Import substitution and economic growth

ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Monetary Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jme

Import substitution and economic growth$ Mauro Rodrigues  Department of Economics, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto 908, Sao Paulo, SP, 05508-900, Brazil

a r t i c l e in fo

abstract

Article history: Received 11 July 2007 Received in revised form 22 December 2009 Accepted 23 December 2009 Available online 4 January 2010

Despite Latin America’s dismal performance between the 1950s and 1980s, the region experienced strong capital deepening. We suggest that these facts can be explained as a consequence of the restrictive trade regime adopted at that time. Our framework is based on a dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin model, with scale economies in the capitalintensive sector. Initially, the economy is open and produces only the labor-intensive good. The trade regime is modeled as a move to a closed economy. The model produces results consistent with the Latin American experience. Specifically, a sufficiently small country experiences no long-run income growth, but an increase in capital. & 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

JEL classification: O41 F12 F43 E65 Keywords: Trade policy Growth Latin America

1. Introduction Between the 1950s and 1980s, Latin American countries pursued import substitution (IS) as a development strategy. A set of policies was implemented with the objective of developing an internal manufacturing sector. A crucial element of the IS strategy was to grant high levels of protection to domestic producers, largely closing these economies to international trade. Despite these efforts, most countries in the region were unable to gain any significant ground relative to the industrial leaders. In 1950, Latin America’s GDP per capita was 27% of that of the U.S.; in 1980, this number was 29%. Fig. 1 displays this pattern: relative income remained roughly stable throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, before collapsing in the 1980s. While other countries or regions also failed to develop during this period, a key distinctive feature of the Latin American case is that low growth went along with strong capital deepening. Table 1, based on Hopenhayn and Neumeyer (2004), illustrates this point. Although Latin America’s growth rate in output per capita was similar to that of the U.S. between 1960 and 1985, capital-output ratio increased at a rate comparable to the fast-growing countries of East Asia. Furthermore, productivity—measured as total factor productivity (TFP)—grew at a slow rate especially relative to the U.S. In other words, Latin America fell behind the world technological frontier—represented here by the U.S.—during this period.1

$ The author is specially indebted to Hal Cole, Matthias Doepke and Lee Ohanian for their help and encouragement. He also thanks Andy Atkeson, Roger Farmer, Carlos Eduardo Goncalves, Bernardo Guimaraes, Miguel Robles, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal and an anonymous referee for valuable suggestions and comments. Financial support from Capes (Brazilian Ministry of Education) and Fundacao Instituto de Pesquisas Economicas (Fipe) is gratefully acknowledged.  Tel.: + 55 11 3091 6069; fax: +55 11 3091 6013. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 1 This pattern was also identified by Syrquin (1986). Moreover, Cole et al. (2005) show that Latin America’s capital-output ratio has approached that of the U.S. since the 1950s, even though there has been no catch up in terms of income per capita.

0304-3932/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jmoneco.2009.12.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS 176

M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

Fraction of U.S. GDP per capita

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05

19 5 19 0 5 19 2 5 19 4 5 19 6 5 19 8 6 19 0 6 19 2 6 19 4 6 19 6 6 19 8 7 19 0 7 19 2 7 19 4 7 19 6 7 19 8 8 19 0 8 19 2 8 19 4 8 19 6 8 19 8 9 19 0 9 19 2 9 19 4 96 19 9 20 8 00

0.00

Year Fig. 1. GDP per capita relative to U.S. Data from Maddison (2003). GDP per capita is PPP adjusted. Latin American GDP per capita is a population-weighted average of data from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rates (1960–1985).

Latin America East Asia Developed World U.S.

Y=L %

K=Y %

TFP %

1.33 4.74 2.40 2.24 1.30

1.39 1.63 0.61 1.08 0.56

0.51 2.83 1.50 1.24 0.74

Based on Hopenhayn and Neumeyer (2004). Y=L ¼ output per capita; K=Y ¼ physical capital-output ratio; TFP ¼ total factor productivity. TFP is calculated using a production function of the type Y ¼ AK a L1a , with a ¼ 0:3.

This paper suggests that a single explanation, namely the adoption of import substitution policies, can account for the unique combination of low productivity with strong capital deepening which characterized Latin America in that period. We argue that the sectors targeted by these policies were subject to economies of scale. Given the small size of the average Latin American country, these industries were unable to develop once restrictions to international trade were imposed. As a result, the region stagnated. The analytical framework presented here is based on a dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin model with two factors, capital and labor, and two sectors, a labor-intensive sector and a capital-intensive sector. Production of the capital-intensive good is subject to economies of scale. A country is assumed to be initially at an open-economy steady state in which it is fully specialized in the production of the labor-intensive good. IS is modeled as an unanticipated move to a situation where there is no trade in goods. The model is qualitatively consistent with important features of the Latin American experience. Specifically, for a sufficiently small country, IS will lead to no long-run growth in output per capita. Capital per capita will, however, increase and, as a result, measured TFP will fall. This result follows because factor price equalization holds in the model. That is, the return on capital depends on the world capital stock, but not on the distribution of capital across countries. This implies that an open economy may display a relatively low capital stock in steady state. Closing the economy raises temporarily the return on capital, which leads to capital deepening in the long run. Nevertheless, if the economy is sufficiently small, output per capita will not take off due to the lack of scale. Quantitatively, the model is able to approximate some key facts of the Latin American development experience. Specifically, it implies that the average Latin American country exhibits high rates of capital deepening, but growth rates in output per capita that are similar to those of the U.S. Consequently, the model can produce low TFP growth rates as in the data. An important implication of this theory, which emphasizes scale effects, is that larger countries should do relatively better than smaller countries after adopting IS policies. Such prediction is in line with the experience of Brazil and Mexico, the largest economies in the region. Between 1950 and 1980, Brazil increased from 17% to 28% of the U.S. GDP per capita,

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

177

Fraction of U.S. GDP per capita

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

Latin America Brazil Mexico

19 5 19 0 5 19 2 5 19 4 5 19 6 5 19 8 6 19 0 6 19 2 6 19 4 6 19 6 6 19 8 7 19 0 7 19 2 7 19 4 7 19 6 7 19 8 8 19 0 8 19 2 8 19 4 8 19 6 8 19 8 9 19 0 9 19 2 9 19 4 9 19 6 9 20 8 00

0.15 Year Fig. 2. GDP per capita relative to U.S. Data from Maddison (2003). GDP per capita is PPP adjusted. See Fig. 1 legend for details on the Latin American average.

while Mexico increased from 25% to 34%. Fig. 2 shows that these countries significantly outperformed the average Latin American country during the IS years. This implication is also compatible with empirical evidence from Ades and Gleaser (1999) and Alesina et al. (2000), which have shown that, among countries that are relatively closed to trade, larger economies tend to grow faster and have higher per capita incomes. But when more open economies are considered, this size premium tends to disappear. Several scholars have considered Latin America’s trade regime as a possible source for its lack of development (see for instance Balassa, 1989; Lin, 1989; Edwards, 1995; Taylor, 1998; Hopenhayn and Neumeyer, 2004; Manuelli, 2005; Cole et al., 2005). Specifically, they argue that these economies have been largely closed to international trade, especially when compared with countries that successfully reduced their gap relative to the industrial leaders in a similar period. The present paper provides a dynamic general equilibrium model to explore this relationship. In addition, the study analyzes the implications of Latin America’s trade regime for capital accumulation and aggregate productivity. The emphasis on scale is motivated by contributions of economists during the IS years, which identified problems such as small-scale and inefficient production plants, especially in consumer durables and capital goods sectors. For instance, in the 1960s Scitovsky (1969) pointed out that the automobile industry required plants with an annual output of 250,000 units in order to minimize costs. Nonetheless, there were eight Latin American countries with established automobile industries, whose combined production of around 600,000 cars and trucks was generated by 90 firms.2 This study is related to the classical work of Johnson (1967), which was also motivated by the unsatisfactory results of IS policies. In the context of the static Heckscher–Ohlin model, the author has shown that, if the capital-intensive sector is protected by a tariff, an exogenous increase in the capital stock may not lead to growth in national income. This follows because capital accumulation shifts resources towards the protected sector, amplifying the inefficiency imposed by the tariff.3 The present paper generates similar results, but considers an alternative mechanism in which scale plays a crucial role. In addition, here capital accumulation occurs endogenously. The modeling strategy is closely related to dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin models, as in Baxter (1992), Ventura (1997), Atkeson and Kehoe (2000), Cunat and Maffezzoli (2004), Bajona and Kehoe (2006a, 2006b) and Ferreira and Trejos (2006). These papers typically study economies composed of two standard competitive sectors (with different factor intensities) and two factors, capital and labor, where capital is reproducible. We add to them by considering a capital-intensive sector characterized by economies of scale and imperfect competition. Specifically, the production structure is similar to Ethier (1982) and Helpman and Krugman (1985). While the laborintensive good is produced by competitive firms using a standard constant returns to scale technology, the capitalintensive sector is composed of differentiated variety producers, which behave as monopolistic competitors and operate a production function subject to a fixed cost. Economies of scale arise from the expansion of the set of varieties available.

2 3

Other references include Balassa (1971), Baer (1972) and Carnoy (1972). This argument was later formalized by Bertrand and Flatters (1971) and Martin (1977).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 178

M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

Such structure is particularly useful, since it allows for factor price equalization even in the absence of perfect competition. Furthermore, as in Grossman and Helpman (1989, 1990), Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991) and Young (1991), growth takes place here through the introduction of new goods. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the model and analyzes the steady state of a closed economy. Section 3 introduces international trade and describes the steady state of an open economy. Section 4 assesses qualitatively the long-run effects of the policy change on capital, income and consumption per capita. Section 5 extends the model to allow for long-run growth. Section 6 presents a quantitative application of the model. Section 7 concludes. 2. The model Time is discrete and indexed by the subscript t, t ¼ 0; 1; 2; . . . There is no uncertainty. There are two basic factors: capital and labor; and two sectors: a labor-intensive sector (sector 1) and a capital-intensive sector (sector 2). The laborintensive sector is competitive and subject to constant returns to scale. The capital-intensive sector generates output by combining a set differentiated varieties in a Dixit–Stiglitz fashion. Each variety is produced using capital and labor, but there is a fixed cost. Variety producers behave as monopolistic competitors. This structure gives rise to scale economies in sector 2. Goods 1 and 2 (produced, respectively, by sectors 1 and 2) are combined to generate the final good, which can be either consumed or invested. There is a measure N of identical infinitely lived households, which is interpreted as the scale of the economy. Factors are fully mobile across sectors, but immobile across countries. There is no international borrowing or lending. The remainder of this section describes the basic features of the model, along with main analytical results. Details on first-order and equilibrium conditions can be found in Appendix 1.4 2.1. Production The final good Y is produced by a competitive firm which combines the labor-intensive good (Y1 ) and the capital$ Y 1$ . The price of the final output is normalized intensive good (Y2 ) through a Cobb–Douglas production function Yt ¼ Y1t 2t to 1; p1 and p2 denote, respectively, the prices of the labor- and the capital-intensive good. The production structure of the labor-intensive sector is also standard. Competitive firms operate a Cobb–Douglas y1 1y1 L1t . technology, with capital (K1 ) and labor (L1 ) as inputs, that is, Y1t ¼ K1t The capital-intensive sector is nonetheless subject to economies of scale. Production is modeled as a two-stage process. In the first stage, a continuum of measure n monopolistic competitors use capital and labor to produce differentiated varieties. In the second stage, a competitive firm combines those varieties to assemble good 2. For this last stage, we assume a CES production function with elasticity of substitution 1=ð1gÞ, in which each variety enters symmetrically: Z nt 1=g g Y2t ¼ xit di ; 0 o g o1 0

where xi is the quantity of variety i used in the production of Y2 . The second-stage firm chooses the quantity of each available variety, taking as given the prices of these varieties and the price of good 2. The solution of this problem yields the demand for a given variety i:  1=ðg1Þ pit Y2t ð1Þ xit ¼ p2t where pi is the price of variety i. In the first stage, each variety i is produced using capital (Ki ) and labor (Li ), which are combined through a Cobb–Douglas production function. Additionally, each producer has to pay a fixed cost f in units of its y2 f , where y2 4 y1 , i.e., sector 2 is more capital intensive than sector 1. own output. In other words, xit ¼ Kity2 L1 it Variety producers behave as monopolistic competitors, that is, variety i’s producer chooses pi and xi to maximize profits, subject to its own demand function (1). The solution of this problem yields a constant mark-up over the marginal cost (c): pit ¼ pt ¼

1

g

ct ¼

1

y2 rty2 w1 t

g y2 ð1y2 Þ1y2 y2

ð2Þ

where r and w are, respectively, the rental rate of capital and the wage rate. The measure of available varieties n is determined by a free entry condition, which implies that profits are always equal to zero in the first stage, that is, pt xit ¼ ct ðxit þ f Þ. This condition, along with Eq. (2), implies that production xi is constant across time and varieties: xit ¼ x ¼

4

g 1g

f

See supplemental materials for the appendices of this paper.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

179

This means that expansion and contraction of sector 2 take place through changes in the number of varieties, but not through changes in output per variety. By symmetry, each variety uses the same quantity of inputs, i.e., Ki ¼ K2 and Li ¼ L2 for all i. 2.2. Households There is a continuum of measure N infinitely lived households. At any point in time t, each household is endowed with kt units of capital and one unit of time, which is supplied inelastically. Income can be used either for consumption or investment. For a given initial level of capital k0 , the representative household chooses sequences of consumption fct g1 t¼0 and capital stock fkt þ 1 g1 t ¼ 0 to maximize a time-separable lifetime utility, with discount factor b and instantaneous utility function uðcÞ, which is twice-differentiable, strictly increasing and strictly concave. Capital depreciates at the constant rate d. First-order conditions then yield the usual Euler equation u0 ðct Þ ¼ bu0 ðct þ 1 Þðrt þ 1 þ 1dÞ. 2.3. Market clearing The following equations represent, respectively, the equilibrium conditions for the final good, capital and labor markets: Yt ¼ N½ct þ kt þ 1 ð1dÞkt  Nkt ¼ K1t þnt K2t N ¼ L1t þ nt L2t Focus is initially given to the closed-economy equilibrium. Therefore, domestic markets for goods 1 and 2 also clear. 2.4. Closed-economy steady state In what follows, variables with no time subscript denote their respective steady-state values. The choice of functional forms allows us to reach closed-form solutions for the main variables in steady state. Appendix 2 describes how to obtain expressions for number of varieties (n), capital per capita (k), output per capita (y) and consumption per capita (c). In particular, the impact of country size on n, k, y and c depends on parameter values. Assumption 1 guarantees that those variables are all increasing in N. Assumption 1. g 4ð1$Þy2 =½1$y1 . Consider an increase in N, which leads to a higher demand for each existing variety and, everything else constant, to positive profits. Assumption 1 ensures that entry (in the form of higher n) will restore zero profits in this situation. Specifically, an increase in n has two opposite effects on profits per variety. On one hand, it leads to higher prices and revenues per variety, given that the marginal product of each existing variety is an increasing function of n.5 On the other hand, it also raises costs per variety: the expansion of the capital-intensive sector (corresponding to the increase in n) is associated with an increase in k and, as a result, with higher wages. Assumption 1 guarantees that the demand for each variety is sufficiently elastic, such that costs increase faster than revenues as entry takes place. Consequently, an increase in the number of varieties will eventually drive profits back to zero.6 This result is summarized by the following proposition. Appendix 3 contains proofs for all analytical results of the paper. Proposition 1. Given Assumption 1, steady-state per capita output, capital and consumption are increasing functions of N in a closed economy. In other words, the presence of scale economies enables larger internal markets to support a higher number of varieties in steady state. As a result, they will display higher per capita income, capital and consumption when closed. All remaining variables can also be expressed in terms of N. For the remainder of the paper, zðNÞ will denote the steady-state value of a variable z in a closed economy. 3. Open-economy equilibrium Trade is introduced in the model through a simple extension of the framework in Section 2. In particular, there are now two countries, home and foreign, with sizes N and N  , respectively, where N þN  ¼ 1. These economies share all remaining parameters. Variables with an asterisk refer to the foreign country. Economies are allowed to trade good 1 and varieties costlessly. Good 2 and the final good are then assembled internally y1 1y1 y1 1y1  ¼ K1t L1t þK1t L1t , where Y1 by each country. The world market clearing condition for good 1 is therefore Y1t þ Y1t

5 6

Rn g g1 From the production function of good 2, the marginal product of variety i is ð 0 t xit Þ1=g1 xit , which is increasing in nt . Section 5 shows that Assumption 1 is necessary to guarantee the existence of a balanced growth path when country size grows at a constant rate.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 180

M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

and Y1 now stand for the amounts of good 1 used by the home and the foreign country, respectively, while their total production is denoted by their respective production functions. A measure of n (n ) varieties is produced by the home (foreign) country, such that there are now n þ n varieties 7  available to generate good 2 in each economy. Quantities of good 2 are then Y2t ¼ ðnt þ nt Þ1=g xdt and Y2t ¼ ðnt þnt Þ1=g xd t . The

home (foreign) country utilizes xd ðxd Þ units of each of the n þ n varieties. Market clearing implies that x ¼ xdt þ xd t . The description of the open economy equilibrium is completed by the optimality conditions for each of the agents, along with market clearing conditions for factors and goods that are not traded internationally. Such equations are analogous to those of the closed-economy case, except that there are now two of each (one for each country). Nevertheless, optimality conditions for sector 1 firms and variety producers may not hold as equalities. The presence of international trade allows for the possibility of complete specialization of these economies either in the production of good 1 or in the production of varieties. Since sector 1 is competitive, it follows that: p1t r

y1 rty1 w1 t y1

y1 ð1y1 Þ1y1

with equality if K1t ; L1t 4 0

ð3Þ

where the right-hand side is the marginal cost of a firm in sector 1. Similarly for a variety producer: pt r

1

y2 rty2 w1 t

g yy22 ð1y2 Þ1y2

with equality if nt 4 0

ð4Þ

Analogous conditions hold for the foreign country. For countries with sufficiently low capital per capita, condition (4) does not bind and the economy fully specializes in the production of good 1. Likewise, condition (3) does not bind when capital per capita is sufficiently high, so that the country only produces varieties. For intermediate values of capital per capita, the economy will produce some of good 1 and some varieties. This set of intermediate values is often referred as the cone of diversification by the international trade literature. If both home and foreign country capital stocks lie within the cone of diversification, conditions (3) and (4) bind for the two economies. Consequently, they will face the same factor prices r and w.8 This result is commonly known as the factor price equalization theorem. 3.1. Open-economy steady state In steady state, the rental rate of capital is determined uniquely by the discount factor and the depreciation rate. Since the countries share these parameters, they will display the same rental rate r ¼ r  ¼ 1=bð1dÞ. This implies that sectoral capital-labor ratios, k1 and k2 , and therefore the wage rate are also equalized across countries. In other words, factor price equalization holds in steady state. Proposition 2 establishes this result. Proposition 2. In an open-economy steady state, r, w, p2 , k1 , k2 , K2 and L2 are equalized across countries. Proposition 2 also implies that conditions (3) and (4) hold as equalities in steady state for both countries. In other words, their steady state capital stocks lie within the cone of diversification. Proposition 3 states that open-economy prices and factor intensities are the same as in a closed economy of size N þ N ¼ 1. Proposition 3. Open-economy steady state values for r, w, p, p1 , p2 , k1 , k2 , K2 and L2 coincide with their respective steady state values in a closed economy of size 1. The last proposition also establishes that the open-economy steady state satisfies the equations that characterize the closed-economy steady state for N ¼ 1. This result allows us to pin down world quantities in steady state. For instance, the world capital stock is equivalent to the capital stock of a closed economy of size 1. For this reason, zð1Þ denotes the world value of a given variable z in steady state. Nonetheless, country-level quantities cannot be determined by such a strategy, since it does not guarantee that domestic markets clear. In particular, although the world capital stock is uniquely determined, there are several ways to allocate this capital across countries. To see this, let k and k be, respectively, the home and foreign capital per capita, such that Nk þ N k ¼ kð1Þ. Moreover, assume that these capital stocks lie within the cone of diversification, i.e., k; k 2 ½k1 ð1Þ; k2 ð1Þ.9 Then market clearing in home capital and labor markets implies that the number of varieties 7

These equations were derived using the fact that production xi is constant across time and varieties. y y y1 y1 y2 If Eqs. (3) and (4) bind for both countries, then p1t ¼ rty1 w1 =½y11 ð1y1 Þ1y1  ¼ rty1 w1 =½y11 ð1y1 Þ1y1  and pt ¼ ð1=gÞrty2 w1 = t t t y y y2 ½y22 ð1y2 Þ1y2  ¼ ð1=gÞrty2 w1 =½y22 ð1y2 Þ1y2 . These two expressions imply that rt ¼ rt and wt ¼ wt . t 9 In the lower limit of the cone of diversification, all factors are allocated to the production of good 1, i.e., K1 ¼ Nk and L1 ¼ N, so that k ¼ K1 =L1 ¼ k1 ð1Þ. In the upper limit of the cone of diversification, all factors are allocated to the production of varieties, i.e., nK 2 ¼ Nk and nL2 ¼ N, so that k ¼ K2 =L2 ¼ k2 ð1Þ. Values in between these limits correspond to production structures that mix good 1 and varieties. 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

181

produced by the home country is10: n¼

N kk1 ð1Þ L2 ð1Þ k2 ð1Þk1 ð1Þ

The equation above shows how the patterns of production and trade are affected by changes in the distribution of capital across countries. If k ¼ k1 ð1ÞFthe lower limit of the cone of diversification—then n ¼ 0, so that the home country specializes in the production of good 1 and all varieties are generated by the foreign country. Since varieties are subject to a capital-intensive production process, higher values of k are then associated with a larger share of varieties being produced in the home country. When k reaches the upper limit of the cone of diversification k2 ð1Þ, it follows that nL2 ð1Þ ¼ N, i.e., all factors are allocated to the production of varieties. Furthermore, the distribution of capital across countries also determines the distribution of income and consumption in steady state. Countries with higher capital per capita will display higher consumption and income per capita. This follows from the fact that per capita income and consumption are linear functions of k in steady state, i.e., y ¼ wð1Þ þ rk and c ¼ wð1Þ þ ðrdÞk. 4. Import substitution This section uses the framework developed previously to analyze the impact of trade restrictions. Analytical results emphasize steady-state comparisons between the closed- and the open-economy equilibrium, especially regarding capital, income and consumption per capita. More precisely, we assume that the home country is initially open and fully specialized in the production of the labor-intensive good. In other words, initial capital per capita is given by kopen ¼ k1 ð1ÞFthe lower limit of the cone of diversification—and initial income and consumption per capita are, respectively, yopen ¼ wð1Þ þ rk1 ð1Þ and copen ¼ wð1Þ þ ðrdÞk1 ð1Þ. Import substitution is modeled as an unanticipated move to a closed-economy situation. The economy remains closed for a sufficiently long period of time, so that it can reach its closed-economy steady state. In the new steady state, capital, income and consumption per capita are given, respectively, by kclosed ¼ kðNÞ, yclosed ¼ yðNÞ and cclosed ¼ cðNÞ. It is important to note that, in an open-economy situation, per capita income, consumption and capital depend on the size of the world economy (N þ N ¼ 1), but not on the size of the home market N. This stands in contrast with the closedeconomy steady state, in which those objects are increasing functions of N. Proposition 4 analyzes the relationship between country size and the impact of import substitution on capital, income and consumption per capita. Proposition 4. 1. 2. 3. 4.

There exists a unique N k 2 ð0; 1Þ such that kclosed Zkopen if N Z N k and kclosed o kopen if N o N k There exists a unique N y 2 ð0; 1Þ such that yclosed Zyopen if N Z N y and yclosed o yopen if N o N y There exists a unique N c 2 ð0; 1Þ such that cclosed Zcopen if N Z N c and cclosed ocopen if N o N c N k oN y o N c

There are two effects of IS on capital per capita. On one hand, since the country now needs to produce varieties (which are capital intensive), capital has a tendency to increase in a closed economy. On the other hand, the smaller scale (relative to the open economy) forces capital to shrink. If N is sufficiently low, the latter effect dominates so that k falls. Similar effects apply to income per capita. However, the reduction on scale implied by the trade restriction also produces a fall in the wage rate.11 This brings an extra effect into play, which contributes to decrease y. For this reason, when N is such that kopen ¼ kclosed , closing the economy leads to a fall in long-run income per capita (part 4 of Proposition 4). Put differently, if N ¼ N y , the economy experiences capital deepening, but output per capita does not show any long-run growth. These results show how the model can qualitatively account for key features of the Latin American experience during the IS period. In particular, sufficiently small countries (with size around N y ) display low growth in output per capita, but high growth in capital per capita. As a result, measured TFP falls.12 Furthermore, larger countries can be more successful in reducing their gap relative to industrial leaders, which is consistent with the cases of Brazil and Mexico. Proposition 4 also allows us to analyze the effects of IS on consumption per capita and therefore the long-run welfare implications of the model. Specifically, N c 4 N y means that the size requirement to generate long-run growth in consumption is even more strict. This follows because at N ¼ N y the economy reaches the same per capita income as 10 The following equation can be obtained from the market clearing conditions in home capital and labor markets, that is, k1 ð1ÞL1 þ nK 2 ð1Þ ¼ Nk and L1 þ nL2 ð1Þ ¼ N. 11 Appendix 2 demonstrates that the steady-state wage is an increasing function of N. In an open economy, the wage rate is that of a closed economy of size 1. In a closed economy, the relevant scale is the size of the home market. Therefore, the imposition of trade restrictions produces a fall in the wage. 12 Although Table 1 reports some TFP growth, the fall in TFP produced by the model is consistent with the data. The reason is that the model has no intrinsic source of long-run growth. In a growing economy, this corresponds to an increase in TFP at a rate lower than trend. Section 5 shows that the model can be easily extended to allow for long-run growth.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 182

M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

initially, but needs a higher level of investment in steady state. In other words, growth in income per capita is not necessarily associated with long-run welfare gains. Corollary 1 analyzes the impact of the policy change on capital-output ratios. Corollary 1. For any N 2 ð0; 1Þ, kclosed =yclosed ¼ kclosed =yclosed and kopen =yopen okclosed =yclosed . According to Proposition 1, two closed economies will not display convergence in capital and output per capita, unless they are of equal size. Nonetheless, Corollary 1 establishes that convergence will happen in terms of capital-output ratios. More importantly, the result also implies that the home country will experience an increase in its capital-output ratio independently of its size. This means that the policy change will induce capital deepening, whether or not there are gains in terms of output per capita. 4.1. Implications for TFP Assume that TFP (denoted by A) is measured using a Cobb–Douglas production function for the aggregate economy, with the final output Y as a function of aggregate stocks of capital and labor, K and N. More precisely, Yt ¼ At Kta Nt1a , with ^ where y^ ¼ ð1=TÞlnðy ^ ^ ak, a 2 ðy1 ; y2 Þ. Measured TFP growth is then A^ ¼ y closed =yopen Þ and k ¼ ð1=TÞlnðkclosed =kopen Þ are, respectively, the annual growth rates of capital and output per capita over a time interval T. Clearly, TFP falls for countries with size around N y in Proposition 4, since they display increase in k, but relatively no change in y. One can show that the negative effect on measured productivity occurs even in relatively large economies. Furthermore, the TFP loss is inversely related to country size (see Appendix 2 for derivation). The decrease in TFP is associated with the reduction of the set of varieties available to the country. Specifically, the number of varieties is an increasing function of market size. Closing the economy diminishes the size of the market from 1 (size of the world economy) to N (size of the internal market). Since this effect is stronger for smaller economies, they tend to experience sharper drops in TFP. This implication is related to Proposition 4, especially regarding the effect on output per capita. More precisely, the trade restriction affects output per capita in two opposite ways: it leads to an increase in the capital-output ratio (which contributes to raise y), but to a decrease in TFP (which contributes to lower y). The impact on y will therefore depend on country size. In particular, smaller countries are more likely to experience reductions in long-run output per capita, given that the TFP effect tends to more than compensate the capital deepening effect for these economies. 5. Balanced growth path This section extends the model to allow for long-run growth. Specifically, country sizes now increase at the constant rate gðNÞ which is common to both economies, i.e., Nt ¼ N0 ½1 þgðNÞt and Nt ¼ N0 ½1þ gðNÞt . Initial sizes are normalized as N0 þ N0 ¼ 1. Assuming CRRA preferences, Proposition 5 shows that per capita output, capital and consumption exhibit the same growth rate on a balanced growth path. Proposition 5. On a balanced growth path, per capita output, capital and consumption grow at the same rate, which is given by gðyÞ ¼ gðkÞ ¼ gðcÞ ¼

ð1gÞð1$Þ gðNÞ gð1$y1 Þð1$Þy2

ð5Þ

Notice that the number of varieties can continuously expand as a result of size growth, allowing per capita quantities to display a long-run trend. In the aggregate, this trend appears as TFP growth: ð1aÞð1gÞð1$Þ A^ ¼ gðyÞagðkÞ ¼ gðNÞ gð1$y1 Þð1$Þy2

ð6Þ

Proposition 5 also shows that Assumption 1 is necessary for the existence of a balanced growth path. This assumption constrains the parameters of the model so that k, y and c display positive long-run growth rates. The balanced growth path can be solved as usual. First, detrend all variables by their respective long-run growth rates. Then recast the model in terms of detrended variables and solve for the steady state. This procedure yields a system of equations analog to that of previous case, in which there was no long-run growth. Consequently, Propositions 1 through 4 hold for the balanced growth path as well. However, these results now refer to the relationship between detrended variables and initial country sizes N0 and N0 . 6. Quantitative application So far we have analyzed mainly the model’s long run implications, emphasizing comparisons of steady states and balanced growth paths. This section addresses the dynamic impact of IS policies, from a quantitative standpoint. In particular, transition paths are computed, following the introduction of trade restrictions in the model. Additionally, the model’s quantitative implications are evaluated, focusing mainly on the effects on income per capita, capital-output ratio and TFP. Outcomes are compared with actual growth rates for Latin America during the period

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

183

1960–1985, as displayed in Table 1. The remainder of this section describes the choice of parameter values, then presents transition paths, and finally discusses numerical results from the quantitative exercise.

6.1. Parameter values Capital shares (y1 and y2 ) and the share of the labor-intensive good ($) are taken from Cunat and Maffezzoli’s (2004) work on the dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin model, i.e., y1 ¼ :17, y2 ¼ :49 and $ ¼ :61. Following Gollin (2002), a ¼ :30. The size of a country is measured by its stock of efficiency units of labor N ¼ EL, where L is population and E is an index of efficiency.13 Let gðEÞ be the growth rate of efficiency units and assume no population growth.14 The aggregate production function can be then written as Yt ¼ At Kta ðEt Lt Þ1a . Although A and E play similar roles in this equation, they are fundamentally distinct in the model: while E follows an exogenous process, A is an outcome of the model. This distinction is explored here to calibrate the parameters gðEÞ and g. More precisely, Eqs. (5) and (6) imply that the long-run growth rates of output per capita (Y=L) and A are given, respectively, by   ð1gÞð1$Þ gðEÞ ð7Þ gðY=LÞ ¼ 1 þ gð1$y1 Þð1$Þy2 gðAÞ ¼

ð1aÞð1gÞð1$Þ gðEÞ gð1$y1 Þð1$Þy2

Parameters gðEÞ and g are calibrated such that their values replicate growth rates of Y=L and A for the U.S. economy between 1960 and 1985. In particular, the growth rate of productivity net of physical and human capital is used to measure gðAÞ. The values gðEÞ ¼ 1:27% and g ¼ :96 yield gðY=LÞ ¼ 1:30% and gðAÞ ¼ 0:02%, which are consistent with actual growth rates reported by Klenow and Rodriguez-Clare (1997).15 Values for the discount factor and the depreciation rate are set, respectively, at b ¼ :96 and d ¼ :1. Moreover, uðcÞ ¼ lnc.

6.2. The impact of IS policies We now consider the impact of IS policies on an average Latin American country. As in previous sections, the initial distribution of capital is set such that the home country is fully specialized in the production of the labor-intensive good. At time zero, barriers to international trade are erected. In 1948, the U.S. was responsible for 38.2% of Latin America’s imports and 52% of the region’s exports.16 For this reason, the U.S. is chosen to represent the rest of the world. The size of an average Latin American country is estimated as follows. The efficiency gap E=E is calibrated such that the initial steady state matches Latin America’s GDP per capita relative to the U.S. in 1960 (26%).17 Moreover, from 1960 population data, L=L ¼ 6%. This implies that the size of a typical Latin American country, N=ðN þ N Þ, is approximately 2%. Including Western Europe and Japan in the rest of the world drives this number down to 1%. Focus is therefore given to these two values when assessing the effects of IS on Latin America. In previous sections, IS is modeled as a move to a fully closed economy. This assumption is useful to establish key analytical results, but it is too extreme compared with the actual Latin American experience. Although trade barriers were considerably high during the IS years, they were not fully prohibitive. Trade shares did not converge to zero. For this reason, the following quantitative exercises explore cases where the home country partially closes its economy to international trade. Specifically, the home country is still assumed to be initially specialized in the production of the labor-intensive good. However, at time zero, the size of the rest of the world is reduced to a smaller yet still positive number, instead of zero as in previous sections. More precisely, let k and k be the initial capital per capita stocks of the home and the foreign country. Then the size of the rest of the world is reduced from N  to N0 , resulting in the initial aggregate capital per capita stock ðNkþ N0 k Þ=ðN þ N0 Þ. Given these initial conditions, the open economy of size N þ N0 is simulated to produce transition paths, holding all remaining parameters fixed. The new size of the rest of the world, N 0 , is selected to reproduce certain values of the home country’s trade share, in the new steady state.18 Details on the computational strategy are described in Appendix 4. 13 Trefler (1993) has shown that, when the labor input is measured in this fashion, factor price equalization is consistent with observed cross-country wage differences. 14 Increasing the population growth rate from zero has no significant impact on our main quantitative results. 15 These values are consistent with those shown in Table 1. Klenow and Rodriguez-Clare’s (1997) paper is also the data source used by Hopenhayn and Neumeyer (2004), work in which Table 1 is based. 16 Bulmer-Thomas (2003). 17 Data from Maddison (2003). The model predicts that initial relative income per efficient units of labor, y=y , is around 84%. We therefore set  E=E ¼ 0:31, so that relative income per capita is 26%. 18 N 0 is solely a function of N and the new trade share. More restrictive trade policies (with smaller new trade shares) require larger reductions in N 0 . Moreover, larger economies will need a higher N 0 to generate the same fall in the trade share.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 184

M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

number of varieties

0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01

70% 50% 0

0.005 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

capital per capita

1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7

70% 50% 0

0.6 0.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

output per capita

0.54 0.52 0.5 0.48 0.46

70% 50% 0

0.44 0.42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Fig. 3. Transition Paths (different trade shares). Transition paths for number of varieties, capital per capita, and output per capita. An economy of size N ¼ 0:02 is considered under three scenarios: (i) a reduction of the trade share to 70%; (ii) a reduction of the trade share to 50%; and (iii) a reduction of the trade share to zero. In all cases, the initial trade share is 78%.

6.3. Transition paths This subsection presents numerical examples of transition paths produced by the imposition of IS policies in the model. The policy is implemented at t ¼ 0. Before this instant, the economy is on its open-economy balanced growth path, in which it is fully specialized in the production of the labor intensive good. Given parameter values, the initial trade share is 78%.19 To analyze the effect of trade restrictions, N is kept constant at 0.02, while the size of the rest of the world is reduced to reproduce three scenarios: a fall in trade share to 70%, a fall in the trade share to 50%, and the case in which the home country becomes fully closed to trade (new trade share equal to zero), as in the previous sections of this paper. Other parameters are held fixed.20 Fig. 3 displays transition paths produced by this exercise, with time series for capital per

19 It is easy to show that, in the initial steady-state, the trade share is 2ð1$Þ. This will be the initial trade share in all the experiments below, since it does not depend on N. 20 The only difference between these three cases is the size of the rest of the world, N 0 , which is adjusted to match the different values of the new trade share.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

185

number of varieties

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02

N = 0.01 N = 0.02 N = 0.05

0.01 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

capital per capita

0.9 0.8 0.7

N = 0.01 N = 0.02 N = 0.05

0.6 0.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

output per capita

0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47

N = 0.01 N = 0.02 N = 0.05

0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Fig. 4. Transition Paths (different country sizes). Transition paths for number of varieties, capital per capita, and output per capita. A reduction of the trade share from 78 to 50% is analyzed for three different country sizes: N ¼ 0:01, 0.02 and 0.05.

capita, income per capita and the number of varieties generated at the home country. To focus on the transition, all variables are detrended according to their long-run growth rates. Variables behave similarly for the three values of the trade share. At t ¼ 0, the policy reduces the number of varieties available, forcing the home country to produce some of them internally. As a result, n jumps from zero to a positive number. Nonetheless, given that capital is initially low, shifting resources towards the capital-intensive sector—the activity in which the economy does not have comparative advantage—generates a sharp fall in output. As time passes and capital accumulates, the number of varieties produced domestically increases further. Output then follows an increasing path after the initial drop. The three cases in Fig. 3 provide further intuition on the role of trade restrictions. Specifically, the larger the fall in the trade share, the higher the need to produce varieties at home. More closed economies will therefore display higher growth in n. This in turn corresponds to a stronger incentive to accumulate capital, resulting in higher long-run levels of k and y. Nonetheless, more closed economies will initially suffer larger reductions in their set of available varieties, thus experiencing sharper drops in output at time zero. Fig. 4 examines the impact of scale on the transition, considering our preferred values for country size—N ¼ 0:01 and 0.02—along with a larger economy, N ¼ 0:05. In all three cases, the trade share is lowered from 78% to 50%. All remaining

ARTICLE IN PRESS 186

M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

Table 2 Welfare reduction induced by the trade restriction (%).

New trade share ¼ 70% New trade share ¼ 50% New trade share ¼ 0

N ¼ 0:01

N ¼ 0:02

N ¼ 0:05

8.0713 9.5069 10.5813

6.7075 8.1633 9.2570

4.8942 6.3626 7.4749

Numbers represent the percentage reduction in the level of consumption per capita (relative to the initial steady state) necessary to induce the same variation in welfare as the policy change. The nine cases above are combinations of three values of country size (0.01, 0.02 and 0.05) and three values of the new trade share (70%, 50% and zero). In all cases, the initial trade share is 78%.

Table 3 Growth rates implied by the model (%). Trade Share ¼ 53:7%

Trade Share ¼ 50:3%

Trade Share ¼ 46:9%

Trade Share ¼ 0:0%

Y=L

K=Y

TFP

Y=L

K=Y

TFP

Y=L

K=Y

TFP

Y=L

K=Y

TFP

N ¼ 0:01 N ¼ 0:02 N ¼ 0:05 N ¼ 0:09

1.24 1.31 1.39 1.44

1.33 1.33 1.32 1.31

0.47 0.52 0.58 0.62

1.26 1.33 1.41 1.46

1.41 1.41 1.40 1.39

0.46 0.51 0.57 0.61

1.28 1.35 1.43 1.48

1.48 1.48 1.48 1.47

0.45 0.50 0.56 0.60

1.51 1.58 1.66 1.72

2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20

0.40 0.44 0.50 0.54

Data

1.33

1.39

0.51

Average annual growth rates produced by the model over a period of 25 years, as a result of the imposition of trade restrictions. Y=L ¼ income per capita; K=L ¼ capital per capita; TFP ¼ total factor productivity. Numbers are reported for combinations of four different country sizes (0.01, 0.02, 0.05 and 0.09) and four different trade shares (53.7%, 50.3%, 46.9% and zero). The data come from Hopenhayn and Neumeyer (2004) — specifically from their Table 5. Their numbers represent average growth rates across Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, over the period 1960-1985. TFP growth is calculated using a Cobb–Douglas production function, with capital and labor as inputs. The capital share is set at 0.30.

parameters are kept constant.21 As the transition paths show, larger countries are able to produce more varieties internally, both at t ¼ 0 and as time passes. As a result, output displays not only a smaller initial drop, but stronger subsequent growth. In the cases considered here, lack of scale prevents the smaller country (N ¼ 0:01) from recovering its initial level of income per capita, whereas the larger economy (N ¼ 0:05) is able to experience some long-run growth in y (the economy of intermediate size, i.e., N ¼ 0:02, reaches about the same level of y as initially). Table 2 analyzes the welfare impact of trade restrictions, for combinations of trade shares and country sizes used above. Numbers represent how much one would need to decrease the level of steady state consumption (relative to the initial situation) to replicate the fall in lifetime utility induced by the policy change. The effects are quite significant. For instance, when the trade share decreases from 78% to 70%, a country of size N ¼ 0:02 experiences a fall in welfare equivalent to a permanent reduction of 6.7% in consumption. In addition, the table shows how welfare is affect by the extent of the trade restriction. For a given country size, smaller trade shares tend to entail a higher level of distortion in the economy and therefore are associated with larger welfare costs. This happens even though more restrictive trade policies generate higher long-run output (as in Fig. 3). The results also illustrate the role of scale: for a given trade share, larger economies suffer lower drops in welfare.

6.4. Growth rates We now assess the quantitative impact of IS policies, especially regarding average growth rates of output per capita, capital-output ratio and measured productivity. The model’s response is compared with data from the period 1960–1985, as shown in Table 1.22 The new size of the rest of the world is selected to reproduce the average trade share of Latin America between 1960 and 1985. The Penn World Tables provide two measures for the average trade share: 46.9% (in current prices) and 53.7% (in constant prices). Table 3 reports results for these two values, as well as their average, 50.3%. 21 In this case, N 0 is adjusted according to N, since larger economies need a new rest of the world of larger size to generate a given reduction in the trade share. 22 In this paper, the trade restriction is implemented at once. Nonetheless, there is evidence suggesting that the policy change was gradual (see for instance Taylor, 1998). For this reason, we use average growth rates over a relatively long period of time (25 years) to compare the model’s outcome with the data.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

187

Growth rates displayed in Table 3 were calculated as follows. Initially, an open economy is on a balanced growth path, with the home country fully specialized in the production of the labor intensive good. At t ¼ 0, trade restrictions are imposed. The stationary version of model is then simulated, producing a path for detrended output per capita fy~ t g. Within 25 years of the policy change (corresponding to the period 1960–1985), the average annual growth rate of output per ^ ¼ ðy~ =y~ Þ1=25 ½1þ gðY=LÞ1, where ðy~ =y~ Þ1=25 1 represents the average transitional growth rate capita is therefore Y=L 24 0 24 0 and gðY=LÞ represents the trend growth rate (as in Eq. (7)). A similar procedure yields the capital-output ratio growth rate ^ .23 TFP is then measured using a Cobb–Douglas production function, as in Section 4.1. Given growth rates of output per K=Y ^ .24 ^ ^ ¼ ð1aÞY=L aK=Y capita and capital-output ratio, the TFP growth rate is TFP The model yields growth rates that approximate well those experienced by the average Latin American country. Specifically, the model can roughly reproduce some quantitative features of the Latin American economy, i.e., a high rate of capital deepening, along with growth rates in output per capita that are similar to those of the U.S. For our preferred values for country size (0.01 and 0.02) and trade share, the model produces growth rates in output per capita between 1.25% and 1.36%, growth rates in the capital-output ratio between 1.34% and 1.50% and growth rates in TFP between 0.46% and 0.52%. In the data, these numbers are 1.33%, 1.39% and 0.51%, respectively. In particular, the parametrization with N ¼ 0:02 and a trade share of 50.3% produces rates that are quite close to the data. Table 3 also analyzes the situation where the country becomes totally closed (trade share equal to zero). In this polar case, the model tends to exaggerate the impact of IS policies: growth rates in output per capita and capital-output ratio are too high compared with the data. This follows because the trade policy forces the home country to produce all varieties that are consumed internally. Given that varieties are subject to a capital-intensive production process, there will be a strong incentive to accumulate capital. Moreover, driving the trade share to zero entails a higher level of distortion in the economy, which is reflected in lower TFP growth rates. To illustrate the impact of country size, the table reports results for N ¼ 0:05 and 0.09. For a given trade share, an increase in size leads to higher growth in output per capita, roughly the same growth rate in the capital-output ratio and, as a result, higher TFP growth. This is consistent with the analytical results established in previous sections. 7. Concluding remarks This paper was motivated by a set of peculiar facts that characterized the Latin American economy during the IS years. Specifically, the region experienced relatively fast growth in its capital-output ratio, despite of having no significant gains in terms of income per capita. Furthermore, TFP growth was low, especially in comparison with the U.S. We developed a simple model that can qualitatively account for these facts. The analytical framework was based on a dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin model, with economies of scale in the production of the capital-intensive good. A country was assumed to be initially open to international trade and fully specialized in the production of the labor-intensive good. IS was modeled as a move to a closed-economy situation. Proposition 4 established the main analytical result of the paper. For a sufficiently small country, closing the economy leads to no long-run growth in per capita income, but capital per capita increases. As a result, measured TFP falls. Intuitively, capital increases since the economy now needs to produce the capital-intensive good, but income may not grow due to the lack of scale. The model is also able to quantitatively account for some of these key facts. In particular, it predicts that the average Latin American country will exhibit a fast rate of capital deepening, but will show no significant growth in income per capita (relative to the U.S.). In addition, the model produces low productivity growth rates, consistent with those experienced by Latin America. Scale economies were introduced here as in the intraindustry trade literature, i.e., scale arises as access to a higher number of differentiated varieties of a given good. This simple structure was quite useful to account for the puzzling weak relationship between capital accumulation and output growth observed in Latin America during the IS period. Nonetheless, such framework leaves an important aspect of the Latin American experience unexplained. As highlighted in the Introduction, the scale problem in Latin America was particularly evident from the presence of small production units, especially in industries with large minimum efficient plant sizes. In the model, however, the production of each firm does not depend on the size of the market. Considering the effects of IS policies on firm size can be an interesting extension of the paper. As pointed out by Holmes and Stevens (2005), this would require us to step out of the traditional intraindustry trade framework in favor of a richer production structure. But we leave this issue for future research. Appendix. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jmoneco. 2009.12.004. 23

In this case, the trend growth is zero, since both capital and output grow at the same rate in the long run. ^ . Here, TFP measures ^ ^ ¼ ð1aÞY=L More precisely, TFP ¼ Y=½K a L1a  ¼ ðY=LÞ1a =ðK=YÞa . By log-differentiating this equation, one can obtain TFP aK=Y the variation in output not accounted for by physical capital and raw labor. Since we assumed a production function of the form Y ¼ AK a ðELÞ1a , TFP a. embodies both terms A and E. More precisely, TFP t ¼ At E1 t 24

ARTICLE IN PRESS 188

M. Rodrigues / Journal of Monetary Economics 57 (2010) 175–188

References Ades, A.F., Gleaser, E.L., 1999. Evidence on growth, increasing returns, and the extent of the market. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 1025–1045. Alesina, A., Spolaore, E., Wacziarg, R., 2000. Economic integration and political disintegration. American Economic Review 90, 1276–1296. Atkeson, A., Kehoe, P.J., 2000. Paths of development for early- and late-bloomers in a dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin model. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department Staff Report 256. Baer, W., 1972. Import substitution and industrialization in Latin America: experiences and interpretations. Latin American Research Review 7, 95–122. Bajona, C., Kehoe, T.J., 2006a. Demographics in dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin models: overlapping generations versus infinitely lived consumers. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department Staff Report 377. Bajona, C., Kehoe, T.J., 2006b. Trade, growth, and convergence in a dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin model. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department Staff Report 378. Balassa, B., 1971. Patterns of economic structure, growth, and trade. In: Balassa, B. (Ed.), The Structure of Protection in Developing Countries. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Balassa, B., 1989. Outward orientation. In: Chenery, H., Srinivasan, T.N. (Eds.), Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1675–1689. Baxter, M., 1992. Fiscal policy, specialization, and trade in the two-sector model: the return of Ricardo? Journal of Political Economy 100, 713–744. Bertrand, T.J., Flatters, F., 1971. Tariffs, capital accumulation and immiserizing growth. Journal of International Economics 1, 453–460. Bulmer-Thomas, V., 2003. The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Carnoy, M., 1972. Industrialization in a Latin American Common Market. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Cole, H.L., Ohanian, L.E., Riascos, A., Schimitz Jr., J.A., 2005. Latin America in the rearview mirror. Journal of Monetary Economics 52, 69–107. Cunat, A., Maffezzoli, M., 2004. Heckscher–Ohlin business cycles. Review of Economic Dynamics 7, 555–585. Edwards, S., 1995. Crisis and reform in Latin America: from despair to hope. Oxford University Press, New York. Ethier, W., 1982. National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade. American Economic Review 72, 389–405. Ferreira, P.C., Trejos, A., 2006. On the output effects of barriers to trade. International Economic Review 47, 1319–1340. Gollin, D., 2002. Getting income shares right. Journal of Political Economy 110, 458–474. Grossman, G.M., Helpman, E., 1989. Product development and international trade. Journal of Political Economy 97, 1261–1283. Grossman, G.M., Helpman, E., 1990. Comparative advantage and long-run growth. American Economic Review 80, 796–815. Helpman, E., Krugman, P.R., 1985. Market structure and foreign trade: increasing returns, imperfect competition, and the international economy. The MIT Press, Cambridge. Holmes, T.J., Stevens, J.J., 2005. Does home market size matter for the pattern of trade? Journal of International Economics 65, 489–505. Hopenhayn, H.A., Neumeyer, P.A., 2004. Latin America in the XXth century: stagnation, then collapse. Working Paper. Johnson, H.G., 1967. The possibility of income losses from increased efficiency or factor accumulation in the presence of tariffs. Economic Journal 77 151–154 Klenow, P.J., Rodriguez-Clare, A., 1997. The neoclassical revival in growth economics: has it gone too Far?. In: Bernanke, B., Rotemberg, J. (Eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual. The MIT Press, Cambridge. Lin, C., 1989. Latin America vs. East Asia: a comparative development perspective. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y. Maddison, A., 2003. The world economy: a millenial perspective. OECD, Paris. Manuelli, R.E., 2005. Growth in Latin America: models and findings. Mimeo. Martin, R., 1977. Immiserizing growth for a tariff-distorted, small economy. Journal of International Economics 7, 323–328. Rivera-Batiz, L.A., Romer, P.M., 1991. Economic integration and endogenous growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 531–555. Scitovsky, T., 1969. Prospects for Latin American industrialization within the framework of economic integration: bases for analysis. In: IDB, The Process of Industrialization in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank. Syrquin, M., 1986. Growth and structural change in Latin America since 1960: a comparative analysis. Economic Development and Cultural Change 34, 433–454. Taylor, A.M., 1998. On the costs of inward-looking development: price distortions, growth, and divergence in Latin America. Journal of Economic History 58, 1–28. Trefler, D., 1993. International factor price differences: Leontief was right!. Journal of Political Economy 101, 961–987. Ventura, J., 1997. Growth and interdependence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 57–84. Young, A., 1991. Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 369–405.