260 likes | 371 Views
The Political Economy of Structural Change and Progressive Income Distribution LAC-EU ECONOMIC FORUM 2013 Globalization, International Trade and the Welfare State at Crossroads: Converging Views in European and Latam countries? Santiago, ECLAC, January 2013.
E N D
ThePoliticalEconomy of StructuralChange and ProgressiveIncomeDistributionLAC-EU ECONOMIC FORUM 2013Globalization, International Trade and the Welfare State at Crossroads:Converging Views in European and Latam countries?Santiago, ECLAC, January 2013 Luis BértolaUniversidad de la República, UruguayECLAC consultant
Content 1. Productivity, structuralheterogeneity and incomedistribution. 2. Productivitydistributionamongworldcitizens (structuralheterogeneity). 3. Functionaldistribution and productivity: whatisleftbehindthecycles? 4. Differentdimensions of inequality 5. TheRobin Hood paradoxrevisited Final remarks: Thedistinctive case of thepoliticaleconomy of natural resource-intensiveeconomies
1. Productivity, structuralheterogeneity and incomedistribution: mainarguments • High income inequality in Latin America is deeply rooted in its heterogeneous productive structure. • Other institutional features, as the weak State and unequal distribution of economic, social and political power, add to inequality in factoral distribution. • The role of natural resources in capital building, concentration of property and generation of rents is crucial to understand the heterogeneous productive structure and the patterns of income distribution. • The role of natural resources is also crucial to understand the extreme volatility of the Latin American economy and the challenges imposed to policy-making and sustainable growth. • The scarce diversification of the productive structure, adds to power relations, in limiting income growth and the expansion of the public sector and the welfare state. • Structural differences with Europe are clearly noticeable.
2. Productivitydistributionamongworldcitizens (global structuralheterogeneity) A classicaltopic at ECLAC sinceAnibal Pinto Integratingcross-section and convergence-divergenceapproaches. • 32 countries • 7 groups(AL, Asia, Scandinavia, Eurolatin, Settlers, EuropeCore, USA, (and alsoAllEurope). • 9 productivesectors: GDP at currentdollars, employment, labourproductivity. • Years: 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006.
“Global” inequality in productivity, 1991-2006 • A slightincrease in inequalityduringthese 15 years.
Inequalitybysectors Inequalitywithinsectorsis a proxy forinequalitybetweencountries, giventhateachobservationcorrespondstoone particular country and thateach country has onlyoneobervation per sector. Inequalityincreasesbothwithin and betweensectors (countries), butishigherwithinsectors (betweencountries). Inequality, at a global level, ismainlywithinsectors (i.e., international, betweencountries). However, thedynamicforceisbetween-sector inequality, whichalso poses theproblem of specialization.
Inequalityby country groups Inequalityisslightlyhigherbetweengroupsthanwithin, a featurethatisreinforcedduringtheseyears.
Whichgroups are more heterogeneous? LatinAmericaisthe more heterogeneousgroup… … and the more volatileone!!!!!!!! (even in comparisontoEurope, with more countries 13-10, and higher pop. share, 30-26%).
Thedominating and increasinginequality-sourceisbetween-sector inequality (i.e., withincountries).
Inequality in productivitywithinLatinAmericaisnotmainlyarisingfromdifferencesbetweencountries, butwithinthem. • ThisconfirmsLatinAmerica as theonewithhihestheterogeneity and volatility.
Structural heterogeneity by country(Gini-coefficient for productivity)
Structuralheterogeneity and incomedistribution are highlycorrelated: Norway, Venezuela are outliers Source: Astorga, R. (ECLAC)
3. Functionaldistribution and productivity: whatisleftafterthecycles?
Uruguay: real landprices (deflatedby CPI) and productivityadjusted real landprice, 1913=100
LABOUR SHARES (AT CONSTANT FACTOR COSTS), 1990-2009 - Labour shares are low in LatinAmerica and tended todecrease in 1990-2009- as labourproductivityincreases, labour shares are reduced (ECLAC, 2012, Box V.2)
The dynamics of the functional distribution of income • The role of the rents of natural resources • Control of natural resources • Distribution of rents • Sustainability vs. volatility • The political economy of structural change and relative price movements
4: Differentdimensions of inequality: theHumanDevelopmentEqualityIndex
5. Per capita GDP and PublicExpenditure, 2001-2007. • The 1rst Robin Hood Paradox: thosecountriesthatneed more publicexpenditure are thosethatcollectlesstaxes in relationto GDP and thushave a lessthanproportional per capitapublicexpenditure.
TheSecondRobin Hood Paradox: thelowerthe per capitaincome, thelowertheimpact of social expenditureonthereduction of inequality Source: Lindert, P.
TheThirdRobin Hood Paradox: social expedniturenotalwayshelpreducinginequality.
Final remarks:Thedistinctivepoliticaleconomy of natural resource-intensiveeconomies • Unless capital investment and human capital investmentcreatesconditionsforinnovation and a drastic and persistentchange in theproductivestructure, sustained per capita GDP convergencewillnottake place and thewelfarestatewillnotbesustainable. • Inequalitywillnotsignifcantlydecrease, as a consequence of persistentstructuralheterogeneity, and because of thepersistence of forcesrecreatinginequality. • Thegreatproblemisthatthisprocesscannottake place withoutthesimultaneouscreation of a welfarestate. • Thekeyisanintegratedapproachto industrial policy, innovation, structuralchange and social policy. • The risk is the combination of cycles of optimism with redistribution without structural change.