IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ioe/doctra/430.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Productivity Differences and the Stage of Development: Where are the Bottlenecks?

Author

Listed:
  • J. Rodrigo Fuentes
  • Verónica Mies

Abstract

Adoption of better technologies is a crucial way for developing countries to close productivity gaps with leading economies. However, the possibility of growing through adoption depends decisively on the country's absorptive capacity. We build a theoretical model of technology adoption that focuses on four factors that shape the absorptive capacity of countries, namely: i) quantity of education; ii) quality provided by the education system; iii) microeconomic flexibility that favors the entry and exit of firms; and iv) the overall institutional environment that enhances/impedes R&D activities. We calibrate the model for a sample of 78 economies. The United States is our benchmark leading economy. We disentangle the relative weight of each development factor in explaining per capita income differences and study patterns in relationships between the type of development barrier and the level of development. The effect on the steady-state gap of improving any of the aforementioned factors represents a trade-off between the initial gap and the value of the rest of the parameters. For instance, a relatively low level of market flexibility and quality of the education system are the main impediments that high-income economies face in closing the gap with the United States; the former explains almost forty percent of the gap for high-income countries, while the latter accounts for nearly twenty percent of this gap. A remarkable result is the small effect that individual reforms have on steady-state productivity in low-income countries. With the exception of R&D-favoring institutions, the remaining three factors are individually responsible for less than fifteen percent of the gap. This result is explained by a poor global economic environment that reduces the effect of each factor when implemented individually. In fact, there are significant nonlinearities between the level of development and the effects of individual reforms that are due to the strong complementarities between the different development factors. A high degree of development implies that the factors are at a high level, increasing the effects of particular reforms on steady-state productivity. However, it also reflects a small technology gap, which reduces their potential impact. The calibration shows that the effects are greatest for middle-income countries and lowest for low- and high-income countries.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Rodrigo Fuentes & Verónica Mies, 2013. "Productivity Differences and the Stage of Development: Where are the Bottlenecks?," Documentos de Trabajo 430, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
  • Handle: RePEc:ioe:doctra:430
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.economia.uc.cl/docs/doctra/dt-430.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benhabib, Jess & Spiegel, Mark M., 2005. "Human Capital and Technology Diffusion," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, pages 935-966, Elsevier.
    2. Todd Schoellman, 2012. "Education Quality and Development Accounting," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(1), pages 388-417.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2001. "Productivity Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 563-606.
    4. Chang-Tai Hsieh & Peter J. Klenow, 2009. "Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1403-1448.
    5. Edward C. Prescott & Stephen L. Parente, 1999. "Monopoly Rights: A Barrier to Riches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1216-1233, December.
    6. Diego Restuccia & Richard Rogerson, 2008. "Policy Distortions and Aggregate Productivity with Heterogeneous Plants," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(4), pages 707-720, October.
    7. Comin, D. & Hobijn, B., 2004. "Cross-country technology adoption: making the theories face the facts," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 39-83, January.
    8. Eric Bartelsman & John Haltiwanger & Stefano Scarpetta, 2013. "Cross-Country Differences in Productivity: The Role of Allocation and Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 305-334, February.
    9. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Why do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker than Others?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 83-116.
    10. Barro, Robert J. & Lee, Jong Wha, 2013. "A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 184-198.
    11. Peter J. Klenow & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, 1997. "The Neoclassical Revival in Growth Economics: Has It Gone Too Far?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1997, Volume 12, pages 73-114, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Peter Howitt, 2000. "Endogenous Growth and Cross-Country Income Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 829-846, September.
    13. Stephen L. Parente & Edward C. Prescott, 2002. "Barriers to Riches," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262661306, April.
    14. Banerjee, Abhijit V. & Duflo, Esther, 2005. "Growth Theory through the Lens of Development Economics," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 473-552, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tamura, Robert & Dwyer, Jerry & Devereux, John & Baier, Scott, 2019. "Economic growth in the long run," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-35.
    2. Dalila Nicet-Chenaf & Eric Rougier, 2009. "Human capital and structural change: how do they interact with each others in growth," Post-Print hal-00798441, HAL.
    3. Rui Castro & Pavel Ševčík, 2024. "Occupational choice, human capital and financial constraints," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 674-703, August.
    4. Gino Gancia & Andreas Müller & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2010. "Structural development accounting," Economics Working Papers 1249, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Feb 2011.
    5. Diego Restuccia & Richard Rogerson, 2008. "Policy Distortions and Aggregate Productivity with Heterogeneous Plants," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(4), pages 707-720, October.
    6. Goñi, Edwin & Maloney, William F., 2017. "Why don’t poor countries do R&D? Varying rates of factor returns across the development process," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 126-147.
    7. Jerzmanowski, Michal & Tamura, Robert, 2019. "Directed technological change & cross-country income differences: A quantitative analysis," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    8. Laura Alfaro & Andrew Charlton & Fabio Kanczuk, 2009. "Plant Size Distribution and Cross-Country Income Differences," NBER Chapters, in: NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2008, pages 243-272, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Bah, El-hadj & Fang, Lei, 2015. "Impact of the business environment on output and productivity in Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 159-171.
    10. David Lagakos, 2009. "Superstores or mom and pops? Technolgy adoption and productivity differences in retail trade," Staff Report 428, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    11. Diego Restuccia & Richard Rogerson, 2017. "The Causes and Costs of Misallocation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 151-174, Summer.
    12. Charles I. Jones & Paul M. Romer, 2010. "The New Kaldor Facts: Ideas, Institutions, Population, and Human Capital," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 224-245, January.
    13. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & David Mayer-Foulkes, 2005. "The Effect of Financial Development on Convergence: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(1), pages 173-222.
    14. Oleg Itskhoki & Benjamin Moll, 2019. "Optimal Development Policies With Financial Frictions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(1), pages 139-173, January.
    15. Jones, C.I., 2016. "The Facts of Economic Growth," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 3-69, Elsevier.
    16. Chang-Tai Hsieh & Peter J. Klenow, 2009. "Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1403-1448.
    17. Ricardo Lagos, 2006. "A Model of TFP," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(4), pages 983-1007.
    18. Hill, Enoch & Perez-Reyna, David, 2017. "Financial development and occupational choice," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 54(PB), pages 393-409.
    19. Diego Restuccia & Richard Rogerson, 2013. "Misallocation and productivity," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, January.
    20. Douglas Gollin & David Lagakos & Michael E. Waugh, 2014. "The Agricultural Productivity Gap," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(2), pages 939-993.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O4 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity
    • O5 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ioe:doctra:430. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jaime Casassus (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iepuccl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.