Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
P.Krugman (1992) in ‘The counter counter revolution in the theory of economic develoment’ says: ¨In the 1950’s there was a rich field of research called Development Economics. Its main purpose was that of understanding why some countries are so much rich than others and to propose policies to increase their rate of economic growth. Such field of study no longer exists. ¨. Globelics as an inter-disciplinary community studying social, institutional and economic change. • Globelics research agenda has now come full circle into what Krugman called the High Development Theory Agenda of the 1950´s. It has returned to the likes of Hirschman or Myrdal or Weber, bringing back to central stage institutions, public goods,the environment and social inclusión, which neoclassical growth theory had left out in an attempt to describe growth as an equilibrium process. • Evolutionary economics – and Globelics –have managed to change the focus, but growing on the basis of natural resources, securing environmental sustainability and caring for social inclusion bring up many new questions which new generations of the Globalics community will have to address in the future. GLOBELICS 2014, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A new visit to Development Economics in the present age of natural resource based economic growth Macro and micro lessons from the Latin American experience. JORGE KATZ [email protected] or [email protected] FEN,University of Chile October 2014. Issues to be discussed • • • • • • 1.´Stylized facts´ concerning the Latin American scenario. 2.Independently of the macropolicy regime LA countries have not been ‘catching up’ with the developed world in terms of GDP per capita. 3 Conclusion: equilibrium macro ´fundamentals´ are necessary, but not sufficient for ‘catching up’. They reduce macro uncertainty but do not induce sustainable growth with equity. 4.Growth has shifted from manufacturing to natural resource based sectors, but Dutch Disease and Tragedy of the Commons problems have emerged. 5.Sustainable and equitable growth demands policy interventions building up local capabilities, environmental sustainability and social inclusiveness, but this has to come within the constraint of balanced macro ‘fundamentals’. How can it?. 6.A tax reform is necessary to provide resources for public goods. The current Chilean policy experiment has to be seen as from this perspective: a tax reform collecting 3% of GDP and a long term program to improve quality of education. A short visit to received growth theory. Received theory reflects two quite different research agendas dealing with the determinants of economic growth. The two agendas do not speak to each other. On the one hand, the neoclassical equilibrium growth agenda, initiated by R.Solow (Nobel Prize 1988) in the 1950’s and thereafter advanced by New Growth Theory scholars. It is inspired in Newtonian physics. On the other hand, the neo-Schumpeterian agenda initiated by C.Freeman, R.Nelson, B.A.Lundval and else, inspired in Darwinian natural selection Both agendas have difficulties to deal with natural resource based growth, were ´commons´, environmental sustainability, collective action and government regulation play a key role determining the efficiency, environmental sustainability and social inclusiveness of development processes. Evolutionary Economics – mostly build upon stylized facts coming from the sphere of manufacturing - yet has to bring on board the economic, technological and institutional features of natural resource based growth and the dialogue between economics and ecology. Lets begin by reviewing Latin American ‘stylized facts’ • 1.Per capita GDP has not ´converged´ to OCDE levels.(12 and 35 thousand U$S respectively, and much higher structural heterogeneity. • 2. Ratio of GDP per capita between upper to lower quintile is 20-25 times in LA as against 6-8 times in OECD countries. • 3.The rate of capital formation is lower than in the 1970’s. • 4.Macroeconomic volatility is high, higher than in the 1970´s. • 5.The economy has restructured into natural resource based sectors & services • 6.Terms of trade have improved due to the ‘China effect’, but impact upon low and medium tech domestic manufacturing is negative, and increasing. • 7. Increasing imports of K goods, low domestic R&D & productivy growth • 8. New macro and micro problems - ‘Dutch Disease’ and ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ – have emerged associated to natural resource based growth. • 9. The new growth regime involves the outward expansion of the natural resource exploitation frontier but lacks institutions for environmental protection and for social inclusiveness. GDP Per Capita Relative to the United States (PPP at current prices) 80 Taiwan 70 60 50 Korea 40 30 Argentina Chile 20 10 0 Source: Penn Tables. A.Heston et.al. Univ. of Penn. Brasil Income per capita ´lags behind´ OECD countries 50000 45000 current international dollars 40000 35000 Argentina 30000 Brazil Chile 25000 Mexico 20000 Denmark 15000 Finland 10000 Ireland Korea, Republic of 5000 year Source: Astorga & Katz, in Dutrenit and Sutz. 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 0 Latincapital America: Gross capital formation , 1970-2011 Gross formation LA 1970-2011 (En porcentajein del PIB) 27 25 23,5 23 21,3 21 18,5 19 17,6 17,6 17 Fuente: Basado en datos de CEPAL. Source:R.french davis 9 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 15 TPF in Latin American . (Aravena et.al. Cepal, 2006) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 PTF sin ajustar PTF ajustada Differences in TPF across LA countries. (Aravena et.al. ECLAC, 2006) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Argentina Bolivia Brasil Chile Colombia Costa Rica 1950 - 2005 Capital Trabajo PTF Ecuador Mexico Peru Venezuela The typical regional scenario Ilustasted by the Chilean case Productivity growth is very low Latin American macro volatility. (Macro volatility induces a ´defensive´micro of low I and R&D expenditure) Figure I.2 Latin America (19): GDP and aggregate demand, 1990-2004 (annual growth rates, %) 8 6 4 -2 -4 GDP growth Aggregate demand growth Source: R.Ffrench Davis 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 0 1990 2 CHANGES IN INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE RESULTING FROM TRADE LIBERALIZACION AND MARKET DE-REGULATION POLICIES. Argentina 1970 1996 Brasil 1970 1996 Chile 1970 1996 Colombia 1970 1996 México 1970 1996 I 15.6 13.1 18.8 22.8 14.9 10.2 10.7 10.5 13.3 13.9 II 9.9 12.1 9.9 8.7 7.7 2.0 2.9 6.5 5.5 10.8 III+IV 36.2 45.7 35.8 42.4 43.2 56.2 45.7 51.2 46.8 46.5 V 38.2 29.0 35.5 26.1 34.2 31.6 40.7 31.8 34.4 28.8 I II III+IV V Metalworking activities. (Machinery and equipment) Industria metalmecánica (excluyendo automóviles, CIIU 381,382,383,385); Vehicles Equipo de transporte (CIIU 384) Alimentos, bebidas yprocessing tabaco (CIIUindustries 311,313,314); (en el caso chileno, CIIU 372 ha sido excluido); Natural resource Foodstuffs, forestry, mining, acuaculture, horti and fruticulture, gas341, and351, oil, etc . 355, 356, 371, 372) y IV Industrias procesadoras de recursos naturales (CIIU, 354, Low skilled labour intensive industries. etc.)323, 324, 331, 332, 342, Industrias “tradicionales” intensivas en mano(Shoes, de obra clothing, (CIIU 321, 322, 352, 361, 362, 369, 390. Source: ECLAC, UN Commodity prices 2000-2011 (Is China a ´bubble´ or a new model of the world economy?) 250 80% Var. interanual (eje derecho) 200 60% Índice 40% 150 20% 0% 100 -20% 50 -40% Source: R.Jenkings I 11 III 10 I 10 III 09 I 09 III 08 I 08 III 07 I 07 III 06 I 06 III 05 I 05 III 04 I 04 III 03 I 03 III 02 I 02 III 01 I 01 III 00 -60% I 00 0 Unit labor costs 100=2000 200.0 Colombia 175.0 Brasil Chile 150.0 125.0 Perú Uruguay 100.0 Argentina 75.0 50.0 Argentina Brasil Chile Colombia Perú Uruguay Source: R.Frenkel and M.Rapetti. 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 25.0 The Real exchange rate vis a vis US. has worsened 275.0 250.0 225.0 200.0 175.0 Argentina 150.0 125.0 Uruguay 100.0 Chile Perú Colombia 75.0 Brasil 50.0 Argentina Brasil Chile Colombia Perú Uruguay Source: (R.Frenkel and M.Rapetti, 2011) 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 25.0 Low R&D expenditure as a % of GDP, and scarce incidence upon domestic productivity growth. 4 3.95 3 2.68 2 1 0 0.43 0.69 1.14 1.34 Alternative macroeconomic policy regimes have not been capable of inducing ´catching up´. • Brazil and Chile opted for an ´inflation targeting´ regime in the 2000´s. Argentina instead opted for a high and competitive real exchange rate (RER) regime. • Brazil y Chile suffered the appreciation of the exchange rate and increasing commoditization of their production and exports. Argentina expanded growth and employment all across but could not keep inflation at bay. X’s came from ‘old’ plants, without much new investment. • None of the three countries managed closing up the relative productivity gap with the international frontier. Macro policies seem to be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for that. Argentina: exchange rate management after the 2002 devaluation. Source: Katz & Bernat,2011 The expansion of Exports. (Argentina, Brasil Chile) 170 Argentina 160 Brazil Chile 159,4 150 141,6 138,2 140 134,9 129,6 130 133,1 120 110 138,1 128,7 124,2 119,0 116,3 138,4 131,8 120,8 121,0 134,6 132,2 125,4 125,4 123,2 105,0 100,0 100 90 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: Katz & Bernat, 2011 2009 2010e Annual inflation rate, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. 25% 23,1% 22,0% Argentina 20% Brazil Chile 15% 10% 13,8% 13,0% 12,3% 9,8% 9,3% 7,8% 7,6% 6,1% 5,7% 5% 3,7% 3,7% 2,4% 7,1% 5,9% 4,5% 5,6% 4,3% 3,1% 2,6% 2,5% 1,1% 0% -1,4% -5% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010e After 2006 Argentina could not avoid moving into an inflationary regime and could not substain its previous exchange rate policy Neither Argentina, nore Brazil or Chile, managed to close the relative productivity gap in manufacturing 60 ARG BRA MEX COL PER CHI 50 40 30 20 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 10 On the other hand, the gap has been closing up in natural resource based sectors which now represent the ‘new modernity’ 1. Agricultural products : Soybean, wheat, maize.(Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay) 2. Mining activities. (Chile, Bolivia). 3. Oil and gas.(Ecuador, Colombia). 4. Aquaculture. (Chile) 5. Forestry products (Chile, Brazil, Uruguay). 6. Horto, fruticulture & wine.(Argentina, Chile, Uruguay), show : New ´state of the art´ facilities have been erected featuring new process and production organization technologies. Subcontracting activities and KIBS have expanded and sophisticated natural resource based ´clusters´ are rapidly growing. Soybean production (Tons) and productivity (Tons/acre). Comparative perspective 1995-1996 2006-2007 Producction Tons Argentina Brazil China India EEUU 12.480 24.150 13.500 4.476 59.174 46.500 59.000 16.200 7.690 86.770 Harvested Area . Acre Argentina Brazil China India EEUU 5.980 10.950 8.127 4.817 24.900 15.900 20.700 9.300 8.100 30.190 Yield per acre. Argentina Brazil China India EEUU 2.087 2.205 1.661 0.929 2.376 2.925 2.850 1.742 0.947 2.874 Source: USDA But: expanding the natural resource exploitation frontier is having major environmental consequences Salmon farming in Chile as an example. 000 round tons 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Norway Chile UK Canada Faroe Island Australia Overexploitation of pristine waters has brought about a negative response from the ecology. Summing up : what are the major questions ahead? Lets mention four of them: I. How to deal with China’s threat?. . China is today the major source of demand for natural resource based industrial commodities. It affects world prices and terms of trade. . China is today a major source of supply of low and medium tech industrial goods. The trade balance has become strongly negative. . China is now entering energy and capital markets, taking agricultural land on lease, exploring gas and oil reserves, and else. How to deal with this? . China is by far the more important trade partner in LA today, with a GDP elasticity in the order of 0.3 for most countries in the region. . China is presently changing its long term priorities favouring domestic consumption rather than investment and exports. What impact can we expect this to have upon natural resource based Latin American exporters?. II. How to deal with a more volatile world environment, III With a local policy regime that only cares for short term financial equilibrium IV. How to deal with the problems imposed by a natural resource based growth model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Trade liberalization forced the return to natural comparative advantages leaving less space for macroeconomic policies aiming at ´catching up´. The ´inflation targeting´ regime –adopted out of ´fear of inflation´ and traying to attract FDI – only cares for short term financial equilibrium. The apreciation of the exchange rate has deteriorated the competitive position of emerging nations. Capital goods imports have substituted for local machinery prodution and also for R&D efforts. Environmental protection has deteriorated due to natural resource overexploitation. Manufacturing activities have lost share in GDP and the expansion of the natural resource exploitation frontier with scarce provision of public goods is having negative consequences upon the environment and also upon social inclusivness. Monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies are needed to sustain the RER, but resources are also needed for ‘industrial’ and social policies. • A competitive RER is needed for growth but it affects the rate of inflation. • For such reason fiscal and monetary interventions are needed in terms of countercyclical interventions • These interventions should aim at maintaining the global balance of the economy, but resources are needed to address the building up of local capabilities and foreign competitiveness, on the one hand, and improving social equity, on the other. • This demands coordination between short and long term policies keeping inflation at bay and also caring for building up domestic capabilities and improving social inclusion. An interesting option : the current Chilean experiment. Short term equilibrium and long term change 1. The present Chilean policy experiment appears as an interesting attempt to bring together both these aspects : a tax reform that collects around 3% of GDP to be used to improve Education. But: 2. The FT and The Economist have mottled it ‘the new mediocrity’. Is it casual? The question then emerges : 3. How can structural change and social inclusion be attained in a democratic setting and in the present ideological environment? Globelics as an inter-disciplinary community studying social, institutional and economic change. • Globelics research agenda has now come full circle into what Krugman called the High Development Theory Agenda of the 1950´s. It has returned to the likes of Hirschman or Myrdal or Weber, bringing back to central stage institutions, public goods,the environment and social inclusión, which neoclassical growth theory had left out in an attempt to describe growth as an equilibrium process. • Evolutionary economics – and Globelics –have managed to change the focus, but growing on the basis of natural resources, securing environmental sustainability and caring for social inclusion bring up many new questions which new generations of the Globalics community will have to address in the future.