تاثیر بحران بانکی بر توزیع درآمد طبقات مختلف درآمدی

هدف مطالعه حاضر، بررسی اثر بحران‌های بانکی بر توزیع درآمد طبقات مختلف درآمدی طی دوره زمانی 2020-1990 برای 60 کشور منتخب جهان است. بدین منظور، 6 مدل با متغیرهای وابسته مختلف که صدک‌های درآمدی مربوط به طبقات ثروتمند، متوسط و فقیر را نشان می دادند، با استفاده از مدل سازی پانل gmm تخمین زده شد. نتایج نشان داد که با وقوع بحران بانکی سهم درآمد طبقات ثروتمند کاهش و سهم درآمد طبقه متوسط و 20 درصد پایین افزایش یافته است. بنابراین وقوع بحران بانکی منجر به برابری درآمد در کشورهای مورد مطالعه شده است. علاوه بر متغیر بحران بانکی، متغیرهای توسعه مالی و باز بودن مالی منجر به نابرابری درآمدی و متغیرهای مخارج عمومی به gdp، باز بودن تجاری، تولید ناخالص داخلی و مجذور آن، باعث برابری توزیع درآمد در این کشورها شده است. با توجه به نتایج تحقیق، توصیه می شود برای مدیریت اثرات سوء بحران بانکی و کاهش نابرابری درآمد، دولت ها از طریق ارائه یارانه و بسته های حمایتی، تسهیل اشتغال و اعطای وام کم بهره از صدک‌های پایین درآمدی حمایت کنند. همچنین از صدک‌های بالای درآمدی نیز مالیاتی‌هایی نظیر مالیات بر عایدی سرمایه اخذ کنند.

the impact of banking crisis on the income distribution of different income classes

the present study aimed to explore the impact of banking crisis on income distribution among various income classes in 60 world countries during 1990–2020. in this line, the generalized method of moments (gmm) was used to estimate the six models with different dependent variables that depicted income percentiles for the wealthy, middle, and poor classes. the findings indicated that during a banking crisis, the income share of the wealthy class decreases, while the middle class and the bottom 20% experience an increase in their income share. consequently, banking crisis could contribute to income equality in the countries under study. in addition to the variable of banking crisis, other variables such as financial development and financial openness could lead to income inequality, while the variables like the ratio of public expenditure to gdp, trade openness, gdp, and gdp squared would cause income distribution equality in the countries. the results suggest that governments support lower-income percentiles through subsidies, support packages, more job opportunities, and provision of low-interest loans, in a bid to mitigate the detrimental effects of banking crisis and reduce income inequality. furthermore, governments should levy taxes, such as capital gains tax, on higher-income percentiles.introductionthe literature offers various definitions for banking crisis. for instance, liana et al. (2015) define banking crisis as the occurrence of simultaneous bankruptcies within the banking sector, resulting in substantial damage to the capital of the entire banking system, significant economic repercussions, and government intervention. according to laeven and valencia (2020), banking crisis occurs when two conditions are met: 1) “significant signs of financial distress within the banking system (indicated by significant bank runs, losses in the banking sector, and/or bank liquidations)” and 2) “significant intervention measures in banking policy in response to significant losses in the banking system.” the year in which both criteria are met is the year when crisis becomes systemic. banking crisis exerts a myriad of effects, with one notable consequence being the issue of income inequality. there are two points of debate in this respect: the impact of banking crisis on income inequality and the reciprocal influence of income inequality on banking crisis. this research focused on the former. there are various channels through which banking crisis can adversely impact households and their income, including:(a) loss of deposits in a failed banking institution(b) loss of employment or earnings directly due to (i) disruption of the payments process, (ii) the bankruptcy of financial institutions (for employees and other stakeholders of these institutions) or (iii) the interruption of credit flows (for borrowing clients with information capital invested in the failed financial institutions)(c) tax increases or curtailment of public spending due to fiscal cost of bail-outs of financial firms or their customers(d) temporary or permanent changes in relative prices of (i) consumption goods, (ii) wage rates, (iii) production goods (iv) asset prices, that arise through knock-on effects on the rest of the economy(e) involuntary unemployment if the crisis leads to a generalized economic downturn.