IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

A Test of the Controversial Assumptions in the McKinnon-Shaw Hypothesis versus Neo-Structuralist Propositions An Empirical Test From a Field Survey in the Congo

Listed author(s):
  • Jean-Claude Maswana

    (Kyoto University)

This paper attempts to shed light on the efficiency/effectiveness issues of informal financial markets and the pattern of portfolio allocation shift in response to change in interest rate, in the process of financial liberalization. The two issues have been both controversial and hotly debated between proponents of the McKinnon-Shaw liberalization and Neo-structuralist economists. To examine whether interest rate changes are associated with the former or the latter view in the Congo we resort to a survey of household portfolio behavior in informal finance. Survey results suggest that informal finance is relatively effective in intermediating funds and providing financial services and access. In addition, the portfolio pattern indicates that households shift resource more from informal loan to deposits than from cash. These results provide some support for the Neostructuralists’argument; rejecting thus the McKinnon-Shaw argument that higher bank interest rates would generally increase investment.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Development and Comp Systems with number 0511025.

in new window

Length: 13 pages
Date of creation: 22 Nov 2005
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpdc:0511025
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 13. McKinnon-Shaw Hypothesis versus Neo-Structuralist assumption on the efficiency/effectiveness issues of informal financial markets
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpdc:0511025. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.