Given the importance of institutions this study tries to find out the relatively unexplored areas on the relationship between institutions, policies and economic growth.As there is extensive literature so far on institutions-growth relationship as well as macroeconomic policies-growth relationship therefore the study contributes by filling the gap on institutions-policies link for developing countries specifically the role of institutions in reducing policy instability. Choice of the countries is based on the governance status or percentile rank of the countries provided by the World Bank, World Governance Indicators. Choice of the time period is relevant to policy initiatives in developing as an agenda of neoliberal approach. Our empirical analysis employs annual data for a set of 12 developing countries, according to the World Bank classification, from South Asia, East Asia and Pacific, Latin America and Sub Saharan Africa.The sample period spans from 1990–2014. In the light of motivation and significance of the study there are three main objectives and also sub objectives. Main objectives discuss the role of policies (both stabilization and liberalization policies) and institutions in economic growth. In addition to the level effect of domestic macroeconomic policies on economic growth the study also evaluates the volatility effect and last the indirect effect of institutions on economic growth through reducing the policy instability or volatility which contributes to the literature as an unexplored area. We have derived a dynamic panel data model to study the role of institutions and policies in economic growth, following Mankiw et al. (1992), in the empirics of neoclassical growth model. Derived model shows the effect of institutions and policies (stabilization and liberalization policies) on economic growth along with traditional factors and convergence. We have further manipulated our equation according to our objectives. To xi control the unobserved country specific effects and econometric problems related to the possible endogeniety of explanatory variables with the growth we use dynamic panel data GMM method of estimators developed by Arellano and Bond (1991), and Arellano and Bover (1995). Regarding the empirical results of GMM we explain these according to our objectives below. Regarding our first objective we analyze the effect of institutions and policies on economic growth. There is evidence of conditional convergence moreover the traditional growth variables; physical capital, human capital and population growth also follow the empirical literature. Institutions promote the economic growth by creating an environment for capital creation. Regarding the fiscal policy our results support the Keynesian hypothesis. Capital expenditures positively contribute to economic growth by providing necessary infrastructure for the encouragement of private sector investment. Results regarding the monetary policy support the Monetarists hypothesis, monetary policy do affect the economic growth through aggregate demand. Trade liberalization increases the economic growth. Liberalizing the capital goods promotes the economic growth through technology transfer. Regarding financial liberalization both the De jure and De facto measure negatively affect the economic growth. Literature provides the evidence that in developing countries financial liberalization increases the risk of crisis, especially due to short run capital flows. Disaggregated analysis shows that FDI inflows positively contribute to economic growth being long term and stable investment while short term investment (portfolio equity and debt) negatively contribute to economic growth due to higher reversal rate. Disaggregated analysis of institutional quality shows that political stability is insignificant in affecting the economic growth while all other indicators of institutional quality positively contribute to economic growth. Rule of law is the most significant factor in affecting the economic growth. xii Regarding our second objective we evaluate the effect of policy instability or volatility on economic growth. We accomplish that volatility of domestic macroeconomic policies brings the uncertainty regarding investment decisions therefore reducing the growth. Volatility of the fiscal policy creates uncertainty about future taxes and the future behavior of fiscal parameters which negatively affects the behavior of economic agents. Volatility of the monetary policy brings volatility in consumption and investment decisions. Access to the external market has destabilized the economies of less developed countries because of volatility associated with trade and capital flows. Volatility of both negatively affects the economic growth by reducing the domestic and foreign investment. Higher integration makes countries vulnerable to external fluctuations that can deteriorate their growth rate. Regarding our third objective we examine the effect of institutions on policy volatility. Results show that institutions play an important role in reducing policy volatility by putting restrictions on policy makers.Regarding the fiscal policy volatility institutional constraints make it difficult for the governments to frequently change the policy. Regarding monetary policy an independent central bank can provide more consistent policy by reducing the uncertainty, in addition to lower inflationary outcome. High institutional quality enables countries to stabilize financial markets and capital flows. Good institutions make the trade flows stable through greater predictability which reduces the trading cost. Besides the institutional quality volatility of domestic macroeconomic policies can be reduced by increasing the level of income, reducing macroeconomic instability indicated by inflation volatility, ensuring the exchange rate stability, higher export diversification, controlling the external debt or reducing the deficit, improving the financial sector development which plays the role of shock absorber in globally integrated world and managing the external shocks. xiii Findings propose that increased globalization has raised the need for transparent, efficient and responsive institutions. To encourage the private investment it is the responsibility of the state to create a suitable legal and economic environment that ensure protection of property rights, strong judiciary and improved transparency. Moreover strong fiscal, monetary and economic institutions reduce policy uncertainty.