The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of financial liberalization: a general equilibrium model with constrained occupation choice
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to assess both the aggregate growth effects and the distributional consequences of financial liberalization as observed in Thailand from 1976 to 1996. A general equilibrium occupational choice model with two sectors, one without intermediation, and the other with borrowing and lending, is taken to Thai data. Key parameters of the production technology and the distribution of entrepreneurial talent are estimated by maximizing the likelihood of transition into business given initial wealth as observed in two distinct datasets. Other parameters of the model are calibrated to try to match the two decades of growth as well as observed changes in inequality, labor share, savings, and the number of entrepreneurs. Without an expansion in the size of the intermediated sector, Thailand would have evolved very differently, namely, with a drastically lower growth rate, high residual subsistence sector, non-increasing wages, but lower inequality. The financial liberalization brings welfare gains and losses to different subsets of the population. Primary winners are talented would-be entrepreneurs who lack credit and cannot otherwise go into business (or invest little capital). Mean gains for these winners range from 17 to 34 percent of observed overall average household income. But liberalization also induces greater demand by entrepreneurs for workers resulting in increases in the wage and lower profits of relatively rich entrepreneurs of the same order of magnitude as the observed overall average income of firm owners. Foreign capital has no significant impact on growth or the distribution of observed income.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On the Size Distribution of Business Firms
Lucas, R. E. (1978) · The Bell Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3003596 · Cited by 3,236
Financial Development, Growth, and the Distribution of Income
Greenwood, J., & Jovanovic, B. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261720 · Cited by 2,469
Cited by
The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation
Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015) · American Economic Journal: Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.20130533 · Cited by 2,076
Financial Inclusion and Financial Stability: Current Policy Issues
Hannig, A., & Jansen, S. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1729122 · Cited by 503
Financial Frictions and the Persistence of History: A Quantitative Exploration
Buera, F. J., & Shin, Y. (2013) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/670271 · Cited by 451
Financial development and income inequality: a panel data approach
Jauch, S., & Watzka, S. (2016) · Empirical Economics · doi:10.1007/s00181-015-1008-x · Cited by 372
Nonlinearity in the financial development–income inequality nexus
Kim, D.-H., & Lin, S.-C. (2011) · Journal of Comparative Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jce.2011.07.002 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Giné, X., & Townsend, R. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Development Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 269-307
- ISSN
- 0304-3878 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165166995
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of financial liberalization: a general equilibrium model with constrained occupation choice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.03.005
- The paper
- Giné, X., & Townsend, R. M. (2004). Evaluation of financial liberalization: a general equilibrium model with constrained occupation choice. Journal of Development Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.03.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.