## 1. Financial Integration (FI) Composite Indicators

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1. Financial Integration (FI) Composite Indicators](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1701.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1701.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1701.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction and motivation
- After endemic crises in the 1980s–90s, many Latin American (LA) countries opened economies at turn of the millennium; since 2000 no LA economy suffered a financial crisis except Argentina and Uruguay (2001–02).
- Post-2008–09 global financial crisis retrenchment of global banks and the end of the commodity super-cycle increased interest in regional integration as a mechanism to provide scale and deeper financial development.
- Political initiatives:
  - Pacific Alliance (Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Peru): MILA initiative launched in 2011; initial progress limited with minimal activity attributed to technical, logistical and regulatory coordination issues.
  - Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela): potential revival given political changes.
- Scope: focus on seven Latin American economies (LA-7): Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay.

### II. Definition and measurement of financial integration
- Conceptual criteria:
  - Degree of cross-border financial activity proxied by stock of foreign assets + liabilities as share of GDP.
  - Degree of convergence and consolidation across markets proxied by regional dispersion of stock market returns (standard deviation of MSCI returns across countries): lower standard deviation → greater convergence.
- Composite indicators (PCA-based):
  - Baseline composite index: combines de facto financial openness (foreign assets + liabilities as share of GDP) and regional dispersion of stock returns.
  - First PCA component explains more than 50 percent of total variance for indices constructed.
- Three alternative integration indices:
  - Alternate 1: replace assets+liabilities/GDP with external liabilities/GDP.
  - Alternate 2: baseline two components + banking system private credit to private sector/GDP (financial depth).
  - Alternate 3 (variants): include relative regional openness (regional assets+liabilities as share of total external position) with region definitions:
    - Eight-region world (advanced economies + 7 EM regions).
    - Four-region world (Asia, Europe, Western Hemisphere, rest).
    - Proximity-based weighted average distances using assets+liabilities or liabilities only.

### III. Descriptive evidence on global and intra-regional integration
- Quantity-based measures used: International investment positions (IIP), BIS consolidated cross-border bank claims, CPIS/CDIS bilateral stocks.
- Regional patterns and examples:
  - LA did not increase international exposure (assets+liabilities as percent of regional GDP) despite absolute dollar growth; emerging Asia allocation doubled between 2004 and 2013 (figure references).
  - BIS consolidated claims: LA garnered a relatively low 3–5 percent of BIS claims over last 10 years.
  - Portfolio intraregional share in LA fell from over 10 percent to under 5 percent since 2008.
  - FDI intraregional data (since 2009) suggest a declining trend.
- Selected BIS consolidated foreign claims (Percent of GDP) from Table 2 (examples):
  - Brazil total claims: 2005 = 3.3; 2013 = 5.0. Brazil claims on other LA7: 2005 = 0.0; 2013 = 0.8.
  - Chile total claims: 2005 = 2.4; 2013 = 4.8. Chile claims on other LA7: 2005 = 0.6; 2013 = 2.3.
  - Mexico total claims: 2005 = 0.6; 2013 = 0.5. Mexico claims on other LA7: 2005 = 0.0; 2013 = 0.0.
  - Panama total claims: 2005 = 66.2; 2013 = 42.7. Panama claims on other LA7: 2005 = 11.7; 2013 = 11.6.
- Cross-border bank M&A: global banks divested while regional/domestic banks acquired assets (specific deals cited in source text).

### IV. Econometric assessment: integration gap relative to fundamentals
- Regression framework:
  - FI_it = β . X_it + α_i + ε_it
  - Controls: log GDP per capita (PPP), trade openness (exports+imports/GDP), banking crisis history, government debt/GDP, institutional quality (ICRG investment profile), time dummies; country fixed effects yield under/over-integration as country demeaned fixed effects.
- Key regression highlights (selected numerical findings preserved exactly as reported):
  - Determinants of global financial openness (Table 3 example coefficients and t-statistics):
    - Log GDP per capita (PPP): 0.31*** (t = 8.44), 0.43*** (t = 8.20), 0.62*** (t = 3.85), 0.25*** (t = 4.94), 0.54*** (t = 3.69).
    - Government Debt/GDP: 0.37*** (t = 5.20), 0.48*** (t = 6.28), 0.34*** (t = 4.40), 0.52*** (t = 6.85).
    - Trade Openness: 0.66*** (t = 6.53), 0.43*** (t = 2.86), 0.68*** (t = 6.30), 0.43*** (t = 2.90).
    - LA7 dummy: -0.13*** (t = -6.18), 0.16*** (t = 5.98), 0.20*** (t = 3.83).
    - Country demeaned estimates (examples): Brazil -0.34***; Chile 0.54***; Colombia -0.01***; Mexico -0.65***; Peru 0.12***; Panama 0.89***; Uruguay -0.19***.
  - Baseline consolidated FI index (openness + convergence, Table 4):
    - After combining openness and convergence, LA-7 countries are under-integrated overall except Panama.
    - Country demeaned estimates (examples): Brazil -0.93***; Chile -0.81***; Colombia -0.85***; Mexico -0.92***; Peru -0.72***; Panama -0.05***; Uruguay -0.76***.
  - Alternate measures (Tables 5–7) broadly corroborate under-integration for LA-7 except Panama; when relative regional openness is explicitly included (Alternate 3.1, 8-region), all LA-7 including Panama show under-integration relative to the sample average.
  - Notable nuance: Chile’s under-integration magnitude is halved in depth-augmented indexes (Alternate 2), suggesting financial depth partly offsets lack of regional convergence.

### V. Channels, benefits, risks of further integration
- Growth channels (three main):
  1. Capital accumulation via financial deepening: external capital, increased competition, economies of scale, lower borrowing costs → stimulate investment.
  2. Better resource allocation and technology/knowledge transfer → productivity gains.
  3. Greater market scrutiny → improved policy and corporate outcomes.
- Additional regional benefits:
  - Cross-border finance can follow trade, support wider regional integration, enlarge markets amid lower commodity prices and tighter global conditions.
  - Regional banks may better service regional needs, support financial inclusion, trade/industrial credit.
  - Capital market integration yields economies of scale for small national markets: reduce costs, broaden products, attract foreign capital.
  - Harmonized regulation and consolidated supervision could enable pension funds and large institutional investors to invest regionally (e.g., pooled infrastructure financing).
- Risks and caveats:
  - Financial integration can amplify spillovers and contagion if oversight is insufficient; historical examples include Mexico (1994), East Asia (1997), Russia (1998).
  - Benefits are nuanced and conditional: FDI/equity tend to be more beneficial than debt; positive effects require economic development, institutional quality, and financial development.
  - Cross-border banking integration can transmit home-country stress to subsidiaries and may be associated with lower credit-to-GDP ratios in some developing countries.
  - Macroprudential policy leakages and circumvention via cross-border channels are concerns.

### VI. Quantifying macroeconomic gains: growth estimation and magnitudes
- Growth model:
  - y_it = α_i + β1 * FI_it + β2 . X_it + ε_it
  - Sample: 76 countries, mid-1980s–2014.
  - Endogeneity addressed with IVs: first lag of integration, capital controls indicator, banking crisis 10 years earlier, ICRG subcomponent on ability to repatriate profits.
- Baseline IV-corrected elasticities for the baseline financial integration (Table 8, selected columns):
  - Column (1): 0.02* (standard error 0.01)
  - Column (2): 0.02** (standard error 0.01)
  - Column (3): 0.02** (standard error 0.01)
  - Column (4): 0.01* (standard error 0.01)
  - Column (5): 0.02** (standard error 0.01) — dependent variable: Real GDP per capita
  - Column (6): 0.01** (standard error 0.01) — robustness excluding banking crisis instrument
  - Column (7): 0.01** (standard error 0.00) — Arellano–Bond GMM dynamic model
  - Column (8): 0.01*** (standard error 0.01) — excluding lagged GDP-per-capita level
  - Column (9): 0.02** (standard error 0.01) — first-differenced Arellano-Bond GMM in levels
- Robustness (Table 9): alternative FI indicators positive and significant:
  - FI: Alternate 1: 0.02** (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: Alternate 2: 0.01*** (std. error 0.00)
  - FI: Alternate 3.1: 0.03* (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: Alternate 3.2: 0.02* (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: Alternate 3.3: 0.09* (std. error 0.05)
  - FI: Alternate 3.4: 0.06** (std. error 0.03)
  - FI: global openness ratio: 0.01*** (std. error 0.00)
  - FI: regional openness ratio (8 regions): 0.01* (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: regional openness ratio (4 regions): 0.01** (std. error 0.01)
- Magnitude and counterfactuals for LA-7:
  - Estimated FI elasticities range 0.01–0.02.
  - Integration gap from fixed-effect models averages 0.3–0.4 in LA-7.
  - With elasticity 0.01–0.02, implied growth effect of fully closing the integration gap estimated at 0.3–0.8 percentage points.
  - Paper summarizes predicted growth effect range as ¼ to ¾ percentage point on average if the gap were fully closed.
- Caveats: many growth regression variables are endogenous; IV and GMM estimators may not fully correct biases; interpret magnitudes cautiously.

### VII. Policy implications and recommendations
- Strategic rationale: regional financial integration can help offset retrenchment of global banks and weaker commodity-driven growth; it supports investment and capital market deepening.
- Recommended policy and implementation steps:
  - Harmonize accounting and regulatory practices across countries.
  - Harmonize taxation schemes relevant to cross-border finance.
  - Establish coordinated and consolidated supervision.
  - Enhance cross-border information sharing.
  - Institute macro-prudential policies and related supervisory innovations.
  - Invest substantially in institutional capacity so integration does not undermine financial stability and resilience.
- Political feasibility: initiatives such as MILA have political traction, but technical, logistical and economic "nuts and bolts" must be addressed for effective progress.
- Overall conclusion: strong evidence of financial under-integration in the LA-7 from descriptive and econometric analysis; closing the integration gap could yield a measurable growth dividend (estimated ¼ to ¾ percentage point on average), conditional on careful implementation and recognition of econometric limitations.

*Source: wp1701 — 1. Financial Integration (FI) Composite Indicators; 4. Evolution of Intra-Regional Integration (sections and tables as cited in source content).*

### 1. Financial Integration (FI) Composite Indicators ....................................................................8

### 1. Financial Integration (FI) Composite Indicators

### Major sections (by heading and page)
- 1. Financial Integration (FI) Composite Indicators ....................................................................8
- 2. Consolidated Foreign Claims on the World by BIS Banks in 4 Latin American            
  Countries ..................................................................................................................................13
- 3. Determinants of Global Financial Openness .......................................................................17
- 4. Baseline Financial Integration Index with Two Components..............................................18
- 5. Alternative Financial Integration Index with Two Components .........................................19
- 6. Alternative Financial Integration Index with Three Components, including Financial 
  Depth ........................................................................................................................................20
- 7. Alternative Financial Integration Index with Three Components, including Regional 
  Openness ..................................................................................................................................21
- 8. Impact of Financial Integration on GDP Growth (Baseline Results) ..................................28
- 9. Impact of Financial Integration on GDP Growth (Using Alternative Financial Integration 
  Indicators) ................................................................................................................................29

### Figures (listed in the content unit)
- Figure 1. Global Financial Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean: International Investment 
  Positions ...................................................................................................................................10
- Figure 2. Global Financial Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC): International 
  Bank Claims, Portfolio, and FDI .............................................................................................11
- Figure 3. Intra-Regional Component of Global Integration: Portfolio and  FDI Investments, 2014 ..12

*Source: wp1701 - 1. Financial Integration (FI) Composite Indicators (wp1701.pdf).*

### 4. Evolution of Intra-Regional Integration..............................................................................

### 4. Evolution of Intra-Regional Integration

### I. Introduction: time for more regional financial integration in Latin America?
- Context and motivation
  - After endemic economic and financial crises during the 1980s-90s, many Latin American (LA) countries opened previously closed economies at the turn of the millennium to attract capital, gain technical expertise, and cushion against regional instability.
  - With the exception of the Argentine and Uruguayan crises of 2001-02, no LA economy has suffered a financial crisis in the new century; LA emerged from the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008-09 largely unscathed, helped by high commodity prices.
  - Post-GFC retrenchment of global banks from LA coincided with the end of the commodity super-cycle and slowdown in China, creating an environment where regional integration could help provide scale and support for deeper financial development.
- Political and private initiatives
  - Pacific Alliance (PA) countries (Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru) advanced the Latin American Integrated Market (MILA) initiative in 2011 to establish a unified capital market across PA members; initial progress limited, activity minimal—attributed to technical, logistical and regulatory coordination issues rather than lack of political support.
  - Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela), created in 1991 to move toward a common market, may have a revival chance given recent political changes in Argentina.
- Scope of analysis
  - Focus on seven Latin American economies (LA-7): Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Uruguay.
  - Paper structure: Section II defines and measures financial integration; Section III assesses integration gaps; Section IV discusses pros/cons and quantifies macroeconomic gains; Section V concludes.

### II. Definition and measurement of financial integration
- Conceptual definition (two main criteria)
  - Degree of cross-border financial activity: close to “financial globalization” proxied by the sum of gross external assets and liabilities relative to GDP (IMF, 2008).
  - Degree of convergence and consolidation across markets: convergence of market structures and rules (Baele and others, 2004), ultimate form being a single common and fully harmonized market.
  - Interaction: convergence facilitates cross-border flows; openness allows importing institutions and know-how that enable harmonization.
  - Sources of segmentation: capital flow restrictions, technical constraints, insufficient harmonization of regulations, cultural barriers, and country-specific risks.
- Composite indicators constructed (principal component analysis, PCA)
  - Baseline composite index: combines
    - De facto financial openness = stock of foreign assets + liabilities as share of GDP.
    - Regional dispersion of stock market returns = standard deviation of returns of MSCI indices across countries of same region (lower standard deviation implies greater convergence).
  - PCA methodology: standardized variables’ weights are squared factor loadings; first PCA component explains more than 50 percent of total variance for indices constructed.
- Three alternative integration indices:
  - Alternate 1: replace gross external assets+liabilities/GDP with external liabilities/GDP (to avoid misleading high external assets that do not indicate de facto integration).
  - Alternate 2: baseline two components + banking system private credit to the private sector/GDP (financial depth).
    - Rationale: integration and depth are related; depth ensures market size sufficient to contribute meaningfully.
  - Alternate 3 (variants): include measure of relative regional openness (regional assets+liabilities as share of total external position) alongside global openness and regional convergence.
    - Variants for defining region:
      - Eight-region world (advanced economies + 7 EM regions).
      - Four-region world (Asia, Europe, Western Hemisphere, rest).
      - Proximity-based weighted average distances, using external assets+liabilities or external liabilities only.

### III. Is there a deficit of financial integration in Latin America?
- Descriptive comparisons (global and intra-regional)
  - Three quantity-based measures used to assess integration (price-based measures ideal but limited by asset homogeneity difficulties):
    - International investment positions (IIP) = foreign asset + liability stocks outstanding (percent of regional GDP).
      - LA has not increased its international exposure (foreign assets + liabilities as percent of regional GDP) despite absolute dollar growth; LA’s relative importance as a partner in international finance did not improve, unlike emerging Asia where allocation doubled between 2004 and 2013 (figure reference).
    - BIS consolidated cross-border claims of reporting banks: LA garnered a relatively low 3-5 percent of BIS claims over last 10 years (figure reference).
    - Bilateral CPIS (portfolio) and CDIS (FDI) stocks: highlight relatively low and potentially declining LA participation; FDI flows important relative to portfolio investments.
  - Intra-regional integration:
    - ASEAN shows greater intra-regional investment (FDI and portfolio) than LA, reflecting long trade/financial negotiations and presence of a large financial center.
    - Portfolio intraregional share in LA fell from over 10 percent to under 5 percent since 2008 (figure reference).
    - FDI intraregional data (available since 2009) suggest declining trend.
    - Cross-border BIS bank lending points to some momentum: share of claims on other LA-7 countries rose significantly in Chile and Brazil since 2005 (Table 2).
      - Selected BIS consolidated foreign claims (Percent of GDP): examples from Table 2
        - Brazil total claims: 2005 = 3.3; 2013 = 5.0. of which claims on other LA7: 2005 = 0.0; 2013 = 0.8.
        - Chile total claims: 2005 = 2.4; 2013 = 4.8. of which claims on other LA7: 2005 = 0.6; 2013 = 2.3.
        - Mexico total claims: 2005 = 0.6; 2013 = 0.5. of which claims on other LA7: 0.0 throughout.
        - Panama total claims: 2005 = 66.2; 2013 = 42.7. of which claims on other LA7: 2005 = 11.7; 2013 = 11.6.
    - Cross-border mergers & acquisitions anecdote: global banks have divested and regional/domestic banks acquired assets (examples: 2015 Inbursa purchase of Standard Chartered in Brazil; 2012 Corpbanca acquisition of Santander’s banks in Colombia; Grupo Aval acquisition of BBVA activities in Panama in 2014; Ficohsa purchases of Citibank operations in 2015; BBVA sale of pension fund management firms in 2012-14).
  - MILA (Integrated Market for LA) progress:
    - MILA early accomplishments: cross-listing of share prices on all exchanges and full cross-listing of IPOs.
    - Further integration requirements: direct trading facilities, payment & settlement facilities, broaden securities to include fixed income.

- Econometric assessment: integration gap relative to fundamentals (sample: 67 countries, mid-1980s–2014)
  - Regression framework:
    - FI_it = β . X_it + α_i + ε_it
    - FI_it denotes financial integration indicator (baseline or alternatives); X_it includes controls: log GDP per capita (PPP), trade openness (exports+imports/GDP), history of banking crises (Reinhart and Rogoff, 2009), government debt/GDP, institutional quality (ICRG investment profile), and time dummies. Country fixed effects used to compute under/over-integration as demeaned fixed effects (α_i minus sample average).
  - Main econometric findings (Tables 3–7 summary):
    - Overall: LA-7 countries are under-integrated on composite measures after controlling for fundamentals, but there is heterogeneity across countries and integration dimensions. Panama is an outlier, often appearing more integrated.
    - Table 3 (global openness: stock of external assets+liabilities/GDP and stock of external liabilities/GDP):
      - LA-7 countries are relatively well integrated from an openness perspective compared to sample average; driven by Panama and Chile which show greater openness.
        - Selected coefficients/significance (Table 3 excerpt on determinants of global financial openness):
          - Log GDP per capita (PPP): 0.31*** (OLS (1)), 0.43*** (OLS (2)), 0.62*** (FE), 0.25*** (OLS), 0.54*** (FE) — T-statistics listed: 8.44, 8.20, 3.85, 4.94, 3.69.
          - Government Debt/GDP: 0.37***, 0.48***, 0.34***, 0.52*** — T-stats: 5.20, 6.28, 4.40, 6.85.
          - Trade Openness: 0.66***, 0.43***, 0.68***, 0.43*** — T-stats: 6.53, 2.86, 6.30, 2.90.
          - LA7 dummy: -0.13***, 0.16***, 0.20*** — T-stats: -6.18, 5.98, 3.83 (demeaned estimates reported).
          - Country demeaned estimates (examples): Brazil dummy -0.34***; Chile dummy 0.54***; Colombia dummy -0.01***; Mexico dummy -0.65***; Peru dummy 0.12***; Panama dummy 0.89***; Uruguay dummy -0.19*** (T-statistics accompany each).
    - Table 4 (baseline consolidated FI index: openness + convergence):
      - After combining openness and convergence, LA-7 countries are under-integrated overall except Panama (which is in line with sample average).
      - Selected regression highlights:
        - Log GDP per capita (PPP): positive and significant across specifications (e.g., 0.27***, 0.27***, 0.38***, 0.79***).
        - LA7 dummy: -0.71*** in OLS(1) and -0.02*** in OLS(2) reported (demeaned estimates in fixed effects).
        - Country demeaned estimates: Brazil -0.93***; Chile -0.81***; Colombia -0.85***; Mexico -0.92***; Peru -0.72***; Panama -0.05***; Uruguay -0.76*** (T-statistics reported).
    - Table 5 (alternate 1: external liabilities/GDP + convergence):
      - Corroborates baseline results: LA-7 under-integrated except Panama which is above sample average.
      - Panama dummy: 0.10*** and 0.22*** in OLS specifications (significant).
    - Table 6 (alternate 2: openness + convergence + depth (bank credit to private sector/GDP)):
      - Results again show LA-7 under-integration (except Panama and Chile exhibit relatively better outcomes).
      - Notable coefficients:
        - Log GDP per capita (PPP): 0.63***, 0.63***, 0.85***, 1.28***.
        - LA7 dummy: -0.54***, -0.20***.
        - Country demeaned examples: Brazil -0.80***; Chile 0.19*** (in one spec) and -0.37*** (in FE); Colombia -0.73***; Mexico -1.20***; Peru -0.67***; Panama 0.69***; Uruguay -0.78***.
      - Interpretation nuance: adding depth worsens integration outcomes for most LA-7 (except Panama and Chile); Chile’s under-integration magnitude is halved relative to two-component indexes, suggesting depth partly offsets lack of regional convergence.
    - Table 7 (alternate 3.1: includes relative regional openness alongside global openness and convergence — 8-region definition):
      - All LA-7 countries, including Panama, exhibit under-integration relative to sample average when relative regional openness is explicitly included.
      - Panama shows the lowest degree of under-integration among LA-7, suggesting Panama’s prior strong integration reflects extra-regional links more than intra-regional.
      - Country comparisons: Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay less under-integrated relative to sample than Chile and Mexico in this specification; Mexico’s large integration with the United States may explain its under-integration when measured relative to region.

### IV. Benefits of further integration in Latin America
- Channels through which financial integration can enhance growth and resilience
  - Three key transmission channels to growth:
    1. Capital accumulation via financial deepening: external capital, increased competition, economies of scale, lower borrowing costs → stimulate investment.
    2. Better resource allocation and technology/knowledge transfer → productivity gains.
    3. Greater market scrutiny of policy/corporate actions → improved outcomes.
  - Integration may reduce output volatility via:
    - Greater market liquidity from deeper markets and new instruments.
    - Improved risk-sharing and inter-temporal smoothing through portfolio diversification across assets, sectors and countries.
  - Stabilization effect particularly valuable in LA where production is concentrated and dependence on commodities is high (IMF, 2015a). Note: scope for mutual regional risk-sharing may be limited by synchronization of commodity-exporting cycles.
- Additional benefits specific to regional integration
  - Cross-border financial activity can follow and foster cross-border trade, supporting wider regional economic integration and enlarging markets in a context of lower commodity prices and tighter global financial conditions.
  - Regional banks may better understand regional needs and provide expertise (e.g., improving financial inclusion, trade/industrial credit).
  - Capital market integration yields economies of scale for small national markets: could reduce costs, broaden products, lessen financial exclusion, and attract larger foreign capital inflows.
  - Regional banks can substitute for retrenching global banks, reducing consolidation risks in domestic markets and mitigating potential credit squeezes as global banks refocus; regional consolidation would increase competition and diversify risks across domestic markets.
  - Harmonized regional regulation could expand permissible investments for large non-bank institutional investors (pension funds) that currently face domestic investment caps and tend to overweight domestic government securities, potentially allowing pooled regional investments (e.g., infrastructure).
  - Regional investment vehicles could pool resources for sizable infrastructure projects that exceed individual domestic market capacity.
- Risks and caveats
  - Financial integration brings risks: adverse spillovers, contagion, and potential to exacerbate crises if oversight capacity is insufficient.
  - Historical examples: crises following capital account liberalizations in Mexico (1994), East Asia (1997), Russia (1998).
  - Empirical literature: benefits of integration are nuanced; positive effects often tied to specific forms (FDI/equity favoured over debt) and preconditions (economic development, institutional quality, financial development).
  - Cross-border banking integration may transmit international shocks: home-country bank stress can widen funding spreads and constrain subsidiaries, possibly leading to intra-regional competition for parent liquidity (Giannetti and Laeven (2012); Jeon, Olivero, and Wu (2013)).
  - Foreign bank presence can sometimes be associated with lower credit-to-GDP ratios in developing countries (Detragiache, Gupta, and Tressel (2008); Claessens and van Horen (2014)).
  - Macroprudential policy leakages and circumvention risks via cross-border channels.
  - Proponents argue net benefits outweigh costs if safeguards are in place: consolidated supervision, enhanced cross-border information-sharing, and preconditions met (Rancière, Tornell, and Westermann; Kose and others).
- Quantifying macroeconomic gains: growth model and estimation approach
  - Growth equation specification follows Beck and Levine (2004) and Sahay and others (2015): dependent variable GDP growth; controls include initial income per capita, trade openness, inflation, government expenditure/GDP, investment/GDP, population growth, and ICRG institutional measures.
  - Sample: 76 countries, mid-1980s–2014.
  - Addressing endogeneity of integration: instrumental variables (IV) panel estimator with instruments:
    - first lag of integration variable;
    - capital controls indicator (Fernández and others, 2015);
    - occurrence of a banking crisis 10 years earlier;
    - ICRG subcomponent on ability to repatriate profits.
  - Estimation equation:
    - y_it = α_i + β1 * FI_it + β2 . X_it + ε_it
    - where y_it denotes GDP growth and FI_it is the financial integration indicator.

*Source: IMF Working Paper — chapter 4 (4. Evolution of Intra-Regional Integration).*

### section II.B, 푋

### section II.B, 푋

### Endogeneity correction and baseline econometric findings
- After correcting for endogeneity with instrumental variables (IV), financial integration—proxied with the baseline index of Table 1—is positively correlated with growth; in models without this correction, integration is either statistically insignificant or negatively correlated to growth.
- IV-corrected elasticities for the baseline financial integration (FI: Baseline 1/) across Table 8 specifications:
  - Column (1): 0.02* (standard error 0.01)
  - Column (2): 0.02** (standard error 0.01)
  - Column (3): 0.02** (standard error 0.01)
  - Column (4): 0.01* (standard error 0.01) — specification saturated with time dummies
  - Column (5): 0.02** (standard error 0.01) — dependent variable: Real GDP per capita
  - Column (6): 0.01** (standard error 0.01) — robustness check excluding banking crisis instrument (larger sample)
  - Column (7): 0.01** (standard error 0.00) — Arellano–Bond GMM dynamic model (lagged GDP growth included)
  - Column (8): 0.01*** (standard error 0.01) — excluding lagged GDP-per-capita level
  - Column (9): 0.02** (standard error 0.01) — first-differenced Arellano-Bond (2001) GMM in levels with additional instruments
- Notes on dynamic/GMM specifications:
  - Arellano–Bond GMM (column 7) yields a broadly unchanged FI coefficient; the coefficient in dynamic specifications cannot be directly compared to others without converting to long-term elasticity (see footnote 11).
  - First-differenced Arellano-Bond GMM in levels (column 9) corrects endogeneity of integration and lagged GDP level but is sensitive to the number of instrument lags and subject to traditional GMM shortcomings.
- Other significant control coefficients in baseline regressions (Table 8):
  - Log of trade openness: coefficients range from 0.02 to 0.05*** across specifications (standard errors 0.01).
  - Log of investment to GDP ratio: 0.14***, 0.14***, 0.08***, 0.09***, 0.08***, 0.07***, 0.02***, 0.07***, 0.09*** (std. errors 0.02–0.00).
  - Log of PPP GDP per capita (t-1): negative and often significant (examples: -0.05***, -0.05***, -0.02*, -0.11***, -0.02*, -0.02**, -0.09***).
  - Log of public expenditures to GDP ratio: negative and often significant (examples: -0.08***, -0.05**, -0.05**, -0.05**, -0.06***, -0.05***, -0.06***, -0.03***).
  - CPI inflation rate: coefficients around -0.08* to 0 (varying significance).
  - ICRG composite index: 0.00*** in many specifications (std. error reported as (0.00)).
  - Dummy year 2009: -0.03*** in multiple specifications.
- Sample and fit indicators (selected):
  - Observations: examples include 716, 678, 864, 2,705, 677 (by column).
  - R-squared examples: 0.19, 0.32, 0.44, 0.58, 0.44, 0.47, 0.44.
  - Number of countries: examples include 59, 76, 124.

### Robustness and alternative integration measures (Table 9)
- Alternative FI indicators remain positive and significant across instrumented specifications:
  - FI: Alternate 1 (two-component index, external liabilities-to-GDP): 0.02** (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: Alternate 2 (three-component index adding financial depth): 0.01*** (std. error 0.00)
  - FI: Alternate 3.1 (three-component + regional openness, 8-region assets/liabilities ratio): 0.03* (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: Alternate 3.2 (4-region split): 0.02* (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: Alternate 3.3 (regional weighting by distance, assets+liabilities): 0.09* (std. error 0.05)
  - FI: Alternate 3.4 (regional weighting by distance, liabilities only): 0.06** (std. error 0.03)
  - FI: global openness ratio (external assets+liabilities percent of GDP): 0.01*** (std. error 0.00)
  - FI: regional openness ratio (8 regions): 0.01* (std. error 0.01)
  - FI: regional openness ratio (4 regions): 0.01** (std. error 0.01)
- Simpler measures of financial openness (global and regional openness ratios) are positively related to growth (columns 7–9).
- Control variables remain broadly consistent in sign and significance across Table 9 specifications (trade openness, PPP GDP per capita lag, investment to GDP, fiscal expenditures, CPI inflation, ICRG).

### Magnitude of estimated effects and counterfactuals for LA-7
- The various specifications return elasticities of 0.01-0.02 for the financial integration variable.
- Using the measure of under-integration calculated in Section III.B and the estimated elasticities:
  - The gap in fixed-effect models averages 0.3-0.4 in LA-7 countries (first step).
  - With an elasticity of 0.01–0.02, the implied growth effect of fully closing the integration gap is estimated at 0.3-0.8 percentage points (note 13).
  - The paper summarizes the prediction as a growth effect in the range of ¼ to ¾ percentage point on average if the gap were fully closed; the growth dividend would be lower if progress were partial.
- Caveats: most variables in growth regressions are endogenous, creating potential estimation biases that IV and GMM estimators cannot always correct; thus results should be treated with caution.

### Policy implications and recommendations (concluding synthesis)
- Context and motivation:
  - Post-global financial crisis tighter banking regulations and de-risking have led global banks to withdraw from Latin America (LA) and other emerging markets, while the commodity boom is over and slower medium-term growth in China threatens commodity exporters.
  - Enhanced regional financial integration in LA is presented as a policy avenue to support investment and deepen capital markets.
- Key policy and implementation steps suggested (drawing on IMF (2016) and the paper’s conclusion):
  - Harmonize accounting and regulatory practices across countries.
  - Harmonize taxation schemes relevant to cross-border finance.
  - Establish coordinated and consolidated supervision.
  - Enhance cross-border information sharing.
  - Institute macro-prudential policies and related supervisory innovations.
  - Recognize these reforms require substantial investment to ensure that risks of integration do not outweigh benefits by undermining financial stability and resilience.
- Political traction exists for initiatives such as MILA (Pacific Alliance), but logistical and economic "nuts and bolts" must be in place for effective progress.
- Overall judgment:
  - Strong evidence of financial under-integration in the LA-7 from descriptive and econometric perspectives; closing the integration gap could yield a measurable growth dividend (estimated ¼ to ¾ percentage point on average), conditional on careful implementation and recognizing econometric limitations.

*Source: section II.B, 푋 (wp1701 - section II.B, 푋).*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1701.pdf_