However, BBC exhibit a pattern similar to that observed in SSA (Figure 9). Structural change has played an important role in the five African economies, but it has been driven static gains. Dynamic gains contributed significantly only in few counties and in some periods. Similar to BBC, withinsector productivity gains made a small contribution to growth. In general, Burkina Faso’s experience is broadly similar to those of Ethiopia and Tanzania in that static gains were dominant while the “within” effect was either small or negative. Benin exhibits patterns similar to Ghana and Senegal, with productivity growth mainly explained by “within” gains while the contribution of structural change was quite modest. To sum up, BBC did not experience growth-reducing structural change, unlike some African nations, but neither did they witness significant labor movements to highproductivity sectors, unlike the rapidly growing Asian economies. Our results are generally consistent with Timmer _et al_ . (2014), who find that structural change contributed positively to Africa’s stronger growth since the 1990s but was dominated by static structural change.

Finally, we briefly compare our results with those from other studies that include BBC.<sup>35</sup> Our results for Benin and Burkina Faso are generally consistent with McMillan _et al_ . (2014) and McMillan and Harttgen (2014), who show that structural change accounted for nearly half of the productivity growth in Africa since 2000.<sup>36</sup> In a similar vein, Timmer _et al_ . (2014) estimate the contribution of structural change to labor productivity growth at about 54 percent. UNCTAD (2014) similarly shows that structural change explains a third of the labor productivity growth in developing countries. However, Timmer and de Vries (2009) and Kucera and Roncolato (2012) find that within-sector productivity gains explain a greater portion of productivity growth than structural change, which is strikingly different from our key result that within-sector productivity changes at best made a negligible contribution and at worst reduced growth in BBC. Our findings, excluding those for Côte d’Ivoire, generally resonate with Timmer _et al_ . (2014), who conclude that structural change has played a stronger role in African economies in recent decades but was dominated by static gains. Our results for Benin indicating static gains but dynamic losses are particularly in line with Timmer _et al_ . (2014).

# **5. Concluding Remarks**

<mark>This paper documented the pace and nature of structural change in Benin, Burkina Faso, and Côte d’Ivoire (hereafter BBC). Specifically, we used data organized into nine sectors to shed light on output, employment, and labor productivity trends since 2000. Several key features stand out: (i) Burkina Faso staged the highest and most stable output growth, Benin posted modest growth, while C</mark> ô <mark>te d’Ivoire experienced meager growth; (ii) Agriculture remains the largest sector, despite the moderate decline in its output share; (iii)</mark> Benin and Côte d’Ivoire have had drastic changes in their structure of employment while Burkina Faso experienced a smaller shift. Agriculture exhibited the largest loss in employment while low-productivity commerce burgeoned. Manufacturing’s share, however, remained stagnant for decades.; (iv) BBC have seen a youth bulge, indicating potential for a significant demographic dividend; (v) Participation and employment rates subsided in Benin and Burkina Faso while both increased in Côte d’Ivoire; and (vi) Labor productivity increased strongly in Burkina Faso, modestly in Benin, while it has been in the negative territory in Côte d’Ivoire.

We found evidence suggesting that growth in Benin and Burkina Faso occurred on the back of _static_ structural change, while structural change made a smaller contribution to growth in Côte d’Ivoire. However, in Benin, static gains waned in recent years and were partly offset by a dynamic loss in productivity. Specifically, during 2010-2015, within-sector productivity gains accounted for a

> 35It is important to note that these studies do not use the same decomposition method we employed in the present analysis. Other sources of discrepancies between our findings and those of the above-mentioned studies include: country samples, time period covered by the analysis, level of sectoral disaggregation, and data sources. Note also that only very few of these studies disaggregate structural change into its static and dynamic sub-components.

> 36More specifically, McMillan _et al_ . (2014) show that the bulk of the growth differentials between Africa and Latin America, on � the one hand, and Asia, on the other, can be accounted for by differences in the pattern of structural change with labor moving from low-to high-productivity sectors in Asia, but in the opposite direction in Africa and Latin America.

23