Productivity Performance in Developing Countries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OCCASION This publication has been made available to the public on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. DISCLAIMER This document has been produced without formal United Nations editing. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or its economic system or degree of development. Designations such as “developed”, “industrialized” and “developing” are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgment about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process. Mention of firm names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement by UNIDO. FAIR USE POLICY Any part of this publication may be quoted and referenced for educational and research purposes without additional permission from UNIDO. However, those who make use of quoting and referencing this publication are requested to follow the Fair Use Policy of giving due credit to UNIDO. CONTACT Please contact [email protected] for further information concerning UNIDO publications. For more information about UNIDO, please visit us at www.unido.org UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION Vienna International Centre, P.O. Box 300, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel: (+43-1) 26026-0 · www.unido.org · [email protected] Argentina PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Country case studies Argentina Daniel Chudnovsky and Andrés López November 2005 i Productivity peformance This paper has not been formally edited. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The opinions, figures and estimates set forth are the responsibility of the author and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the views or carrying endorsement of UNIDO. The designations “developed” and “developing” economies are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgment about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process. Mention of firm names or commercial products does not imply endorsement by UNIDO. Material in this paper may be freely quoted but acknowledgement is requested with a copy of the publication containing the quotation or reprint. ii Argentina Contents Page Contents iii List of tables iv List of figures v Executive summary vii I Productivity performance in Argentina: Introduction 1 1.1 Overview and context 1 1.2 Objective of study 2 1.3 Methodology 2 1.4 Organization of report 2 II Growth of the economy and productivity trends 5 2.1 Record of GDP growth 5 2.2 Productivity Evolution, 1962-2000 14 III Assessment of the major determinants of productivity 21 3.1 The macroeconomic and political evolution 21 3.2 Investment and knowledge as major determinants of productivity 25 growth in the manufacturing sector 3.3 Institutional and policy weaknesses 32 3.4 Technological modernization in the agricultural sector 34 IV Determinants of productivity from 1975 - 2000 39 4.1 The productivity record in the long recession, 1975 -1990 39 4.2 Determinants of high productivity growth 1991-2000 45 V Concluding remarks 91 Bibliography 103 iii Productivity peformance List of tables Page 2.1 Employment by sectoral distribution, 1895-2001 7 2.2 Argentina’s labor productivity – GDP per hour worked as a percentage of 7 labour productivity I other countries 2.3 Argentina’s GDP per capita, 1962-2002 8 2.4 Trends of perceived corruption 12 2.5 Productivity and GDP growth, 1962-2000, annual percentage rate 16 2.6 Average growth rates of physical volume of production, number of workers 18 and labour productivity, 1962-2000 2.7 Changes in the relative growth of different industrial sectors, 1970-1996 20 2.8 Argentina industrial labor productivity relative to the US levels, 1976-2000 20 3.1 Legal tariffs rates, 1959-1997, percentage 21 3.2 Indicators of social political protest, 1956-1972 24 4.1 Argentine exports, 1980-2000 43 4.2 Estimates of the effective tariff protection levels 1991 and 1997 53 4.3 Average S&T expenditures and R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP 67 4.4 Performance and innovative activities, 718 firms, 1992-2001 77 4.5 Performance of innovators vs. non-innovators, 1992-2001 78 4.6 Performance of domestic vs foreign firms 1992-2001 78 4.7 Net schooling rates 1980-1997 85 4.8 First level university graduates, 1990&1999 88 4.9 Shares of employment by education groups, 1980-1998 90 4.10 Hourly wages groups, greater Buenos Aires, 1980-1998 90 iv Argentina List of graphs Page 2.1 Argentine’s foreign trade as a percentage of domestic tradable production, 6 1891-1999, 1993 constant prices 2.2 Evolution of Argentine’s GDP per capita as % of the average GDP per capita 7 of USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand 2.3 Per capita GDP, 1990 international Geary Khamis dollars, 1961-2000 9 2.4 Inflationary tax on the monetary base and real exchange rate index ARG- 11 USA, 1958-2002 2.5 Urban Unemployment rates 1969-1989, % 14 2.6 TFP growth, 1961-2000, index numbers 1961=100 15 2.7 Sources of growth, 1961-2000, index numbers, 1961=100 16 2.8 Manufacturing Industry: Labour productivity by worker, 1961-2000, index 17 number 1961=100 2.9 Physical volume of production and workers, 1961-2000, index number 19 1997=100 3.1 Agricultural production and agricultural yields, Argentina thousands of tons 36 and Kg/ha, 1900-2000 3.2 Argentina’s agricultural yields as a % of US yields, 1990-2000 37 v Productivity peformance vi Argentina Executive summary Background and context In a country that has exhibited high political instability, extreme economic volatility and persistent institutional fragility it is hardly surprising to encounter a poor long-term economic performance. This was, in fact, the outcome in the period of over 40 years reviewed in this report. There were, however, two “growth spurts” with relatively good productivity during this period, the first between 1964 and 1974 and the second from 1991 to 1998. What determined productivity development during those growth spurts and why they failed to give place to a sustainable pattern of productivity growth are the key questions addressed in this report. The information available on the evolution of total-factor productivity (TFP) at the aggregate level for the period 1962-2000 is usually broken down into three periods. During the first period (1962-74), TFP growth averaged 0.5 per cent per year. In the following period (1975-90), the Argentine economy suffered one of the great depressions of the twentieth century and TFP registered negative growth. The last period covers the 1990s (until 1998), when growth was resumed and TFP grew at 2.9 per cent per year (see Table 2.1). Investment and knowledge as major determinants of productivity growth during the first spurt The first growth spurt took place against a background of persistent inflation and a recurrent balance of payments and political crisis. In this unfavorable climate, the manufacturing industry led economic growth, favored by protectionism and industrial promotion as key government policies. While the economy was virtually closed to imports of domestically produced final and intermediate goods, it was open to foreign direct investment and technology inflows and duty-free capital goods imports were allowed under industrial promotion schemes. The entrepreneurial response to this incentives regime led to a substantial growth in fixed investments – mainly undertaken by TNCs. This naturally led to a remarkable increase in industrial production capacity. Pari passu, a technological learning process took place at enterprise level and a local technological capability gradually accumulated in the manufacturing sector. This allowed both significant labor productivity gains – with rising industrial employment - and increased industrial exports. These trends were also favored by the tempering of the anti-export bias in the prevailing trade policy. At the same time, the export-oriented agricultural sector had left behind almost two decades of stagnation and was again expanding at a rapid pace. In this scenario, it seemed possible that, by the end of the ISI period, the stop-and-go cycles that had periodically affected the Argentine economy could finally be at an end, following an expansion in export capacity. vii Productivity peformance However, some of the main structural problems of the ISI period were far from being resolved, including excessive levels of vertical integration, diseconomies of scale and deficient quality standards in most of the manufacturing sector. In this economic scenario, it is hardly surprising to find that there was largely extensive GDP growth in the period 1962-74 based on factor accumulation, while TPF growth was relatively low. Public policies in place during this period did little to address these issues. Protectionism cum technology imports formed the basis of the “developmentalist” project, which aimed at “completing” the Argentine industrial structure by promoting investments in heavy goods and capital-intensive sectors. Efficiency, quality, export or domestic technological development were, at best, secondary objectives, and only in the late 1960s were some of those issues addressed for the first time by public policies, albeit in an increasingly unstable political environment. Institutional fragility also impaired the impact of public policies on problems such as access to finance, given the frequent changes both in the public authorities and in policy orientations.