Infrastructure, Value Chains, and Economic Upgrades

Public Disclosure Authorized

Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper 164

INFRASTRUCTURE, VALUE CHAINS, Public Disclosure Authorized AND ECONOMIC UPGRADES Public Disclosure Authorized

Xubei Luo Xuejiao Xu

Public Disclosure Authorized August 2018 Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper 164

ABSTRACT

Infrastructure development is critical to delivering growth, reducing poverty, and addressing broader development goals. This paper surveys the literature on the linkages between infrastructure investment and economic growth, discusses the role of infrastructure in participation in global value chains and supporting economic upgrades, highlights the challenges that the least developed countries face, and provides policy recommendations. It suggests that addressing the bottlenecks in infrastructure is a necessary condition to provide a window of opportunity for an economy to develop following its comparative advantage. With the right conditions, good infrastructure can support an economy, particularly a less developed economy, to reap the benefits of participation in global value chains to upgrade the economic structure.

This paper is a product of the Poverty and Equity Global Practice Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and contribute to development policy discussions around the world. The authors may be contacted at [email protected].

The Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

‒ Poverty & Equity Global Practice Knowledge Management & Learning Team

This paper is co-published with the World Bank Policy Research Working Papers. Infrastructure, Value Chains, and Economic Upgrades

Xubei Luo1, Xuejiao Xu2

1. Poverty Global Practices, The World Bank, Washington D.C., USA, [email protected]

2. Columbian College of Arts & Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA, [email protected]

JEL classification: H54; O40, F14, F60

Keywords

Infrastructure gap; economic growth; structural upgrades; least developed countries; global value chains Infrastructure, Value Chains, and Economic Upgrades Xubei Luo and Xuejiao Xu*

. An accessible, affordable, and reliable infrastructure network is crucial for development. It is necessitous for powering business, lowering transactions costs, improving market access, and improving the efficiency of other productive factors; and it is prerequisite for providing people with access to important services like education and health care, connecting workers to their jobs, and sharing the fruits of growth in an equitable manner. In the global arena, infrastructure is essential for participation in value chains to upgrade economic structure. As argued in the World Bank Report Transformation through Infrastructure (2012a), infrastructure development is critical to delivering growth, reducing poverty, and addressing broader development goals.1

This paper surveys the literature of the linkages between infrastructure investment and economic growth, discusses the role of infrastructure in participation in global value chains and supporting economic upgrades, highlights the challenges faced by the least developed countries, and provides policy suggestions. It suggests that addressing the bottlenecks in infrastructure is a necessary condition to provide a window of opportunity for an economy to develop following its comparative advantage. With the right conditions, good infrastructure can support an economy, particularly a less developed economy, to reap the benefit through participation in global value chains to upgrade the economic structure.

Infrastructure investment and economic growth Infrastructure includes hard (tangible) infrastructure and soft (intangible) infrastructure. Hard infrastructure often refers to the transport system (such as roads, airports, port facilities, and rail), public utilities (such as energy, water supply and sewer, and irrigation), communication network (such as telecommunication and broadband), and social infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals). Soft infrastructure often refers to matters related to efficiency, such as institutions and regulations.2

There is a vast literature on the contribution of infrastructure and public capital to aggregate productivity and growth. Arrow and Kurz (1970) examined the relationship between infrastructure investment and productivity using the Ramsey type exogenous growth model and

* Xubei Luo is an economist at the World Bank, Xuejiao Xu is a graduate from George Washington University. The authors would like to thank participants at the 4th New Structural Economics International Conference at Peking University for comments. Special thanks go to Justin Lin, Yong Wang, Shang‐Jin Wei, Yanrui Wu, Jianye Yan, and Juzhong Zhuang, for useful discussions and suggestions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. 1 See World Bank (2012a). 2 See more from Lin (2011), Bottini, Coelho, and Kao (2012), and Ismail and Mahyideen (2015).

found that the volume of public investment conditions marginal productivity. Barro (1990) included pubic capital in the framework of the endogenous growth model and concluded that the growth and savings rate increase initially with productive services, but subsequently decline, while the two rates were negatively associated with consumption services. Futagami et al. (1993) extended Barro’s method, by adding private capital stock into the endogenous growth model, and showed that long‐run economic growth is maximized when the income tax rate equals the output elasticity of public capital. World Bank (2012a) showed a positive correlation between estimated infrastructure investments (per capita) and the level of development (proxied by GDP per capita) using data from 104 countries (Figure 1). WEF (2013) suggested that, if every country improved border administration, transport and communications infrastructure, and related services halfway to the world’s best practices, global GDP could increase by US$2.6 trillion (4.7%) and exports by US$1.6 trillion (14.5%). Figure: 1 Infrastructure investment and economic development

Cited from World Bank (2012a), Transformation through infrastructure. Note: Total investments in infrastructure consist of: (a) new investment resulting from the variation in infrastructure stocks between 2000 and 2005, valued at unit costs; and (b) requirements for maintenance, resulting from multiplying stocks of 200 by a depreciation rate. Infrastructure sectors include paved and unpaved roads, rails, ports, electricity generation and electrification, fixed and mobile communications, and water supply and sanitation. The curve is obtained by a three‐degree polynomial trend

There is an indication that infrastructure is closely associated with economic development, while the empirical evidence of the causality between infrastructure and productivity growth remains inconclusive and the marginal productivity of infrastructure varies across countries. De la Fuente (2010) provided a survey of the literature with a thorough discussion of the econometric complications. Aschauer (1989) found that the slowdown of the investment rate in public infrastructure leads to the deceleration of private‐sector total factor productivity in the U.S. since the early 1970s. Wylie (1996) used a similar approach as Aschauer's analysis and found high returns of infrastructure investment to productivity in Canada’s goods‐sector, and complementarity of infrastructure with goods‐sector capital and labor inputs during 1964‐1991. Fernald (1999) accessed the links between road services and productivity and found that industries that intensively used roads often witnessed a faster productivity growth increase when the stock of roads increased, using industry data in the U.S. between 1953‐1989. Canning and Bennathan (2000), using an aggregate production function, found that infrastructure, as complementary to physical and human capital, enhances production capacity. Röller and Waverman (2001) found a positive causal link between telecommunication infrastructure and economic development using data from 21 OECD countries spanning the years 1970‐1990 with a micro‐model endogenizing telecommunication investment and a macro‐growth equation, after

controlling for country‐specific fixed effects and nonlinear effects caused by network externalities. Albiman and Sulong (2016) showed that mobile phone and internet were main economic growth drivers in the long run using data in 45 Sub‐Saharan African countries from 1990 to 2014. Infrastructure can contribute to productivity and economic growth through several channels:  Infrastructure can lower production costs. Seethepalli et al. (2008) found that telecommunications, electricity, roads, water, and sanitation have significant positive impact on economic growth in East Asia, after controlling human capital and total investment. Similarly, Straub and Terada‐Hagiwara’s study (2010) showed the growth rate of these infrastructure stocks promotes economic growth in most countries in East Asia and South Asia. For production, electricity is often a major constraint in developing countries. Dollar et al. (2005) showed that the inconsistent power supply has strong negative impacts on productivity using firm level survey data. Firms often have to rely on their own generators to supplement the unreliable public electricity supply. However, the cost of maintaining a power generator is often high and burdensome, especially for small and medium firms, where a large share of the poor and vulnerable are employed. Hallaert et al. (2011) found electricity supply is a major constraint to trade expansion in developing countries.

 Infrastructure can lower transactions costs. Limao and Venables (2001) showed poor infrastructure accounts for more than 40 percent of transport costs. Radelet and Sachs (1998) found that a doubling of the shipping cost is associated with slower annual growth of slightly more than half of one percentage point. Cordella and Simon (1997) found that infrastructure can reduce transaction costs (including the costs for gathering information, evaluating alternative options, negotiating, and contracting) by reducing time and cost in communication and information exchange and by flattening the organizational structure to reduce information flux and coordination needs. Lakshmanan (2011) suggested that time and cost savings due to transport infrastructure improvement can better link product and factor markets, promote inter‐regional trade and specialization, increase returns to scale, and reallocate economic activities.

 Infrastructure can increase total factor productivity. Good infrastructure can increase efficiency of conventional inputs (Duggal et al., 1999). Interconnections and complementarities between infrastructures help improve service efficiency and support innovative technologies adoption (Bottini et al., 2012). Based on a large‐scale firm‐level survey data from China, Wan and Zhang (2017) explored the causality between infrastructure and firm total factor productivity, and concluded that roads, telecommunication servers, and cable promote firm productivity. In addition to the conventional productivity effect, Fay et al. (2011) found that infrastructure is likely to condition the efficiency of many key areas of productive factors, such as the costs of investment adjustment, the durability of private capital, and both demand for and supply of health and education services. Dam (2007) showed that the rule of law is important to unlocking the developing world's full growth potential.

 Infrastructure services can “crowd in” other productive inputs. Calderón and Servén (2014) suggested an increase in infrastructure stock or improvement in infrastructure

can indirectly crowd in other inputs owing to the accompanying rise in their marginal productivity, and this indirect effect may take place instantaneously (for variable inputs in elastic supply) or over time (for fixed inputs such as human and non‐infrastructure physical capital). Infrastructure, being a key element of the business environment, conditions individual firms’ transaction and marginal return on investment.3 Wheeler and Mody (1992) and Richaud et al. (1999) provided evidence that infrastructure can crowd in foreign direct investment, an important element for growth in less developed countries. Eden and Kraay (2014) found that an extra dollar of public investment can raise private investment by roughly two dollars, and output by 1.5 dollars, based on data from 39 low‐income countries.

The magnitude of contribution of infrastructure to productivity and output varies. Various factors are at play. Calderón et al. (2015) found that the long‐run output elasticity of infrastructure ranges from 0.07 to 0.1, using a synthetic index combining power, transport and telecommunications infrastructure as one of the inputs in a production function, based on a large data set covering 88 countries spanning the years 1960–2000. Their results suggest that the marginal productivity of infrastructure is associated with the ratio of aggregate infrastructure to output. Calderón and Servén (2008), drawing from data of 100 countries over 1960‐2005, found that infrastructure development makes, on average, a smaller contribution to growth in Sub‐Saharan Africa than in other regions – just 0.7 percent per annum. This is related to the severe deterioration of the quality of infrastructure services in the region ‐ while the expansion in infrastructure stocks raises the growth rate by 1.2 percent per annum, the deterioration of the quality of infrastructure services reduces the growth rate by 0.5 percent per annum. Bottini et al. (2012) suggested that enhancing service efficiency and supporting innovative technologies adoption can improve the contribution of infrastructure to total factor productivity through better interconnection and stronger complementarities.

The relationship between infrastructure and economic growth is not linear. Hurlin (2006) found that returns to infrastructure exhibit threshold effects and that the highest marginal productivity of investment is found when a network is sufficiently developed but not completely saturated. For example, road construction may have limited effects until it links several locations. After the establishment of a minimum road network, the marginal productivity is high for the new road construction extending the network before congestions kick in (Fernald, 1999). Henckel and McKibbin (2017) pointed out that the economic benefit from transport infrastructure is nonlinear because of network externalities, reflecting the decreasing benefits from additional highway construction to an existing efficient transport network. Telecommunications investment has strong externality. A subscriber’s welfare increases with the increase of the number of people who have access to the network, until reaching the saturation point. Röller and Waverman (2001) found that the impact of telecommunications infrastructure on output is substantially higher in countries where penetration approaches universal coverage.

Infrastructure and global value chains

3 See Lin, J. Y. (2011).

Infrastructure development includes two main stages. The first stage is the development of transport infrastructure. It significantly lowers transport costs and made it feasible to spatially separate production and consumption. Production becomes specialized and clustered in large scale (Florida, 2005). The second stage is the development of communication infrastructure. It significantly lowers coordination costs and makes it feasible for firm specific knowledge and know‐how to be shared across national borders (Baldwin, 2011).

In today’s world, with the drastic decline of transport costs and communication costs, the potential contribution of infrastructure to productivity and growth is magnified. The infrastructure improvement can not only contribute to growth through lowering production costs and transaction costs, increasing total factor productivity, and crowding in other productive factors, but also change the boundary of production and reshape the economy (Lewis and Bloch, 1998; McCann and Shefer, 2004). Yu (2017) found that infrastructure improvement plays a crucial role in the increasing economic cooperation and integration between East Asian countries. The transportation and communication technology revolution has redefined the function of time and distance. The interconnectedness across firms or sectors multiplies and intensifies. 4

The separation of stages of production, or tasks instead of the full products, which is profitable due to the large differences of wages, land prices, and advantageous policies between developed and developing countries, opens new doors for developing countries to specialize in specific niches of the global value chains. It enables an economy to develop its comparative advantages, including latent comparative advantages, potentially at an earlier stage through focusing on a special niche in the global value chains.5 Countries become increasingly interdependent through supply chain trade, as they specialize in tasks and business functions rather than products. Products at different stages of value added may be imported, exported, and re‐exported multiple times. In 2009, world exports of intermediate goods exceeded the combined export values of final and capital goods for the first time, representing 51% of non‐ fuel merchandise exports (WTO and IDE‐JETRO, 2011).

Global value chain integration can increase domestic value added. As indicated by Kowalski et al. (2015), global value chain participation can increase domestic value added embodied in a country’s exports, enhance the sophistication of the export bundle, and improve diversification of export products. Weinberger and Lumpkin (2007) stated that integrating into the horticulture global value chain offers opportunities for the least developed countries to alleviate poverty by increasing income and creating employment. Kummritz et al. (2017) found both backward and forward global value chain participation can lead to growth of domestic value added, based on a data set covering 61 countries and 34 industries between 1995 and 2011. Gonzalez (2016) found that using foreign value added is one of the most important factors that contribute to growth in domestic value added in exports. In ASEAN countries, the total domestic value added in exports increased nearly four times during the period of 1995‐2011. According to the Global Value Chains Development Report (World Bank et al., 2017), the information and communication

4 See Gereffi and Luo (2015) for more discussion. 5 See Lin and Monga (2010) and Lin (2012b) for a thorough discussion on the identification of comparative advantages.

technology industry in the U.S. and China has experienced an increased rate of return in labor or capital by participating in the global value chains.

The participation in global value chains can be a window of opportunities for developing countries to move up the ladder in the production structure by specializing in the niches where they have comparative advantage. Following the metaphor of “ladder” instead of a “chain” used in a recent joint report by OECD, WTO and World Bank Group, “the disaggregation of production into separate stages allows their firms not only to find their place on the ladder, but to move up the rungs as their capabilities improve”.6 Entering global value chains is a way to "denationalize comparative advantages", and it has the potential to enhance developing countries’ export opportunities and their competitiveness (Del Prete et al., 2017). It allows developing countries to specialize in narrow niches without the need of first building an entire value chain from scratch, as other countries, such as Japan and the Republic of Korea, experienced in the last century. A small developing country with abundant unskilled labor can join the value chain of garment manufacturing, specializing in only one small niche such as producing buttons before they can have the entire assembly line.

Participation in global value chains can therefore encourage upward movement by providing the platform to reward skills, learning, and innovation. Gereffi and Fernandez‐Stark (2016) drew an upgrading trajectory in a global value chain, in which countries follow the steps of entering the value chain first by offering the most basic products or services, then providing more sophisticated business, subsequently to knowledge activities, offering a large spectrum of products or services, and finally specializing in vertical industries. Costa Rica has experienced product upgrading in medical devices value chains, as shown by Bamber and Gereffi (2013), with its higher tech medical devices accounting for more than half of total medical device exports in 2011, compared with 90% shared by low‐tech disposable devices in 2002. Simultaneously, the country also witnessed significant growth of FDI in higher‐level technology medical devices sectors.

The potential benefit of tapping in the benefit of structural upgrading through the participation in the value chains is large. Development is path dependent. Several economies, including China, are moving up the value chain and releasing millions of labor intensive jobs (Lin, 2012a). Seizing this opportunity to specialize in the niches following the latent comparative advantages can set an economy on a right path of structural upgrades. Successful cases can be found in countries such as Chile in exporting engineering services related to mining, India in exporting pharmaceutical R&D, and Uruguay in exporting sophisticated expertise on cattle traceability (Gereffi and Fernandez‐Stark, 2016).

Improving infrastructure, including hard infrastructure and soft infrastructure, is a necessary condition for reaping the benefit of the participation in the global value chains to upgrade the economic structure. Reliable infrastructure to connect supply, efficient movement of goods and services across borders, fast and reliable information transfer, and sufficiently low coordination costs are prerequisites for participating in global value chains. Yi (2003) indicated that tariffs have large and nonlinear impact on global trade, especially for semi‐finished goods in the value

6 See OECD, WTO, & World Bank Group. (2014).

chains as they need to cross borders several times. A recent Brookings report (World Bank et al., 2017) showed a clear relationship between better logistics performance and deeper involvement in global value chains using the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Indicator. While not all countries with good logistics are deeply involved in global value chains, no countries with poor logistics performance are central to global value chains (figure 2). According to World Economic Forum (2014), well‐developed infrastructure not only reduces the distance between regions but also integrates national markets and connects them to other economies. The proximity of industries and businesses favors cost reduction and productivity improvement, allowing firms in the region to share a similar labor pool and enjoy knowledge spillovers, and enables further clustering and agglomeration (Fujita et al., 1999; Fujita and Thisse, 2013).

Figure 2: Relationship between the Logistics Performance Index and a centrality measure of country involvement in global value chains

Cited from World Bank et al. (2017), and Diakantoni et al. (2017). Based on COMTRADE and World Bank data. Note: The centrality indicator ranks a country’s centrality to global value chains, taking into account direct and indirect trade flows to and from trading partners in the global production network.

Challenges for the least developed countries

Participating and competing in global value chains have become largely inevitable. Local firms are collaborating directly or indirectly with foreign firms in the same industry or with their upstream or downstream partners; at the same time, local firms are competing with a growing number of foreign firms in the local as well as international markets. As the natural barriers of distance to trade are diminished, countries may benefit or lose in the new global arena. To survive, they need to improve product quality and efficiency of operations. Infrastructure required for firms in least developed countries, which mainly target local markets with small amount of transactions, used to be rudimentary. However, when they attempt to join the global value chains, where business transactions are often long distance and large in quantity and value, more sophisticated and various types of infrastructures become necessary (Lin, 2011).

Countries with poor infrastructure and distant to the economic centers can be marginalized and locked from the opportunity of participating in the global value chains and, consequently, the opportunity of upgrading the economic structure.

Developing countries face daunting challenges, ranging from the accessibility and quality of transportation, telecommunication, and water supply, to institutions and regulations to facilitate trade. The large infrastructure gaps, particularly for the least developed countries, might deprive them of the opportunity to upgrade their economic structure through participation in global value chains. World Bank (2017) indicated that the performance of Sub‐ Sahara Africa’s infrastructure currently ranks below all other developing regions: road density has declined over the past 20 years in Africa, and only 35% of the population has access to electricity, with rural access rates less than one‐third urban ones. The report estimated that closing the infrastructure quantity and quality gap in Sub‐Sahara Africa relative to the best performers in the world could increase the growth of GDP per capita in the region by 2.6 percent per year, or 1.7 percent per year if it were to close the gap with the median of the rest of the developing world.

Transport costs can be prohibitively high. Transport costs, according to developing‐country suppliers, remain the main obstacle to entering, establishing, or moving up in global value chains (OECD and WTO, 2013). Transport prices for most African landlocked countries range from 15 to 20 percent of import costs, approximately two to three times more than in most developed countries (Teravaninthorn and Raballand, 2009). According to a recent IMF report (IMF, 2015), the quality of infrastructure in Africa is about half that found elsewhere in the world, credit‐to‐GDP ratios about a third of ratios elsewhere, and tariffs on average four times higher than elsewhere. The slow and unpredictable land transport keeps most of Sub‐Saharan Africa out of the higher value added segments of the value chains, including electronics (Christ and Ferrantino, 2011).

Firms in the least developed countries are more likely to suffer from the burden of high transaction costs. Besides conducive business environment and strong human capital, efficient and reliable infrastructure services (including telecoms, internet, express service delivery, and customs clearances) for coordinating the dispersed production become the essential condition of the location choice in the production supply chain. With below‐average infrastructure quality in most countries and the lack of regional co‐ordination of trade facilitation effort, South Asia has the highest intra‐regional trade costs after the African regions (Kowalski et al., 2015). Ahmed et al. (2010) noted high transaction costs are bottlenecks for South Asian countries to promote regional or international trade, with 140 to 200 signatures required for trading between India and Nepal, and over four days of waiting time for trucks to cross the border between Bangladesh and India. Facilitating trade by focusing on publication of customs information, notifications, advance rulings, documentation requirements, and international standards can reduce trade costs mostly in less developed counties (Moïsé and Sorescu, 2013).

High logistic costs due to weak supply chains are often another barrier for the least developed countries. Lacking reliable supply chains, firms in less developed countries encounter much higher logistic costs and are virtually eliminated from just‐in‐time production. High inventory costs post a double penalty for firms participating in global manufacturing value chains with extra logistics

costs on both inputs and exports. The inefficient and unreliable clearance processes could even render the participation in global value chains impossible. As a result, the off‐shoring and industrialization after the ICT revolution tend to concentrate in select parts of the developing world, of which a significant share is in East Asia, followed by select countries in Latin America and East and Central Europe.

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) stand for the majority of firms in least development countries. According to Gereffi and Fernandez‐Stark (2016), market access, training, and collaboration and cooperation are major constraints for SMEs to sustainably enter value chains. Infrastructure such as transportation and ICT conditions the linkages between producers and buyers in value chains and affects the adoption of new technologies to meet the international market requirements. Collaboration and cooperation refer to both horizontal coordination between producers and vertical interaction between segments of the value chains, with the former facilitating economies of scale and providing opportunities for more value added, and the latter helping sharing knowledge along the chain and upgrading.

SMEs are even more vulnerable to supply chain inefficiencies compared with large firms. For SMEs, related to their small scale, logistics costs are disproportionately higher—industrial firms with fewer than 250 workers on average having logistics cost of some 15% of overall revenue for the business unit, more than twice that of firms with over 250 workers (Straube et al., 2013). Small exporters and importers tend to be more affected by a lack of transparency in clearance processes. They have lower economies of scale, therefore higher inventory costs, which can be punitively high in countries with poor logistics performance. Many of them are often forced to confine their business activities to the geographical area close to their production site. For the SMEs in remote areas, the lack of continuity of logistics services beyond the main gateway could make access to global value chains prohibitive.

Evidence shows that insufficient infrastructure has put obstacles for less developed countries to integrate into global value chains and upgrade to higher segments on the chains. According to Gereffi (2015), in some Central American countries, inadequate infrastructure investment in wet processing plants limited the abilities of small producers to produce premium coffee, consequently losing the opportunity to capture the price premiums in the global value chain. A report from AfDB et al. (2014) suggested that many African countries suffer from insufficient infrastructure. Lack of infrastructure and burdensome border procedures, accompanied with geographical remoteness, mean that in countries in Sub‐Saharan African, on average it takes 38 days to import and 32 days for exporting across borders. As a result, firms face high costs and uncertainty of supply (World Bank, 2012b; Kowalski et al., 2015). Poor infrastructure, especially lack of access to energy, and inadequate skilled workforce are the main barriers for Burkina Faso to participate in the global value chains. In the Republic of Congo, the economy has not been able to build on the comparative advantages in natural resources and move up the value chains due to the lack of decent infrastructure, such as transport and energy, as well as the lagging technology, less qualified labor, and uncongenial business environment. In Tunisia, while the manufacturing sector has benefited from participation in the global value chain particularly, its further development and structural upgrades are still handicapped by logistics, transport, unbalanced distribution of information and communication technologies, and technology transfers.

The less developed countries with underdeveloped infrastructure, low investment rates, and low per‐capita incomes can experience a boost in trade flows and benefit from infrastructure development. The development experiences in Africa and Asia, such as light‐manufacturing in Ethiopia, horticulture in Kenya, readymade garments in Cambodia, and textiles in Pakistan have already highlighted these countries’ tremendous potential for productive job creation, providing they tackle the “hard” and “soft” infrastructure constraints to help realize this latent comparative advantage.

Conclusions

Improving infrastructure to meet the demand in today’s economy is a must. The demand for infrastructure includes not only the traditional facilities but also the new ones that better respond to the rapidly evolving needs and provide quicker and more reliable services. While the “traditional” infrastructure, such as roads, railways, electricity, water and sanitation, is still fundamental, “new” infrastructure, such as highways, high‐speed trains, and broad‐band internet has become necessary for an economy to fully participate in the global value chains and to move up the ladder of the economic structure.

Infrastructure is not everything, but without good infrastructure, most potential will be limited. Improving infrastructure is not only important for growth by boosting firm performance, but also facilitating public services delivery and contributing to inclusiveness and long‐term development. The lack of access to basic services undermines living standards for poor people and limits their ability to materialize their full potentials. The inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcomes intertwine and perpetuate and prevent poor people from accessing infrastructure services. Alesina et al. (1999) argued that more unequal societies devote less effort to the provision of public goods, including infrastructure. Estache et al. (2002) showed that income inequality adversely affects access to the internet, which aggravates the information asymmetry and deprives the poor from equal opportunities. Some studies, for example Gonzalvez (2016), suggested that participation in global value chains can be an engine of job creation: forward global value chain jobs—domestic jobs linked to the production of intermediate products traded within value chains—have grown over six times faster than total jobs in 1996‐2011.

Infrastructure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for growth. The extent to which infrastructure improvement contributes to growth of a specific industry or location depends on their specific characteristics and the business environment that they are in. To the extent that suboptimal infrastructure investment constrains other investment, it constrains growth (Newbery, 2012). More infrastructure may not necessarily cause more growth if the binding constraints lie elsewhere or the type or quality of infrastructure investment does not match the demand.7 Building a bridge to nowhere will not add any value.

The constraints of infrastructure, or the benefit from the improvement of a specific type of infrastructure, vary across industries and firms as well as across regions in the same country. For example, a new expressway linking two locations might benefit one more than the other

7 See more discussions in Canning, D., & Pedroni, P. (2008).

depending on their production and geo‐economic structures. Improvement in connectivity and market accessibility might lead to stronger clustering and agglomeration, which tends to favor the economic centers more than the periphery. Similarly, simplification of the customs clearance might benefit firms specializing in foreign trade or the economy in general, but at the same time raise the competition for those engaging in import substitution industries or focusing on the domestic market.

Infrastructure is not a sufficient condition for benefiting from participation in the global value chains, and participation in the global value chain is not a sufficient condition for structural upgrades. The “smile curve” is deep as value added is high at the pre‐ and post‐manufacturing stages. Based on a sample of more than 2 million firms in the European Union in 2015, the empirical results from Rungi and Del Prete (2017) confirmed a nonlinear U‐shaped relationship at firm‐level between the value added generated and position on a productive sequence. Developing countries, given the mix of their factor endowment, often enter global value chains first at the low value‐added stage (assembly or production stage) and subsequently seek to move towards higher value‐adding activities. To what extent they can increase their domestic value‐added and move up the ladder depends on a variety of factors. With good infrastructure, opportunity is there but success is not guaranteed; however, without good infrastructure, the economy will certainly be deprived of the opportunity to materialize its latent advantage at the global scale early on.

The public‐good nature of infrastructure calls for support from the governments, and partnership between the public and private sectors in many areas is essential. When the infrastructure investment crosses national borders, regional and global collaborations are essential. Concerted efforts between national governments and regional or international development agencies can play a crucial role. With the right conditions, infrastructure investment and economic growth can reinforce each other: good infrastructure investments can accelerate growth, while growth itself can generate greater demand for, and usually supply of, infrastructure.

Infrastructure is expensive and requires extensive maintenance. The fiscal burden can be high, particularly for the less developed countries that face multiple challenges and at the same time have the most urgent needs. Focusing the investment in infrastructure in special economic zones or industrial parks can be a useful approach to jump start the process with limited resources. China has spent over 5 percent of GDP over the past decades in infrastructure investment, cutting transport costs and helping connect production centers to domestic and international consumers (Huang, 2017). By substituting domestic for imported materials, China has been increasing the domestic content of its exports (Kee and Tang, 2015), and has become the world’s factory from a largely agrarian economy. The successful experience in China in the past decades shows that well‐ planned and well‐managed special economic zones with targeted investment promotion and catalytic development financing can help to unleash latent comparative advantages and facilitate integration and upgrading along the global value chains. Development in sectors where the economy has comparative advantages can stimulate gradual and sustained upgrading in the value chains and start the virtuous cycle building the ecosystem for more beneficial integration in the value chain for the entire economy.

References

AfDB, OECD, & UNDP. (2014). African Economic Outlook 2014: Global Value Chains and Africa's Industrialisation, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Ahmed, S., Ghani, E., & Kelegama, S. (2010). Promoting economic cooperation in South Asia: beyond South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAFTA). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Albiman, M. M., & Sulong, Z. (2016). The role of ICT use to the economic growth in Sub Saharan African region (SSA). Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7(3), 306‐ 329.

Alesina, A., Baqir, R., & Easterly, W. (1999). Public goods and ethnic divisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1243‐1284.

Aschauer, D. A. (1989). Is public expenditure productive? Journal of monetary economics, 23(2), 177‐200.

Arrow, K. J., & Kruz, M. (1970). Public Investment, the Rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Baldwin, R. (2011). Trade and industrialisation after globalisation's 2nd unbundling: How building and joining a supply chain are different and why it matters. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bamber, P., & Gereffi, G. (2013). Costa Rica in the Aerospace Global Value Chain. Opportunities for Entry and Upgrading. Durham, NC: Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness.

Barro, R. J. (1990). Government spending in a simple model of endogeneous growth. Journal of political economy, 98(5, Part 2), S103‐S125.

Bottini, N., Coelho, M., & Kao, J. (2012). Infrastructure and growth. Background research papers for the growth commission report, December, http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/growthCommission/documents/pdf/ SecretariatPapers/Infrastructure.pdf

Calderón, C., Moral‐Benito, E., & Servén, L. (2015). Is infrastructure capital productive? A dynamic heterogeneous approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 30(2), 177‐198.

Calderón, C., & Servén, L. (2008). Infrastructure and economic development in Sub‐Saharan Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4721.

Calderón, C., & Servén, L. (2014). Infrastructure, growth, and inequality: an overview. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7034.

Canning, D., & Bennathan, E. (2000). The social rate of return on infrastructure investments. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2390.

Canning, D., & Pedroni, P. (2008). Infrastructure, long‐run economic growth and causality tests for cointegrated panels. The Manchester School, 76(5), 504‐527.

Christ, N., & Ferrantino, M. J. (2011). Land transport for export: The effects of cost, time, and uncertainty in sub‐Saharan Africa. World Development, 39(10), 1749‐1759.

Cordella, A., & Simon, K. A. (1997). The impact of information technology on transaction and coordination cost. In Conference on Information Systems Research in Scandinavia.

Dam, K. W. (2007). The law‐growth nexus: The rule of law and economic development. Brookings Institution Press.

De la Fuente, Á. (2010). Infrastructures and productivity: an updated survey. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i d'Història Econòmica, Unitat Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica. Del Prete, D., Giovannetti, G., & Marvasi, E. (2017). Global value chains: New evidence for North Africa. International Economics.

Diakantoni, A., Escaith, H., Roberts, M., & Verbeet, T. (2017). Accumulating trade costs and competitiveness in global value chains. WTO Working Paper ERSD‐2017‐02. Dollar, D., Hallward‐Driemeier, M., & Mengistae, T. (2005). Investment climate and firm performance in developing economies. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(1), 1‐31. Duggal, V. G., Saltzman, C., & Klein, L. R. (1999). Infrastructure and productivity: a nonlinear approach. Journal of econometrics, 92(1), 47‐74. Eden, M., & Kraay, A. (2014). 'Crowding In' and the Returns to Government Investment in Low‐ Income Countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers.

Estache, A., Manacorda, M., Valletti, T. M., Galetovic, A., & Mueller, B. (2002). Telecommunications Reform, Access Regulation, and Internet Adoption in Latin America [with Comments]. Economia, 2(2), 153‐217.

Fay, M., Toman, M., Benitez, D., & Csordas, S. (2011). Infrastructure and sustainable development. Postcrisis Growth and Development: A Development Agenda for the G, 20, 329‐382.

Fernald, J. G. (1999). Roads to prosperity? Assessing the link between public capital and productivity. American Economic Review, 619‐638.

Florida, R. (2005). The World is Spiky. The Atlantic Monthly, 296(3): 48–51 Fujita, M., Krugman, P. R., & Venables, A. J. (1999). The spatial economy: cities, regions and international trade (Vol. 213). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Fujita, M., & Thisse, J. F. (2013). Economics of agglomeration: cities, industrial location, and globalization. Cambridge university press.

Futagami, K., Morita, Y., & Shibata, A. (1993). Dynamic analysis of an endogenous growth model with public capital. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 607‐625.

Gereffi, G. (2015). Global value chains, development and emerging economies. Global Value Chains, Development and Emerging Economies.

Gereffi, G., & Fernandez‐Stark, K. (2016). Global value chain analysis: a primer. Duke CGGC (Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness). 2016, pp. 1 ‐ 34 (34).

Gereffi, G., & Luo, X. (2015). Risks and opportunities of participation in global value chains. Journal of Banking and Financial Economics, Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2015, 51‐63.

Gonzalez, J. L. (2016). Using Foreign Factors to Enhance Domestic Export Performance. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 191, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Hallaert, J. J., Cavazos‐Cepeda, R. H., & Kang, G. (2011). Estimating the constraints to trade of developing countries. OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No. 116.

Henckel, T., & McKibbin, W. J. (2017). The economics of infrastructure in a globalized world: issues, lessons and future challenges. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 1(2), 254‐272.

Huang, Y. (2017), Cracking the China Conundrum: Why Conventional Economic Wisdom Is Wrong. Oxford University Press.

Hurlin, C. (2006). Network effects of the productivity of infrastructure in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2015). Regional Economic Outlook: Sub‐Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

Ismail, N. W., & Mahyideen, J. M. (2015). The Impact of infrastructure on trade and economic growth in selected economies in Asia. ADBI Working Paper 553.

Kee, H., & Tang, H. (2015). Domestic Value Added in Exports: Theory and Firm Evidence from China. Policy Research Working Paper 7491, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Kowalski, P., Gonzalez, J. L., Ragoussis, A., & Ugarte, C. (2015). Participation of Developing Countries in Global Value Chains. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 179. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Kummritz, V., Taglioni, D., & Winkler, D. (2017). Economic Upgrading through Global Value Chain Participation. Policy Research Working Paper No. 8007. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Lakshmanan, T. R. (2011). The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure investments. Journal of transport geography, 19(1), 1‐12.

Lewis, D., & Bloch, R. (1998). SDIs: Infrastructure, agglomeration and the region in industrial policy. Development Southern Africa, 15(5), 727‐755.

Limao, N., & Venables, A. J. (2001). Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs, and trade. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(3), 451‐479.

Lin, J. Y. and Monga. C. (2010). “Growth Identification and Facilitation: The Role of the State in the Dynamics of Structural Change” (May). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5313. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1611526.

Lin, J. Y. (2011). New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development. The World Bank Research Observer, 26(2), 193‐221.

Lin, J. Y. (2012a), From Flying Geese To Leading Dragons: New Opportunities and Strategies for Structural Transformation in Developing Countries. Global Policy, 3: 397–409. doi:10.1111/j.1758‐5899.2012.00172.x

Lin, J. Y. (2012b). The Quest for Prosperity: How Developing Economies Can Take Off. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

McCann, P., & Shefer, D. (2004). Location, agglomeration and infrastructure. Papers in regional science, 83(1), 177‐196.

Moïsé, E., & Sorescu, S. (2013). Trade Facilitation Indicators: The Potential Impact of Trade Facilitation on Developing Countries' Trade, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 144, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Newbery, D. (2012). Energy and infrastructure. Submission to the LSE Growth Commission. http://tinyurl. com/c8qtahl.

OECD, & WTO (2013). Aid for Trade at a Glance 2013: Connecting to Value Chains. WTO, Geneva/OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD, WTO, & World Bank Group. (2014). Global Value Chains: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications for Policy. In Report prepared for the G20 Trade Ministers Meeting Sydney, Australia (Vol. 19). http://www.oecd.org/tad/gvc_report_g20_july_2014.pdf

Radelet, S., & Sachs, J. (1998). Shipping costs, manufactured exports, and economic growth. In American Economic Association Meetings, Harvard University, mimeo.

Richaud, C., Sekkat, K., & Varoudakis, A. (1999). Infrastructure and growth spillovers: A case for a regional infrastructure policy in Africa. Manuscript, University of Brussels. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aristomene_Varoudakis/publication/2584031_In frastructure_and_Growth_Spillovers_A_Case_for_a_Regional_Infrastructure_Policy_in_ Africa/links/09e4150ec58ffdce2e000000.pdf

Röller, L. H., & Waverman, L. (2001). Telecommunications infrastructure and economic development: A simultaneous approach. American economic review, 909‐923.

Rungi, A., & Del Prete, D. (2017). The “Smile Curve”: where Value is Added along Supply Chains. EIC working paper series.

Seethepalli, K., Bramati, M. C., & Veredas, D. (2008). How relevant is infrastructure to growth in East Asia? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4597.

Straub, S., & Terada‐Hagiwara, A. (2010). Infrastructure and growth in developing Asia. Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series No. 231.

Straube, F., Handfield R., Pfohl H. C., & Wieland A. (2013). Trends und Strategien in Logistik und Supply Chain Management. Hamburg, Germany: Deutscher Verkehrs‐Verlag.

Teravaninthorn, S., & Raballand, G. (2009). Transport Prices and Costs in Africa: A Review of the International Corridors. Directions in Development; Infrastructure. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Wan, G., & Zhang, Y. (2017). The Direct and Indirect Effects of Infrastructure on Firm Productivity: Evidence from Manufacturing in the People's Republic of China. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 714. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.

Weinberger, K., & Lumpkin, T. A. (2007). Diversification into horticulture and poverty reduction: a research agenda. World Development, 35(8), 1464‐1480.

Wheeler, D., & Mody, A. (1992). International investment location decisions: The case of US firms. Journal of international economics, 33(1‐2), 57‐76.

World Bank. (2012a). Transformation through infrastructure. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2012b). De‐fragmenting Africa: Deepening Regional Trade Integration in Goods and Services. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2017). Africa's pulse. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

World Bank, WTO, OECD, IDE‐JETRO, & UIBE. (2017). Global Value Chain Development Report 2017: Measuring and Analyzing the Impact of GVCs on Economic Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Economic Forum (WEF). (2013). Enabling Trade: Valuing growth opportunities. World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum (WEF). (2014). The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015. World Economic Forum.

WTO, & IDE‐JETRO. (2011). Trade patterns and global value chains in East Asia: from trade in goods to trade in tasks. World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 132.

Wylie, P. J. (1996). Infrastructure and Canadian economic growth 1946‐1991. The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique, 29, S350‐S355.

Yi, K. M. (2003). Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade?. Journal of political Economy, 111(1), 52‐102.

Yu, H. (2017). Infrastructure connectivity and regional economic integration in East Asia: Progress and challenges. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 1(1), 44‐63.

Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Papers (Since July 2014)

This series is co‐published with the World Bank Policy Research Working Papers (DECOS). It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and contribute to development policy discussions around the world.

For the latest paper, visit our GP’s intranet at http://POVERTY.

1 Estimating poverty in the absence of consumption data: the case of Liberia Dabalen, A. L., Graham, E., Himelein, K., Mungai, R., September 2014

2 Female labor participation in the Arab world: some evidence from panel data in Morocco Barry, A. G., Guennouni, J., Verme, P., September 2014

3 Should income inequality be reduced and who should benefit? redistributive preferences in Europe and Central Asia Cojocaru, A., Diagne, M. F., November 2014

4 Rent imputation for welfare measurement: a review of methodologies and empirical findings Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Ceriani, L., Olivieri, S., Ranzani, M., November 2014

5 Can agricultural households farm their way out of poverty? Oseni, G., McGee, K., Dabalen, A., November 2014

6 Durable goods and poverty measurement Amendola, N., Vecchi, G., November 2014

7 Inequality stagnation in Latin America in the aftermath of the global financial crisis Cord, L., Barriga Cabanillas, O., Lucchetti, L., Rodriguez‐Castelan, C., Sousa, L. D., Valderrama, D. December 2014

8 Born with a silver spoon: inequality in educational achievement across the world Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Narayan, A., Tiwari, S., January 2015

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 1

9 Long‐run effects of democracy on income inequality: evidence from repeated cross‐sections Balcazar Salazar,C. F., January 2015

10 Living on the edge: vulnerability to poverty and public transfers in Mexico Ortiz‐Juarez, E., Rodriguez‐Castelan, C., De La Fuente, A., January 2015

11 Moldova: a story of upward economic mobility Davalos, M. E., Meyer, M., January 2015

12 Broken gears: the value added of higher education on teachers' academic achievement Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Nopo, H., January 2015

13 Can we measure resilience? a proposed method and evidence from countries in the Sahel Alfani, F., Dabalen, A. L., Fisker, P., Molini, V., January 2015

14 Vulnerability to malnutrition in the West African Sahel Alfani, F., Dabalen, A. L., Fisker, P., Molini, V., January 2015

15 Economic mobility in Europe and Central Asia: exploring patterns and uncovering puzzles Cancho, C., Davalos, M. E., Demarchi, G., Meyer, M., Sanchez Paramo, C., January 2015

16 Managing risk with insurance and savings: experimental evidence for male and female farm managers in the Sahel Delavallade, C., Dizon, F., Hill, R., Petraud, J. P., el., January 2015

17 Gone with the storm: rainfall shocks and household well‐being in Guatemala Baez, J. E., Lucchetti, L., Genoni, M. E., Salazar, M., January 2015

18 Handling the weather: insurance, savings, and credit in West Africa De Nicola, F., February 2015

19 The distributional impact of fiscal policy in South Africa Inchauste Comboni, M. G., Lustig, N., Maboshe, M., Purfield, C., Woolard, I., March 2015

20 Interviewer effects in subjective survey questions: evidence from Timor‐Leste Himelein, K., March 2015

21 No condition is permanent: middle class in Nigeria in the last decade Corral Rodas, P. A., Molini, V., Oseni, G. O., March 2015

22 An evaluation of the 2014 subsidy reforms in Morocco and a simulation of further reforms Verme, P., El Massnaoui, K., March 2015

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 2

23 The quest for subsidy reforms in Libya Araar, A., Choueiri, N., Verme, P., March 2015

24 The (non‐) effect of violence on education: evidence from the "war on drugs" in Mexico Márquez‐Padilla, F., Pérez‐Arce, F., Rodriguez Castelan, C., April 2015

25 “Missing girls” in the south Caucasus countries: trends, possible causes, and policy options Das Gupta, M., April 2015

26 Measuring inequality from top to bottom Diaz Bazan, T. V., April 2015

27 Are we confusing poverty with preferences? Van Den Boom, B., Halsema, A., Molini, V., April 2015

28 Socioeconomic impact of the crisis in north Mali on displaced people (Available in French) Etang Ndip, A., Hoogeveen, J. G., Lendorfer, J., June 2015

29 Data deprivation: another deprivation to end Serajuddin, U., Uematsu, H., Wieser, C., Yoshida, N., Dabalen, A., April 2015

30 The local socioeconomic effects of gold mining: evidence from Ghana Chuhan-Pole, P., Dabalen, A., Kotsadam, A., Sanoh, A., Tolonen, A.K., April 2015

31 Inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity in Tanzania Belghith, N. B. H., Zeufack, A. G., May 2015

32 How unfair is the inequality of wage earnings in Russia? estimates from panel data Tiwari, S., Lara Ibarra, G., Narayan, A., June 2015

33 Fertility transition in Turkey—who is most at risk of deciding against child arrival? Greulich, A., Dasre, A., Inan, C., June 2015

34 The socioeconomic impacts of energy reform in Tunisia: a simulation approach Cuesta Leiva, J. A., El Lahga, A., Lara Ibarra, G., June 2015

35 Energy subsidies reform in Jordan: welfare implications of different scenarios Atamanov, A., Jellema, J. R., Serajuddin, U., June 2015

36 How costly are labor gender gaps? estimates for the Balkans and Turkey Cuberes, D., Teignier, M., June 2015

37 Subjective well‐being across the lifespan in Europe and Central Asia Bauer, J. M., Munoz Boudet, A. M., Levin, V., Nie, P., Sousa‐Poza, A., July 2015

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 3

38 Lower bounds on inequality of opportunity and measurement error Balcazar Salazar, C. F., July 2015

39 A decade of declining earnings inequality in the Russian Federation Posadas, J., Calvo, P. A., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., August 2015

40 Gender gap in pay in the Russian Federation: twenty years later, still a concern Atencio, A., Posadas, J., August 2015

41 Job opportunities along the rural‐urban gradation and female labor force participation in India Chatterjee, U., Rama, M. G., Murgai, R., September 2015

42 Multidimensional poverty in Ethiopia: changes in overlapping deprivations Yigezu, B., Ambel, A. A., Mehta, P. A., September 2015

43 Are public libraries improving quality of education? when the provision of public goods is not enough Rodriguez Lesmes, P. A., Valderrama Gonzalez, D., Trujillo, J. D., September 2015

44 Understanding poverty reduction in Sri Lanka: evidence from 2002 to 2012/13 Inchauste Comboni, M. G., Ceriani, L., Olivieri, S. D., October 2015

45 A global count of the extreme poor in 2012: data issues, methodology and initial results Ferreira, F.H.G., Chen, S., Dabalen, A. L., Dikhanov, Y. M., Hamadeh, N., Jolliffe, D. M., Narayan, A., Prydz, E. B., Revenga, A. L., Sangraula, P., Serajuddin, U., Yoshida, N., October 2015

46 Exploring the sources of downward bias in measuring inequality of opportunity Lara Ibarra, G., Martinez Cruz, A. L., October 2015

47 Women’s police stations and domestic violence: evidence from Brazil Perova, E., Reynolds, S., November 2015

48 From demographic dividend to demographic burden? regional trends of population aging in Russia Matytsin, M., Moorty, L. M., Richter, K., November 2015

49 Hub‐periphery development pattern and inclusive growth: case study of Guangdong province Luo, X., Zhu, N., December 2015

50 Unpacking the MPI: a decomposition approach of changes in multidimensional poverty headcounts Rodriguez Castelan, C., Trujillo, J. D., Pérez Pérez, J. E., Valderrama, D., December 2015

51 The poverty effects of market concentration Rodriguez Castelan, C., December 2015

52 Can a small social pension promote labor force participation? evidence from the Colombia Mayor program Pfutze, T., Rodriguez Castelan, C., December 2015

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 4

53 Why so gloomy? perceptions of economic mobility in Europe and Central Asia Davalos, M. E., Cancho, C. A., Sanchez, C., December 2015

54 Tenure security premium in informal housing markets: a spatial hedonic analysis Nakamura, S., December 2015

55 Earnings premiums and penalties for self‐employment and informal employees around the world Newhouse, D. L., Mossaad, N., Gindling, T. H., January 2016

56 How equitable is access to finance in turkey? evidence from the latest global FINDEX Yang, J., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Inan, O. K., January 2016

57 What are the impacts of Syrian refugees on host community welfare in Turkey? a subnational poverty analysis Yang, J., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Inan, O. K., January 2016

58 Declining wages for college‐educated workers in Mexico: are younger or older cohorts hurt the most? Lustig, N., Campos‐Vazquez, R. M., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., January 2016

59 Sifting through the Data: labor markets in Haiti through a turbulent decade (2001‐2012) Rodella, A.‐S., Scot, T., February 2016

60 Drought and retribution: evidence from a large‐scale rainfall‐indexed insurance program in Mexico Fuchs Tarlovsky, Alan., Wolff, H., February 2016

61 Prices and welfare Verme, P., Araar, A., February 2016

62 Losing the gains of the past: the welfare and distributional impacts of the twin crises in Iraq 2014 Olivieri, S. D., Krishnan, N., February 2016

63 Growth, urbanization, and poverty reduction in India Ravallion, M., Murgai, R., Datt, G., February 2016

64 Why did poverty decline in India? a nonparametric decomposition exercise Murgai, R., Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Narayan, A., Desai, S., March 2016

65 Robustness of shared prosperity estimates: how different methodological choices matter Uematsu, H., Atamanov, A., Dewina, R., Nguyen, M. C., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Wieser, C., Yoshida, N., March 2016

66 Is random forest a superior methodology for predicting poverty? an empirical assessment Stender, N., Pave Sohnesen, T., March 2016

67 When do gender wage differences emerge? a study of Azerbaijan's labor market Tiongson, E. H. R., Pastore, F., Sattar, S., March 2016

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 5

68 Second‐stage sampling for conflict areas: methods and implications Eckman, S., Murray, S., Himelein, K., Bauer, J., March 2016

69 Measuring poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean: methodological considerations when estimating an empirical regional poverty line Gasparini, L. C., April 2016

70 Looking back on two decades of poverty and well‐being in India Murgai, R., Narayan, A., April 2016

71 Is living in African cities expensive? Yamanaka, M., Dikhanov, Y. M., Rissanen, M. O., Harati, R., Nakamura, S., Lall, S. V., Hamadeh, N., Vigil Oliver, W., April 2016

72 Ageing and family solidarity in Europe: patterns and driving factors of intergenerational support Albertini, M., Sinha, N., May 2016

73 Crime and persistent punishment: a long‐run perspective on the links between violence and chronic poverty in Mexico Rodriguez Castelan, C., Martinez‐Cruz, A. L., Lucchetti, L. R., Valderrama Gonzalez, D., Castaneda Aguilar, R. A., Garriga, S., June 2016

74 Should I stay or should I go? internal migration and household welfare in Ghana Molini, V., Pavelesku, D., Ranzani, M., July 2016

75 Subsidy reforms in the Middle East and North Africa Region: a review Verme, P., July 2016

76 A comparative analysis of subsidy reforms in the Middle East and North Africa Region Verme, P., Araar, A., July 2016

77 All that glitters is not gold: polarization amid poverty reduction in Ghana Clementi, F., Molini, V., Schettino, F., July 2016

78 Vulnerability to Poverty in rural Malawi Mccarthy, N., Brubaker, J., De La Fuente, A., July 2016

79 The distributional impact of taxes and transfers in Poland Goraus Tanska, K. M., Inchauste Comboni, M. G., August 2016

80 Estimating poverty rates in target populations: an assessment of the simple poverty scorecard and alternative approaches Vinha, K., Rebolledo Dellepiane, M. A., Skoufias, E., Diamond, A., Gill, M., Xu, Y., August 2016

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 6

81 Synergies in child nutrition: interactions of food security, health and environment, and child care Skoufias, E., August 2016

82 Understanding the dynamics of labor income inequality in Latin America Rodriguez Castelan, C., Lustig, N., Valderrama, D., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., August 2016

83 Mobility and pathways to the middle class in Nepal Tiwari, S., Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Shidiq, A. R., September 2016

84 Constructing robust poverty trends in the Islamic Republic of Iran: 2008‐14 Salehi Isfahani, D., Atamanov, A., Mostafavi, M.‐H., Vishwanath, T., September 2016

85 Who are the poor in the developing world? Newhouse, D. L., Uematsu, H., Doan, D. T. T., Nguyen, M. C., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Castaneda Aguilar, R. A., October 2016

86 New estimates of extreme poverty for children Newhouse, D. L., Suarez Becerra, P., Evans, M. C., October 2016

87 Shedding light: understanding energy efficiency and electricity reliability Carranza, E., Meeks, R., November 2016

88 Heterogeneous returns to income diversification: evidence from Nigeria Siwatu, G. O., Corral Rodas, P. A., Bertoni, E., Molini, V., November 2016

89 How liberal is Nepal's liberal grade promotion policy? Sharma, D., November 2016

90 Pro-growth equity: a policy framework for the twin goals Lopez-Calva, L. F., Rodriguez Castelan, C., November 2016

91 CPI bias and its implications for poverty reduction in Africa Dabalen, A. L., Gaddis, I., Nguyen, N. T. V., December 2016

92 Building an ex ante simulation model for estimating the capacity impact, benefit incidence, and cost effectiveness of child care subsidies: an application using provider‐level data from Turkey Aran, M. A., Munoz Boudet, A., Aktakke, N., December 2016

93 Vulnerability to drought and food price shocks: evidence from Ethiopia Porter, C., Hill, R., December 2016

94 Job quality and poverty in Latin America Rodriguez Castelan, C., Mann, C. R., Brummund, P., December 2016

95 With a little help: shocks, agricultural income, and welfare in Uganda Mejia‐Mantilla, C., Hill, R., January 2017

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 7

96 The impact of fiscal policy on inequality and poverty in Chile Martinez Aguilar, S. N., Fuchs Tarlovsky, A., Ortiz‐Juarez, E., Del Carmen Hasbun, G. E., January 2017

97 Conditionality as targeting? participation and distributional effects of conditional cash transfers Rodriguez Castelan, C., January 2017

98 How is the slowdown affecting households in Latin America and the Caribbean? Reyes, G. J., Calvo‐Gonzalez, O., Sousa, L. D. C., Castaneda Aguilar, R. A., Farfan Bertran, M. G., January 2017

99 Are tobacco taxes really regressive? evidence from Chile Fuchs Tarlovsky, A., Meneses, F. J., March 2017

100 Design of a multi‐stage stratified sample for poverty and welfare monitoring with multiple objectives: a Bangladesh case study Yanez Pagans, M., Roy, D., Yoshida, N., Ahmed, F., March 2017

101 For India's rural poor, growing towns matter more than growing cities Murgai, R., Ravallion, M., Datt, G., Gibson, J., March 2017

102 Leaving, staying, or coming back? migration decisions during the northern Mali conflict Hoogeveen, J. G., Sansone, D., Rossi, M., March 2017

103 Arithmetics and Politics of Domestic Resource Mobilization Bolch, K. B., Ceriani, L., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., April 2017

104 Can Public Works Programs Reduce Youth Crime? Evidence from Papua New Guinea’s Urban Youth Employment Project Oleksiy I., Darian N., David N., Sonya S., April 2017

105 Is Poverty in Africa Mostly Chronic or Transient? Evidence from Synthetic Panel Data Dang, H.‐A. H., Dabalen, A. L., April 2017

106 To Sew or Not to Sew? Assessing the Welfare Effects of the Garment Industry in Cambodia Mejía‐Mantilla, C., Woldemichael, M. T., May 2017

107 Perceptions of distributive justice in Latin America during a period of falling inequality Reyes, G. J., Gasparini, L. C., May 2017

108 How do women fare in rural non‐farm economy? Fuje, H. N., May 2017

109 Rural Non‐Farm Employment and Household Welfare: Evidence from Malawi Adjognon, G. S., Liverpool‐Tasie, S. L., De La Fuente, A., Benfica, R. M., May 2017

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 8

110 Multidimensional Poverty in the Philippines, 2004‐13: Do Choices for Weighting, Identification and Aggregation Matter? Datt, G., June 2017

111 But … what is the poverty rate today? testing poverty nowcasting methods in Latin America and the Caribbean Caruso, G. D., Lucchetti, L. R., Malasquez, E., Scot, T., Castaneda, R. A., June 2017

112 Estimating the Welfare Costs of Reforming the Iraq Public Distribution System: A Mixed Demand Approach Krishnan, N., Olivieri, S., Ramadan, R., June 2017

113 Beyond Income Poverty: Nonmonetary Dimensions of Poverty in Uganda Etang Ndip, A., Tsimpo, C., June 2017

114 Education and Health Services in Uganda: Quality of Inputs, User Satisfaction, and Community Welfare Levels Tsimpo Nkengne, C., Etang Ndip, A., Wodon, Q. T., June 2017

115 Rental Regulation and Its Consequences on Measures of Well‐Being in the Arab Republic of Egypt Lara Ibarra, G., Mendiratta, V., Vishwanath, T., July 2017

116 The Poverty Implications of Alternative Tax Reforms: Results from a Numerical Application to Pakistan Feltenstein, A., Mejia‐Mantilla, C., Newhouse, D. L., Sedrakyan, G., August 2017

117 Tracing Back the Weather Origins of Human Welfare: Evidence from Mozambique? Baez Ramirez, J. E., Caruso, G. D., Niu, C., August 2017

118 Many Faces of Deprivation: A multidimensional approach to poverty in Armenia Martirosova, D., Inan, O. K., Meyer, M., Sinha, N., August 2017

119 Natural Disaster Damage Indices Based on Remotely Sensed Data: An Application to Indonesia Skoufias, E., Strobl, E., Tveit, T. B., September 2017

120 The Distributional Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Croatia Inchauste Comboni, M. G., Rubil, I., October 2017

121 Regressive or Progressive? The Effect of Tobacco Taxes in Ukraine Fuchs, A., Meneses, F. September 2017

122 Fiscal Incidence in Belarus: A Commitment to Equity Analysis Bornukova, K., Shymanovich, G., Chubrik, A., October 2017

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 9

123 Who escaped poverty and who was left behind? a non‐parametric approach to explore welfare dynamics using cross‐sections Lucchetti, L. R., October 2017

124 Learning the impact of financial education when take-up is low Lara Ibarra, G., Mckenzie, D. J., Ruiz Ortega, C., November 2017

125 Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Geographic Targeting of World Bank Projects to the Bottom 40 Percent Öhler, H., Negre, M., Smets, L., Massari, R., Bogetić, Z., November 2017

126 The impact of fiscal policy on inequality and poverty in Zambia De La Fuente, A., Rosales, M., Jellema, J. R., November 2017

127 The Whys of Social Exclusion: Insights from Behavioral Economics Hoff, K., Walsh, J. S., December 2017

128 Mission and the bottom line: performance incentives in a multi-goal organization Gine, X., Mansuri, G., Shrestha, S. A., December 2017

129 Mobile Infrastructure and Rural Business Enterprises Evidence from Sim Registration Mandate in Niger Annan, F., Sanoh, A., December 2017

130 Poverty from Space: Using High-Resolution Satellite Imagery for estimating Economic Well-Being Engstrom, R., Hersh, J., Newhouse, D., December 2017

131 Winners Never Quit, Quitters Never Grow: Using Text Mining to measure Policy Volatility and its Link with Long-Term Growth in Latin America Calvo-Gonzalez, O., Eizmendi, A., Reyes, G., January 2018

132 The Changing Way Governments talk about Poverty and Inequality: Evidence from two Centuries of Latin American Presidential Speeches Calvo-Gonzalez, O., Eizmendi, A., Reyes, G., January 2018

133 Tobacco Price Elasticity and Tax Progressivity In Moldova Fuchs, A., Meneses, F., February 2018

134 Informal Sector Heterogeneity and Income Inequality: Evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo Adoho, F., Doumbia, D., February 2018

135 South Caucasus in Motion: Economic and Social Mobility in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia Tiwari, S., Cancho, C., Meyer, M., February 2018

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 10

136 Human Capital Outflows: Selection into Migration from the Northern Triangle Del Carmen, G., Sousa, L., February 2018

137 Urban Transport Infrastructure and Household Welfare: Evidence from Colombia Pfutze, T., Rodriguez-Castelan, C., Valderrama-Gonzalez, D., February 2018

138 Hit and Run? Income Shocks and School Dropouts in Latin America Cerutti, P., Crivellaro, E., Reyes, G., Sousa, L., February 2018

139 Decentralization and Redistribution Irrigation Reform in Pakistan’s Indus Basin Jacoby, H.G., Mansuri, G., Fatima, F., February 2018

140 Governing the Commons? Water and Power in Pakistan’s Indus Basin Jacoby, H.G., Mansuri, G., February 2018

141 The State of Jobs in Post-Conflict Areas of Sri Lanka Newhouse, D., Silwal, A. R., February 2018

142 “If it’s already tough, imagine for me…” A Qualitative Perspective on Youth Out of School and Out of Work in Brazil Machado, A.L., Muller, M., March 2018

143 The reallocation of district-level spending and natural disasters: evidence from Indonesia Skoufias, E., Strobl, E., Tveit, T. B., March 2018

144 Gender Differences in Poverty and Household Composition through the Life-cycle A Global Perspective Munoz, A. M., Buitrago, P., Leroy de la Briere, B., Newhouse, D., Rubiano, E., Scott, K., Suarez-Becerra, P., March 2018

145 Analysis of the Mismatch between Tanzania Household Budget Survey and National Panel Survey Data in Poverty & Inequality Levels and Trends Fuchs, A., Del Carmen, G., Kechia Mukong, A., March 2018

146 Long-Run Impacts of Increasing Tobacco Taxes: Evidence from South Africa Hassine Belghith, N.B., Lopera, M. A., Etang Ndip, A., Karamba, W., March 2018

147 The Distributional Impact of the Fiscal System in Albania Davalos, M., Robayo-Abril, M., Shehaj, E., Gjika, A., March 2018

148 Analysis Growth, Safety Nets and Poverty: Assessing Progress in Ethiopia from 1996 to 2011 Vargas Hill, R., Tsehaye, E., March 2018

149 The Economics of the Gender Wage Gap in Armenia Rodriguez-Chamussy, L., Sinha, N., Atencio, A., April 2018

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 11

150 Do Demographics Matter for African Child Poverty? Batana, Y., Cockburn, J., May 2018

151 Household Expenditure and Poverty Measures in 60 Minutes: A New Approach with Results from Mogadishu Pape, U., Mistiaen, J., May 2018

152 Inequality of Opportunity in South Caucasus Fuchs, A., Tiwari, S., Rizal Shidiq, A., May 2018

153 Welfare Dynamics in Colombia: Results from Synthetic Panels Balcazar, C.F., Dang, H-A., Malasquez, E., Olivieri, S., Pico, J., May 2018

154 Social Protection in Niger: What Have Shocks and Time Got to Say? Annan, F., Sanoh, A., May 2018

155 Quantifying the impacts of capturing territory from the government in the Republic of Yemen Tandon, S., May 2018

156 The Road to Recovery: The Role of Poverty in the Exposure, Vulnerability and Resilience to Floods in Accra Erman, A., Motte, E., Goyal, R., Asare, A., Takamatsu, S., Chen, X., Malgioglio, S., Skinner, A., Yoshida, N., Hallegatte, S., June 2018

157 Small Area Estimation of Poverty under Structural Change Lange, S., Pape, U., Pütz, P., June 2018

158 The Devil Is in the Details; Growth, Polarization, and Poverty Reduction in Africa in the Past Two Decades F. Clementi F., Fabiani, M., Molini, V., June 2018

159 Impact of Conflict on Adolescent Girls in South Sudan Pape, U., Phipps, V., July 2018

160 Urbanization in Kazakhstan; Desirable Cities, Unaffordable Housing, and the Missing Rental Market Seitz, W., July 2018

161 SInequality in Earnings and Adverse Shocks in Early Adulthood Tien, B., Adoho, F., August 2018

162 Eliciting Accurate Responses to Consumption Questions among IDPs in South Sudan Using “Honesty Primes” Kaplan, L., Pale, U., Walsh, J., Auguste 2018

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 12

163 What Can We (Machine) Learn about Welfare Dynamics from Cross-Sectional Data? Lucchetti, L., August 2018

164 Infrastructure, Value Chains, and Economic Upgrades Luo, X., Xu, X., August 2018

165 The Distributional Effects of Tobacco Taxation; The Evidence of White and Clove Cigarettes in Indonesia Fuchs, A., Del Carmen, G., August 2018

For the latest and sortable directory, available on the Poverty & Equity GP intranet site. http://POVERTY

WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/POVERTY

Updated on August 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 13