Begin with the large divergence between purchasing power parity and current exchange rate measures of relative GDP per capita levels. The spread between the highest and lowest GDP per capita levels today, using current exchange rate-based measures, is a factor of 400; the spread between the highest and lowest GDP per capita levels today using purchasing power parity-based measures is a factor of 50. If the purchasing power parity-based measures are correct, real exchange rates vary by a factor of eight between relatively rich and relatively poor economies. And the log GDP per capita level accounts for 80 percent of the cross-country variation in this measure of the real exchange rate, with each one percent rise in GDP per capita associated with an 0.34 percent rise in the real
Bradford DeLong considers the following as important: #economicgrowth, #highlighted, #hoistedfromthearchives
This could be interesting, too:
Bradford DeLong writes June 14, 2019: Weekly Forecasting Update
Bradford DeLong writes For the Weekend: Pam Jakiela: Taking Preferences Seriously, Not Literally
Bradford DeLong writes Economists Think of Most Lawyers Like Cats Think of Small Birds: Hoisted from the Archives
Begin with the large divergence between purchasing power parity and current exchange rate measures of relative GDP per capita levels. The spread between the highest and lowest GDP per capita levels today, using current exchange rate-based measures, is a factor of 400; the spread between the highest and lowest GDP per capita levels today using purchasing power parity-based measures is a factor of 50. If the purchasing power parity-based measures are correct, real exchange rates vary by a factor of eight between relatively rich and relatively poor economies. And the log GDP per capita level accounts for 80 percent of the cross-country variation in this measure of the real exchange rate, with each one percent rise in GDP per capita associated with an 0.34 percent rise in the real exchange rate.
Why? Because real exchange rates are such as to make the prices of traded manufactured goods roughly the same in the different nation-states of the world, putting to one side over- or undervaluations produced by macroeconomic conditions, tariffs and other trade barriers, and desired international investment flows. Thus the eight-fold difference in real exchange rates between relatively rich and relatively poor economies is a reflection of an approximately eight-fold difference in the price of easily-traded manufactured goods: relative to the average basket of goods and prices on which the "international dollar" measure is based, the real price of traded manufactures in relatively rich countries is only one-eighth the real price in relatively poor countries.
This should come as no surprise. The world's most industrialized and prosperous economies are the most industrialized and prosperous because they have attained very high levels of manufacturing productivity: their productivity advantage in unskilled service industries is much lower than in capital- and technology-intensive manufactured goods.
And a low relative price of technologically-sophisticated manufactured goods has important consequences for nation-states' relative investment rates. In the United States today machinery and equipment account for half of all investment spending; in developing economies--where machinery and equipment, especially imported machinery and equipment is much more expensive--it typically accounts for a much greater share of total investment spending (see Jones, 1994; DeLong and Summers, 1991).
Consider the implications of a higher relative price of capital goods for a developing economy attempting to invest in a balanced mix of machinery and structures. There is no consistent trend in the relative price of structures across economies: rich economies can use bulldozers to dig foundations, but poor economies can use large numbers of low-paid unskilled workers to dig foundations. But the higher relative price of machinery capital in developing countries makes it more and more expensive to maintain a balanced mix: the poorer a country, the lower is the real investment share of GDP that corresponds to any given fixed nominal savings share of GDP.
The gap between nominal savings and real investment shares of GDP that follows from the high relative price of machinery and equipment in poor countries that wish to maintain a balanced mix of investment in structures and equipment is immense. For a country at the level of the world's poorest today--with a real exchange rate-based GDP per capita level of some $95 a year--saving 20% of national product produces a real investment share (measured using the "international dollar" measure) of only some 5% of national product.
In actual fact poor economies do not maintain balanced mixes of structures and equipment capital: they cannot afford to do so, and so economize substantially on machinery and equipment. Thus here are three additional channels by which relative poverty is a cause slow growth:
First, the fact that investment in general--taking equipment and structures together--is expensive relative to consumption goods and services in poor countries provides them with an incentive to diminish their nominal savings effort: to reduce the share of nominal incomes saved.
Second, the fact that relative poverty is the source of a high real price of capital means that poor countries will have a low rate of real investment corresponding to any given nominal savings effort, and thus a low steady-state aggregate capital-output ratio corresponding to any given nominal savings effort.
Third, to the extent that machinery and equipment are investments with social products that significantly exceed the profits earned by investors (see DeLong and Summers, 1991), the price structures in relatively poor developing economies lead them to economize on exactly the wrong kinds of capital investment...
"The Singer-Prebisch Thesis," Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer-Prebisch_thesis (accessed June 25, 2007).
J. Bradford DeLong (1997), "Cross-Country Variations in National Economic Growth Rates: The Role of 'Technology'", in Jeffrey Fuhrer and Jane Sneddon Little, eds., Technology and Growth (Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston) http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Econ_Articles/Growth_and_Technology/Role_of_Technology_.pdf (accessed June 25, 2007).
J. Bradford DeLong and Lawrence H. Summers (1991), "Equipment Investment and Economic Growth," Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 2 (May), pp. 445-502 http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000606.html (accessed June 25, 2007).
J. Bradford DeLong and Joseph Rosenberg (2006), "Problem Set 3: Economic Growth: Further Explorations," U.C. Berkeley Economics 101b, Fall 2006 Version http://delong.typepad.com/print/20060911_101b_f06_ps3.pdf (accessed June 25, 2007).
Francesco Caselli and James Feyrer (2007), "The Marginal Product of Capital" http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006/0106_1430_0703.pdf (accessed June 25, 2007).
Chang-Tai Hsieh and Pete Klenow (2006), "Relative Prices and Relative Prosperity" http://www.klenow.com/RPandRP.pdf (accessed June 25, 2007).
Charles Jones (1994), "Economic Growth and the Relative Price of Capital," Journal of Monetary Economics 34, pp. 359-82 https://delong.typepad.com/jones94.pdf (accessed June 25, 2007).
#highlighted #economicgrowth #equipmentinvestment #investment #industrialpolicy #hoistedfromthearchives