Using a dynamic panel generalized method of moments (GMM), this paper examines the dynamic impact of banking sector performance on economic growth in thirteen Southeast European countries over the period 2000–2015 by taking into account human capital, investment, and trade openness, among other factors. The main empirical finding suggests a positive and significant impact of banking sector performance on economic growth, which implies that banking efficiency is among the main determinants of overall economic growth. Further, the impact of investment, human capital, and trade openness is found to be positive and significant. The major policy recommendation is that the governments in the respective countries should foster their banking system because of its direct impact on economic growth.

This study addresses the issue of whether banking performance impacts financial stability in Southeastern European countries. To answer this question, the GMM approach has been applied in the analyses of the panel data over the period 2000–2015 for Southeastern Europe. The findings reveal the presence of significant positive long-run relationship between ROA, ROE, trade openness, and human capital, while government expenditures have negative impact on financial stability. Trade openness, human capital and government expenditures can keep the financial system stable as a whole. The Granger causality analysis discloses the main hypothesis where the banking system in this part of Europe accounts for more than 80% of the financial system. The study sheds light to the policymakers and research about the role of banking performance on financial stability for this region of Europe.

The present paper examine the causal relationship between economic growth and remittances among the top ten highest remittance recipient countries in the world based on remittance to GDP ratio (Haiti, Honduras, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Moldova, Nepal, Samoa, Tajikistan, and Tonga). We applied Konya (2006) Bootstrap panel Granger-causality test technique for the period of 1998-2014. The result shows that, for countries like Honduras, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, and Moldova, inflow of remittances causes economic growth, while economic growth causes remittance inflows in the case of Lesotho, Nepal, Samoa, and Tajikistan. However, bidirectional causality exists in the case of Haiti whereby remittances cause economic growth and vice-versa. Hence, the results reveal that, the causality between the two variables is both one way causality that run from remittances to growth and the other segment that run from economic growth to remittances, therefore the result is mainly country specific.