 2578.4 2590.9 2776.2 3080.8 3063.1 3249.1 3386.9 3564.0 3856.1 3977.4 4647.7 4555.4
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
The literatures especially the Asian Development Bank (ADB) report (2001) stated that the interest
rates spread is a very good indicator of the level of competition within the financial sector. This
happens because as more banks and financial institutions exist in the market, competition would
force them to lower their interest rates and operate efficiently. This means that when the interest
spread is low, then the financial system is competitive and therefore there is development takingplace within the financial market. Table 5 and figures 8 and 9 below shows the interest rates
behaviour for the years 1995 to 2007.
Table 5: Nominal Interest rates on Savings and Lending
YearDeposit
rates
WeightedAverage
Lending ratesInterestSpread
1995 6.78 11.10 4.32
1996 5.77 11.57 5.80
1997 5.18 10.17 4.99
1998 4.01 9.11 5.10
1999 2.88 8.47 5.59
2000 3.00 8.37 5.37
2001 2.43 8.19 5.76
2002 2.17 7.89 5.72
2003 1.70 7.39 5.69
2004 1.77 7.03 5.26
2005 2.03 6.63 4.60
2006 9.05 7.90 -1.15
2007 4.45 8.46 4.01Source: Reserve Bank of Fiji
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
12/14
11
It can be seen in figure 8 below that even though both the deposit and lending interest rates were
declining in general, the spread remains more less the same except for 2006 when the deposit rate
was higher than the lending rate. This is very unusual as it would imply an operating loss for the
banks but it was a figure given by the RBF for that year.
Figure 8
Interest on deposit and lending and spread
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Percent
Deposit rates Lending rates
The spread curve shown in figure 9 below shows a small deviation for most of the except at the
initial period in 1996 when the spread rose initially and in 2006 when it was in a negative meaning
the deposit rate is higher than the lending rate.
As stated earlier the rates are linked to the level of deposits made. We would then expect anincrease in deposits to occur in 2006 and as shown in figure 1, the level of quasi money jumped in
2006. Now with larger deposits CBs would lend out more hence an increase in lending for the same
period is expected as shown in figure 7 above, there was a sharp increase in credit to private sector
in 2006 also and as anticipated, there is also a sharp increase in the level of GDP shown in the same
figure 7 in 2006.
Figure 9
Interest Spread
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Percent
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
13/14
12
This means that there is a clear correlation between the decision to have a higher interest on deposit
with the level of deposits and credits made and their clear implication on growth. In other words
had the deposit rate in 2006 been relatively similar to that of 2005 then GDP growth for 2006 would
have not been very sharp.
5. Results
In view of the explanation above we can find that the literatures indicated that the development ofthe financial sector can affect economic growth positively. It also showed that financial deepening
measures as well as the level of domestic credit and the interest rates spread are good indicators to
assess the level of financial development. A comparison between the changes in these measures
with that of economic growth measured by GDP growth would then indicate whether there is a link
between financial development and GDP growth.
In doing an analysis for Fiji on the development of financial deepening and growth, we found that
both are linked especially between the growth of quasi money and GDP growth. We also found that
the growth of quasi money was affected by the deposit rate that is when the deposit rate is lower,
the level of quasi money is also low.
When we analysed the linkage between domestic credit and growth, we found that credit to private
sector is highly correlated with GDP growth and therefore when we combined the variables together
we found that the level of deposit interest would affect the level of saving deposits especially those
saved in a longer time period savings (term deposits). These kinds of savings are then used by banks
to generate revenue through loans of which the majority went to the private sector. It is assumed
that the private sector then used the loan money to carry out economic generating activities
including procurement of new capital equipments, implementation of new innovative ideas and help
in the cost of training, key determinants of economic growth. This explains the clear correlation
between interest rate, quasi money, credit to private sector and GDP in as far as Fiji is concerned.
We also found that the financial sectors ability to pool savings in relatively a short time when the
decision has been made to have a higher deposit interest rate than the lending rate in 2006 as shown
in a high spike of deposits during that period is quite impressive. In addition, the sectors ability to
quickly transform those increase deposits into investments through lending within the same
financial year were also impressive and this implies an advance and well developed financial
intermediation system in as far as the Pacific context is concerned.
Of course, the above results are just observations from the trends shown above however a more in-
depth econometric analysis on the relationship between the financial sector development and
growth in Fiji is needed to further confirm the above on the surface findings.
6. ConclusionIn view of the findings discussed above and in the said absence of the in-depth econometric
analysis, we can conclude that the development of financial sector and especially its ability to carry
out its intermediation functions well does plays a positive role in enhancing economic growth in
Fiji. In that connection it can be safely concluded that monetary policies in Fiji for the last ten years
may have been pro-growth.
8/6/2019 Project Draft1
14/14
13
7. ReferenceAsian Development Bank Financial Sector Development in the Pacific Developing Member Countries vol1, The Regional report Asian Development Bank (2001).
Darrat, Ali and Yousif K Al-Yousif, Does Money Matter in Developing Economies? Some Evidence fromthe Solow Estimator, Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 7(2), pp. 213 20
Fry Maxwell J In favour of Financial Liberalisation The Economic Journal, Vol. 107 (May 1997) pp. 754 770
Khan S and Senhadji Financial Development and Economic Growth: An Overview IMF Working Paper,(Dec 2000)
King Robert G and Ross Levine Finance and Growth: Schumpeter might be right The Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Aug 1993, pp. 717737, MIT press
Levine Ross Financial Development and Economic Growth: Views and Agenda Journal of EconomicsLiterature, Vol. XXXV (June 1997), pp. 688 - 726
Mankiw N Gregory, David Romer and David N Weil, A Contribution to the Empirics of EconomicGrowth, (May 1992), pp. 408 33
Mishkin Frederic S Global Financial Instability: Framework, Events, Issues Journal of EconomicPerspectives, Vol 13, No. 4 (Fall 1999) pp. 320
Nguyen V Hong, Money in the Aggregate Production Function: Reexamination and Further Evidence Vol.18, No. 2 (May 1986), pp. 14251
Reserve Bank of Fiji, Quarterly Review December 2008 Tableshttp://www.reservebank.gov.fj
Sinai Allen and Houston H Stokes, Real Money Balances: An Omitted Variable in the ProductionFunction? Review of Economics and Statistics 54 (May 1975), pp. 247 52
Wikipedia Fractional-reserve bankinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
Wikipedia Money supplyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
Wikipedia, Economic growthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth
http://www.reservebank.gov.fj/http://www.reservebank.gov.fj/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_bankinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_bankinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supplyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supplyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supplyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_bankinghttp://www.reservebank.gov.fj/Recommended