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
Growth Decomposition and Productivity Trends Applied Inclusive Growth Analytics Course June 30, 2009 Leonardo Garrido and Elena Ianchovichina Presentation plan Discuss different approaches for growth decomposition: Introduce a simple Growth Accounting and Potential Growth Model Demand Sectors of economic activity Accounting Shapley Case example: Togo Case examples: Mongolia and Benin 2 Contribution of Demand Components to Growth What are the proximate drivers of growth in aggregate demand? Departs from fundamental equation Y=C+I+G+X-M Aggregate supply = Y+M Aggregate Demand = C+I+G+X Steps: 1. Calculate annual growth rate of each component of aggregate demand; y e yT ln y0 T 1 2. Calculate shares of each component of aggregate demand 3. Calculate the contribution to growth of each component by multiplying growth rates of demand components times share of component in aggregate demand 1. (See excel file example) 3 Contribution of Demand Components to Growth: A West African Economy. Growth Rates of Aggregate Demand / Supply by Demand Components. By Decades. Imports of Aggregate Goods and Supply / Demand Services 1970s 2.8% 10.9% 5.8% 1980s 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1990s 2.3% -1.2% 0.9% 2000s 1.8% 4.0% 2.6% Source: Staff Calculations based on World Bank, WDI Period Real GDP Private Consumption Government Consumption Gross Capital Formation -1.1% 4.9% 4.1% 1.2% 9.8% -2.3% -0.5% 3.9% 11.9% -0.2% -4.8% 3.4% Private Consumption Government Consumption Gross Capital Formation 40.3% 45.8% 60.4% 60.5% 9.9% 8.9% 7.8% 7.2% 13.4% 9.9% 7.3% 7.7% Exports of Goods and Services 8.5% -1.0% 0.3% 5.6% Shares in Real Aggregate Supply of GDP and Demand Components Imports of Aggregate Goods and Supply / Demand Services 1970s 64.3% 35.7% 100.0% 1980s 58.5% 41.5% 100.0% 1990s 65.2% 34.8% 100.0% 2000s 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% Source: Staff Calculations based on World Bank, WDI Period Real GDP Exports of Goods and Services 25.4% 26.4% 22.8% 24.8% Contribution to Growth in Aggregate Demand / Supply by Demand Components. By Decades. Imports of Aggregate Goods and Supply / Demand Services 1970s 1.8% 3.9% 5.8% 1980s 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 1990s 1.5% -0.4% 0.9% 2000s 1.2% 1.4% 2.6% Source: Staff Calculations based on World Bank, WDI Period Real GDP Private Consumption Government Consumption Gross Capital Formation -0.4% 2.2% 2.5% 0.7% 1.0% -0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 1.6% 0.0% -0.4% 0.3% Exports of Goods and Services 2.2% -0.3% 0.1% 4 1.4% Sector Contribution to GDP Growth. Analogous to the demand contribution to growth GDP at factor costs = Sum of GDP at factor costs by economic activity GDP at market prices = GDP at factor costs plus net taxes Net taxes = VAT plus Net import taxes and duties Calculations of GDP by sectors of economic activity include the value of banking services provided in the generation of output. Since Banking and Insurance sector is also included in Sector GDP, one has to deduct those services from total GDP at factor costs. Always check for discrepancies in both, GDP demand versus sum of components, and Sector GDP versus sum of GDP by activities. 5 Sector Contribution to GDP Growth: A West African Economy GDP Values (Billions CFA of 2000) Sectors of Economic activity Primary -Agriculture Food crops Cash crops -Livestock, forestry, fishing Secondary -Mining of which: Phosphate rock -Manufacturing -Construction -Electricity, Water, Gas Tertiary -Merchant Services Commerce Transport and Communications Banking and Insurance Other services -Nonmerchant Services Imputed production of banking services Imputed rent Public services Domestic services 2001 2006 Averages 2001-2006 GDP mkt Annual Growth price Share Rate 37.4 1.6 Contribution to GDP growth 0.6 332.0 365.8 253.3 212.3 41.0 78.7 267.3 252.9 14.4 98.5 28.1 24.8 3.3 9.3 170.5 195.0 19.6 2.3 0.4 30.3 21.4 85.7 21.6 32.9 44.9 26.2 79.8 34.3 36.0 4.5 2.7 9.0 2.6 3.5 6.8 3.4 -1.2 8.0 1.5 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.9 3.0 -16.0 3.8 0.2 0.7 -0.2 0.4 330.9 360.9 34.5 1.5 0.5 225.3 117.2 46.7 12.4 49.0 105.6 -10.7 20.9 94.5 0.9 247.2 132.9 65.6 8.3 40.4 113.7 -3.1 24.3 91.8 0.6 22.8 12.1 5.9 0.9 4.0 11.7 -0.7 2.4 9.9 0.1 1.6 2.1 5.8 -6.6 -3.1 1.2 -18.8 2.6 -0.5 -6.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total GDP at Factor Cost Net Taxes 833.4 921.7 91.5 1.7 1.5 62.0 95.0 8.5 7.4 0.7 GDP at constant prices 895.4 1,016.7 100.0 2.1 2.1 Source: Staff Calculations, based on IMF, Central Bank of West African States data 6 Growth Accounting (I) With CRS Hicks Neutral Cobb Douglas production function Yt At Kt Lt Ht Dividing by L, taking logs and differentiating: Yt d ln Lt 1 Kt d ln Lt 1 d ln H t d ln At Notice that the variable in parenthesis in the left hand side is not GDP per capita, but average product of labor. Growth Accounting decompositions normally use per capita GDP When per capita GDP growth differs from the growth in per unit of worker GDP, the difference will be accounted for in TFP It may be an important source of error when countries are experience a demographic transition 7 Growth Accounting. Nuts and Bolts (I) GDP data in real terms. All series to be expressed in same currency and base year Factor shares: Obtained from National Accounts. is the ratio of compensation to capital (Net operating Surplus) to total GDP at factor costs. The labor share b (=1- with CRS) can be calculated from National Accounts as the ratio of remuneration to labor to GDP at factor costs Capital services assumed to growth at same rate as capital stock (which implicitly says that no changes in capacity utilization occur during the analyzed period) 8 Growth Accounting. Nuts and Bolts (II) Capital Stock data available in sources such as Nehru and Dhareshwar (1993) and Izyumov & Vahaly (2008) Updates to capital stock obtained from perpetual inventory method, given the depreciation rate (d) and the Investment flow (I): Kt = Kt-1*(1-dt) +It If no data available in capital stock, an estimate of initial capital stock (K0) can be obtained using the depreciation rate dt as follows: K 0 I 0 dt 9 Growth Accounting. Nuts and Bolts (III) Non – parametric estimation of TFP (residual) Requires assumptions on the production function specification, economies of scale, knowledge of values of GDP, inputs and input shares. TFP can also be computed econometrically by means of a times series regression of the growth rate of GDP on capital and employment growth Y Y b 0 b1 K K b 2 L L Intercept (b0) measures TFP Coefficients (b1 ,b2)measure elasticity of output to changes in inputs (assumed to equal factor shares under perfect competition) CRS Assumption can be tested (Hypothesis b1 b2=1) Dual approach to growth accounting: TFP (Solow Residual) calculated from growth rates of factor prices, rather than factor quantities: Y R K w L Y Y s R R K K s w w L L k TFP Y Y sk K K sL L L sk R R s w w L L 10 Growth Accounting. Nuts and Bolts (IV) Growth accounting uses population (P) as proxy for individuals that generate GDP (workers) One can further decompose GDP per capita to capture demographic and labor force dynamics: GDP GDP Wor ker s LaborForce WorkingAgePop Pop Wor ker s LaborForce WorkingAge Pop Pop t t t t t GDP/Workers = Average product of labor (Ypw) Workers / Labor Force = Employment Rate (emp) Labor Force / Working Age Pop. = Participation Rate (pr) Working Age Pop. / Population is a proxy for age dependency ratio = padr=1/(adr+1) where adr=(Pop under 15years of age + Pop over 64years of age ) / Pop aged 15.64 GDP Ypwt empt prt padrt Pop t 11 Growth Accounting. Nuts and Bolts (V) Thus way, Human Capital accumulation can be modeled as: H t Popt empt prt adrt exp ROE Schooling t t Where ROEt is a measure of returns to education and Schoolingt is a proxy for the time a person invests building human capital (Average years of schooling) Returns to education normally calculated from Mincerian specifications Traditionally, attainment data (Average Years of Schooling) has been drawn from Barro and Lee (2000) A new improved, richer dataset from Lutz. Et al (2007) available. Lutz, Cuaresma and Sanderson (2008): The demography of Educational Attainment. 12 Problems with TFP (and with the growth accounting decomposition, in general) TFP: A “black box” or a “measure of our ignorance” which, as a residual, picks up: Imperfect measurement of factors of production Omission of inputs in the production function (i.e. natural resources) Possible incorrectness of assumptions: Factor shares as output elasticity of factors reasonable only under perfect competition Functional form: Is Cobb-Douglas a reasonable specification? An empirical question. Alternative forms include CES (CRS or not), translogarithmic…. 13 Problems with TFP…. (Cont’d) To [partially] compensate for these shortcomings: Further decomposition of GDP by economic activities and /or employment by labor category: Korea’s Growth Potential (Ianchovichina and Leipziger, 2008) Alternative calculations for TFP: Micro level data. TFP from ICA data: Escribano and Guasch (2004) : “Assessing the Impact of the Investment Climate on Productivity Using Firm-Level Data” 14 Growth Potential Uses Extended Growth Accounting Framework (considering population and labor dynamics) Observe historical trends in variables of interest Assumptions on future trends based on historical behavior Use logistic specification when exponential growth is observed in historical data Make assumptions on the capital formation ratio to GDP and on TFP growth. Implicit assumptions on capacity utilization Sensitivity analysis 15 Growth Accounting and Potential example: The case of Togo Excel based tool 16 Shapley decomposition A tool for analyzing how employment generation and productivity growth translates into poverty reduction How is growth reflected in employment generation and in changes in output per worker? How is growth reflected in the sectoral pattern of growth and employment generation? What are the sources of changes in output per worker? Employment and Growth Analysis Tool: http://go.worldbank.org/461KJUVOX0 17 Shapley Decomposition GDP growth Employment Rate Changes Sectoral pattern of employment generation Changes in Aggregate Output per Worker Changes in the demographic structure of the population Changes within sector Employment relocation effects (Between effects) Changes in capital labor ratio and TFP growth The role of each sector on relocation effects 18 Putting everything together: Contribution of each component to total per capita output growth Shapley Decomposition. The Case of Tajikistan Tajikistan: Decomposition of Changes in Per Capita GDP in components (Percent points Per Year). 1997-2007 Contributions from changes in: Sectoral Output per Level composition of worker Employment employment Change in Per Capita GDP: Sectoral Contribution 7.2 -0.1 -1.0 -Primary -Secondary -Tertiary 2.2 3.7 1.4 0.2 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 Participation rate Pop1564/Population Total 6.5 6.1 2.3 2.4 1.4 -0.6 0.9 Source: Staff Calculations. 19 Is the rate of return on economic activity low? Assess TFP growth using growth decomposition at the aggregate level Look at the TFP and factor accumulation trends Look at the estimates in recent years and the final year Conduct sensitivity analysis to see whether the finding are sensitive to changes in the qualitative findings The aggregate TFP growth estimates may be misleading: it is important to look at sources of growth 20 The case of Mongolia. Efficiency has improved… 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 -5.00% -10.00% -15.00% Output growth TFP growth Source: Ianchovichina and Gooptu (2007) Factor growth Linear (TFP growth) 21 Sensitivity analysis Productivity growth was positive in 2004 under: Different values for the parameters Different functional forms TFP growth estimates in 2004 (%) (Cobb-Douglas) α=0.3 α=0.4 γ=1 (CRTS) 5.8 5.2 γ=1.2 (IRTS) 5.0 4.2 γ=0.8 (DRTS) 6.7 6.2 TFP growth estimates in 2004 (%) (CRTS CES) σ=0.8 σ=1 α=0.5 7.1 4.5 Source: Staff estimates α=0.5 4.5 3.4 5.7 σ=1.2 2.6 22 Sectoral decomposition Not all sectors enjoyed high returns to capital Returns to capital in manufacturing and transport were negative Returns in agriculture were very volatile Industries’ contribution to real growth in Mongolia (percentage points) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1.2 1.6 2.5 1.7 -6.2 -6.2 Agriculture Industry -1.7 -0.9 0.9 0.0 -0.2 3.7 Manufacturing -2.4 -1.4 0.3 -0.5 -0.4 2.2 Mining 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.2 Construction 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.4 0.3 Services 1.6 3.2 -0.1 -0.1 3.4 1.5 Utilities -0.8 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Transport 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.4 Trade 0.3 3.2 -1.2 -1.6 1.3 0.1 Other services 1.6 0.1 0.4 1.4 0.7 -0.3 Source: Staff estimates based on data from World Bank (LDB). 2002 -3.5 0.4 1.2 -1.2 0.4 6.0 0.2 2.0 2.7 1.1 2003 1.1 1.6 0.7 -0.3 1.2 3.1 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.2 2004 4.1 4.0 -0.1 4.1 0.0 1.5 0.1 1.8 -0.7 0.3 2005 1.9 -0.1 -2.2 1.7 0.4 4.3 0.1 -0.3 4.3 0.3 23 What do these results tell us? Growth in Mongolia has been narrowly-based Driven by the booming mining and real estate sectors Mongolia has remained vulnerable to terms-of-trade changes Large part of Mongolia’s labor force employed in low-productivity activities 24 The case of Benin Efficiency has declined… 12 y = -0.0884x + 0.9491 10 R2 = 0.0726 8 Annual % change 6 4 2 0 t -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 72 974 976 978 980 982 984 986 988 990 992 994 996 998 000 002 004 006 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Output TFP Factor growth Linear (TFP) Source: Ianchovichina (2008) based on the following assumptions: Cobb-Douglas production function with CRTS and capital share α=0.4. 25 Sensitivity analysis Result for 2006 is robust to changes in specifications We rule out the possibility that this productivity deterioration was due to negative TOT shocks as Benin’s TOT remained unchanged in the period 2003-06 Sensitivity analysis of TFP growth in 2006 TFP growth estimates in 2006 (%) (Cobb-Douglas) α=0.3 α=0.4 γ=1 (CRTS) -3.3 -3.6 γ=1.2 (IRTS) -4.7 -5.1 γ=0.8 (DRTS) -1.9 -2.1 TFP growth estimates in 2006 (%) (CRTS CES) σ=0.8 σ=1 α=0.5 -2.7 -3.9 α=0.5 -3.9 -5.5 -2.4 σ=1.2 -4.9 26 Need to rule out exogenous shocks Terms of Trade (Export prices/ Import prices) Index 2000 =100 110 100 90 80 70 91 9 1 93 9 1 95 9 1 97 9 1 99 9 1 01 0 2 03 0 2 Source: Ianchovichina (2008) and Benin CEM, Chapter 1 05 0 2 27 Over the years Benin grew primarily through expansion of capacity, not more efficient use of existing capacity Sources of growth 12 10 Annual % growth 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 1972-1979 GDP growth 1980-1989 Caital Storck Growth 1990-1999 Labor (quality adjusted Growth) 2000-2006 TFP Growth Source: Ianchovichina (2008) and Benin CEM, Chapter 1 28 Industry has stagnated… Key drivers of growth: agriculture and trade Industries’ contribution to real growth in Benin (percentage points) GDP Agriculture Industry Manufacturing Utilities Mining Construction Services Transport Trade Public administration Other services 1997 6.1 2.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 -0.2 0.5 3.3 0.5 1.5 0.5 1998 4.5 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.5 0.4 1999 4.7 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 -0.5 0.4 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.3 2000 5.8 2.6 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.3 0.8 0.3 2001 5.0 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.9 2.4 0.4 0.9 0.3 2002 4.5 2.6 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 2003 3.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.0 3.0 0.5 1.1 0.4 2004 3.1 1.5 -0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.6 2.0 0.4 0.8 0.1 2005 2.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.4 0.7 0.1 Average 4.5 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.3 2.2 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 Source: Ianchovichina (2008) and Benin CEM, Chapter 1 29 The Case of Tajikistan: Efficiency Gains from Increased Used of Existing Capacity Real Per Capita GDP, and Growth rate of Total and Per Capita GDP (LCU). 1986-2008 20% 400 0% 250 -10% 200 150 -20% 100 -30% 50 -40% Real GDP growth rate (LCU) Real GDP pc growth rate (LCU) 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 0 1986 % change per year 300 Real LCU per capita 350 10% Real GDP per capita (LCU) 30