metadata: authors: 0: author: Easterly, William
1: author: King, Robert
2: author: Levine, Ross
3: author: Rebe
count: World
docna: 0: docna: How do national policies affect long-run
            growth? : a research agenda
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: International Trade and Trade Rules,Inflation,Macroeconomic Management,Inequality
teratopic: Governance,Environment,Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Poverty Reduction
abstracts: cdata!: The authors suggest that there are
            important opportunities to empirically evaluate the
            theoretically predicted channels from policy to growth. They
            propose a research agenda based on the endogenous growth
            literature, designed to address the questions: How do
            national policies affect long-run growth? Which policies
            strongly affect long-run growth? Do policies explain why
            some poor countries have stagnated and others have advanced?
            Do policies explain successive periods of rapid growth and
            stagnation in the same country? And to what extent do
            national policies rather than external influences explain
            the stagnation of many countries in Africa, Latin America,
            and Asia in the 1980s? The authors discuss five national
            policies: fiscal policy; monetary policy; trade
            intervention; financial policies; and openness to foreign
            capital. Their analytical framework is based on the simple
            idea that all factors of production can be increased by
            investing in human or physical capital. Economic growth will
            be related to policies that affect the incentive to invest
            and the efficient use of capital and intermediate inputs.
            Such a framework can be used to consider which policies
            affect the long-run growth rate rather than affecting simply
            the level of income once and for all.
repnme: repnme: How do national policies affect long-run
            growth? : a research agenda
display_title: How do national policies affect
            long-run growth : a research agenda
listing_relative_url: /research/1991/10/699860/national-policies-affect-long-run-growth-research-agenda
topicv3: Poverty m1326687 695,Inflation m1326709 0870F4727ACED1CF8525815C00471347,Trade m1326924 698,Monetary Policy m1327609 444,Population, Aging and Health m1327736 640
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Governance,Environment,Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Poverty Reduction
origu: Policy Research Department (PRD)
no_of_pages: 65
model_extractions: --

. ° ~ . Policy, Research, and External Affairs \ A ! 4 / “ of ~

### WORKING PAPERS

Macroeconomic Adjustment and Growth Country Economics Department The World Bank October 1991 WPS 794

# How Do National Policies Affect Long-Run Growth?a

## William Easterly Robert King Ross Levine and Sergio Rebelo

Which policies strongly affect long-run growth? Do policies explain why some poor countries have stagnated and others have advanced? Do policies explain successive periods of rapid growth and stagnation in the same country? To what extent do national policies — rather than external influences — explain the stagnation of many countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia in the 1980s?

> Phe Poesy, Research, and Fatma! Affairs Complex disinbutes PRE. Working Papers to disseminate the findings of work in progress and to envourage the exchange of ideas among Bank staff and ali others interested in development issues “These papers carry the names of the authors, reflect only thar vicws, and should be used and cited accordingly ‘The findings, interpretauiens, and conclusions are the authors’ own They should not be alinbuted to the World Bank, ts Board of Directors, 1s management, of any of ts member countries
‘ _TM w e

-

Policy, Research, and External Affairs . i Macroeconomic Adjustment : and Growth : WPS 794 This paper — a product of the Macrocconomic Adjustment and Growth Division, Country Economics Department — is part of a larger cffort in PRE to assess the effect of national policics on long-run growth. This research was funded by the World Bank’s Research Support Budget under research project “Do National Policics Affect Long-Run Growth?” (RPO 676-66). Copies are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. Please contact Rebecca Martin, room N11-053, extension 39065 (60 pages).October 1991, The broad forces behind cconomic growth — accumulation of produced factors, specialization, economics of scale, and externalities — were sketched out by the classical economists long ago. These same forces have been used in the development literature lo study various aspects of economic growth. By building on the insights of growth and development economists, the “new” theoretical literature on growth is also contributing models that identify specific channels through which national policics may affect long-run growth ratcs. But the empirical work on linking national policies to growth is still evolving, and many basic issues about the long-run relationship between policy and growth remain unresolved. Among these issues: the cffects on growth of goverment size, trade policy, international capital flows, the allocation of public spending, and the financing of public spending.

Easterly, King, Levine, and Rebclo suggest that there are important opportunitics to cmpirically evaluate the theoretically predicted channels from policy to growth. They contend that researchers should improve the design of crosscountry studies of growth and should conduct more detailed longitudinal case studies.

stagnation of many countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia in the 1980s? They discuss five national policies: ¢ Fiscal policy. What are the growth effects of different types of taxcs and public spending (for example, how do those that affect consumption compare with those that affect investment)? Docs fiscal mismanagement create uncertainty that reduces growth?

¢ Monetary policy. Do countries with high inflation tend to zrow more slowly? Does the variance of monetary growth and inflation matter for growth?

* Trade intervention. Do distortionary interventions (tariffs and quotas) in forcign trade affect growth or do they have only one-time level effects? L es instability in trade and exchange rate policy affect growth?

* Financial policies. Do penaltics on domestic financial intermediation affect growth? How strong are the effects on growth through lower investment and those through inefficient allocation of investment?

* Openness to foreign capital. How do restriclions on direct forcign investment affect growth?

Easterly, King, Levine, and Rebelo propose a rescarch agenda based on the endogenous growth litcrature, designed to address the qucstions: How do national policies affect long-run growth? Which policies strongly affect long-run growth? Do policics explain why some poor countrics have stagnated and others have advanced? Do policies explain successive periods of rapid growth and stagnation in the samc country? To what cxtent do national policies — ratner than extemal influences — explain the Their analytical framework is based on the simple idea that all factors of production can be increased by investing in human or physical capital. Economic growth will be rclated to policies that affect the incentive to invest and the efficient use of capital and intermediate inputs. Such a framework can be used to consider which policies affect the long-run growth rate rather than affecting simply the level of income once and for all.

The PRE Working Paper Sernes disseminates the findings of work under way in the Bank's Policy, Research, and External - Affairs Complex. Anobjective of the series is to get these findingsout quickly, even if presentations are less than fully polished. : The findings, interpretauions, and conclusions in these papers dv not necessarily represent official Bank policy. ; | |

Produced by the PRE Dissemination Center
# TABLEOF CONTENTS

|Executive Summary... 12. ec<br>cee<br>eee<br>e center eteseresssscsesess<br>||
|---|
|I. Objectives and strategy .. 0.0... ec<br>cece<br>ce cee etn ee eeetescesesseee<br>DB|
|A. Growth experience of developing countries .............0.ccceececescees<br>4<br><br><br>|
|1. Experience over 1965-88 2.0... .. ccc<br>cece cece ence ete sceseees<br>4<br> <br><br>|
|<br><br><br><br>|
|<br><br> Contribution<br>to knowledge of policy-related issues .................0e2002.<br>6<br><br>|
|C.Empiricalmethodology...........ccccececececreeteceeteeecenssscee<br>9|
|<br><br>D. Relevance<br>of the agenda to policy ........ 0...<br>cece cece ccc ec csecveces<br>10|
|I. Design of the research agenda ....... 0... ccc cece cece tee cece ec ececeveceseees<br>12|
|A.Analyticalframework.......0...cccccccececeeeecereceseescsces<br>12|
|<br><br>1. Policies that affect incentives to capital accumulation .................<br>12|
|2. Policies that affect efficiencyofresource allocation ..................<br>17<br><br><br> <br>|
|B.Syntheticissues2.02...<br>ccc<br>ceceeceeeeeeecenteesecccrescees<br>27|
|<br><br> <br><br>1. Growth<br>andwelfare2.0...occcccccceeecete<br>erececcvee27<br>2.|
|<br> <br> Persistence<br>of growth rates ........<br>cece<br>eee cece cenceseecee<br>32<br><br>|
|C. Empirical methodology ........... 2... ccc cece cee cece ete cesecccces<br>34|
|TIT. Conclusion ... 2... cece cece cee ence twee cess cen cececccecececes<br>42|
|Bibliography<br>.. 2.0.2... ccc<br>ce<br>eee<br>ee eee<br>eee etree eet c ent ee tes essevscese 49|
|Box1:Measurement<br>ofgrowth......0...ccccecececeencetececcceccsv**c**c**c**ec**s**<br>Ll<br>Box <br><br>|
|<br> <br><br> 2: How does growth begin? Why doesgrowth<br>stop? ............cceceeeec e ss<br>16|
|Figure1:Averagegrowthrates,1870-1988;Growthrates,developingcountries,1870-1988;|
|<br>Growth rates, developed countries, 1870-1988 .......... ccc cece cece ccceccee<br>7|
|Figure2: Growth rates of output per capita, 1965 to 1989 2.0.0...<br>cee eee ee eeeee 20|
|Table1:Cross-countryaverages1960-89..0.2...ceecctcc<br>ccccecteesteeccecee<br>3B|
|<br> <br><br>Table2:Growthratesofoutputpercapita,1965to19892.0...<br>ceceeeeceeee<br>5|
|<br> <br><br>Table3:Inequalityandgrowth.......0...cccece<br>cececccceceeeetceseeses|
|<br> <br>Table4:Incomeandsocialindicators........0...ceceeeeeecececccceeceseeserees<br>Sl|
|<br><br>Table5:Persistenceofpoliciesandgrowthperformance................00eeeeeeee+<br>33|
|<br><br>Table6:Summarylistofhypothesestobetested......0...cccceeeeeeeceeeeeeee<br>36|
|<br><br>Table7:Dataforanalysisofpolicyandgrowth...........<br>0.ccccceeecececcevceces<br>ST<br><br> <br>|
|<br> <br><br>Table8:Internationally<br>availabledatasources...........<br>00.0ececececeeeeececeees38<br><br>|
|<br> <br> <br>Table9:Matrixofcorrelationsacrosspolicies........0.0.cececccceecteeecccececee<br>4l|
# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Which policies, if any, strongly affect long run growth? Do policies explain why some poor countries have stagnated and others have advanced? Do policies explain successive periods of rapid growth and stagnation in the same country? To what extent do national policies--rather than external influences--explain the stagnation of many countries in Africa, Latin America, ad Asia in the 1980's? This paper sets out a research agenda based on the endogenous growth literature designed to address the question "Do Nationai Policies Affect Long-Run Growth?".

### Policy issues

## This paper discusses five national policies:

- (1) Fiscal policy. What are the growth effects of different types of taxes and public spending, such as those that affect consumption versus those that affect investment? What is the growth impact of public investment? Does fiscal mismanagement create uncertainty that lowers growth?

- (2) Monetary policy. Do countries with high inflation tend to grow more slowly? Does the variance of monetary growth and inflation matter for growth?

- (3) Trade intervention. Does distortionary intervention in foreign trade with tariffs and quotas have growth effects or only one-time level effects? Does instability in trade and exchange rate policy affect growth?

- (4) Financial policies. Do penalties on domestic tinancial intermediation affect growth? How strong are the effects on growth through lower investment and those through inefficient allocation of investment?

- (5) Openness to foreign capital. How do restrictions on direct foreign investment affect growth?

## Importance of the issues

Many of the developing countries have been undergoing adjustment for several years. Progress has been made, but the recovery of growth has been slow in coming. The critical issue in the 1990’s will be designing policies to enhance per capita growth. This is necessary both to improve the standard of living and to service the loans they have received in support of adjustment efforts. Identifying the critical policies for restoration of growth will help frame policy recommendations in adjustment loans.

# Summary of analytical framework

This paper’s analytical framework is based on the simple idea that ali factors of production can be increased through investment in human or physical capital. Economic growth will be related to policies that affect the incentive to invest and that affect the efficient use of capital and intermediate inputs. Such a framework can be used to consider which policies affect the long-run growth rate, as opposed to affecting the level of income once and for all.
2 The framework can also be used to analyze complex interactions among policies and initial conditions. In a highly distorted economy, a minimum degree of policy reform may be needed to have any growth effect. The way policies interact will determine their net effect. For example, raising taxes may raise or lower growth depending on whether the taxes are used for government consumption or investment, whether the taxes penalize private consumption or investment, and whether the tax is easily evaded such that raising a given amount of revenue is highly distortionary.

# Empirical methodology

The analytical framework derives testable predictions regarding the relationship between the national policies and long-run growth. We outline a variety of econometric and qualitative techniques to examine the accuracy of these predictions and determine which policies are most important in promoting growth. We argue that researchers should use fairly aggregate indicators of national policies. We recommend this approach for two reasons. First, in examining a broad collection of policies, it is not feasible within the context of one study to construct detailed covntry-by-country indicators of every aspect of fiscal, monetary, trade, international capital, and domestic financial policies. But one should account for potentially important interactions among national policies, so that it is important that one include aggregate measures of all of these national policies in a study. Second, it is of interest whether one can predict the growth performance of countries by observing commonly used measures of national policies. If we can use aggregate measures of national policies to predict growth performance, then these measures will be useful target indicators in formalizing policy reform packages.

The empirical methodology described in this paper consists of cross-country and pooled tests of the theoretical predictions. Although there is a large literature that regresses average growth rates on various explanatory variables, this approach could extend this literature by (1) using an analytical framework to consider the broad range of national policies listed above and interpret the results, (2) conducting sensitivity analyses to gauge the robustness of the results, and (3) examining theoretical predictions that have not been previously tested.

The research could also examine the relationship between growth and broader measures of welfare such as social indicators and environmental measures. Preliminary evidence suggests high correlation between growth and other welfare measures, but the research could look at what factors could cause them to diverge.
3

# I. Objectivesand Strategy

The belief that economic policy is a major determinant of economic growth has been expressed in the writings of economists for over 200 years. Much empirical work in the development literature has demonstrated such a link.’ For example, Table 1 shows how over the past 30 years, fast-growing countries have had less government consumption, lower inflation, less of a black market premium, and more trade than slow-growing countries.

TABLE 1 <!-- Start of picture text --> Cross-Country Averages: 1960-89. -<br>Fastgrowers Slowgrowers<br>Share of investment in GDP 0.27 0.17<br>Secondary echool enrollment rates 0.27 0.07<br>Primary school enrollment rates 0.90 0.52<br>GovernmentGoverment / GDF 0.16 0.13<br>Inflation rate.consumption/ GDP 80 . 4208 160 . 4251<br>Standard deviation of inflation 8.75° 19.38 - .<br>Black warket exchange rate premium 4.65 75.03°<br>Standard deviation of premiun. 6.53 105.69 - i:<br>Shareof exports: to GDP 0.44. 0.29 ;<br>Fastgrovece: One standard deviation greater than or equal to the meen _<br>Slowgrowere: One-standardgrowth rete. deviation.-less.than.(cutoffs 6.0; n=i2) or equal.to the mean growth<br>tate. (cutoff *-0.2; n#i5) “<br><!-- End of picture text --> However, the nature of the relationship between policy and growth is far from settled. Controversy continues on which policies, if any, have growth effects as opposed to one-time effects on the level of income. For example, some authorr have argued that policies that induce distortions are relatively unimportant because they have only one-time effects on income that seldom amount to more than a few percentage points (e.g. Rodrik (1990)). Others question the causality of the relationship between the policy variables and growth of the type shown in Table 1. Substantial controversy remains as te which policies explain relative successes and failures, and to what extent external factors play a role relative to national policies. Other doubts exist whether the relationship between policy variables and growth is the simple linear one usually assumed, or is more complex, with thresholds for effective minimum reforms.

———————_—— appendix 1 provides 2 brief survey of the literature. A more extensive survey can be found in Reneit (1990).
4

## A. Growth experience of developing countries

The issue of which policies affect long-run growth has become especially critical as many developing countries seek to reestablish (or in some cases, establish for the first time) conditions for growth in the 1990's, after the poor record of the 1980's.

## 1. Experience over 1965-88

Table 2 presents growth rates for 1965-89 and 1980-89 for different country classifications. Three important facts stand out: (1) growth rates over the last 25 years vary widely across countries and regions; (2) developing countries have not in general grown more rapidly than developed countries over the last 25 years; (3) the 1980’s was a disastrous decade for many developing countries. Sub-Saharan Africa stands out with a poor growth record on all counts, East Asia with an outstanding growth record. However, wide divergences exist among countries in the same region. This record suggests that large variation in growth rates across countries needs to be explained; it is critical to understand the extent to which national policies can do so.

Table 2 also presents some ranges of growth rates for growth in socialist countries, illustrating the uncertainty surrounding socialist economic performance. The high values of estimates imply respectable performance, which has been interpreted by some to support the conclusion that high distortions (such as those induced by planning) do not have growth effects.” The low estimates imply a strong effect of distortions, since investment rates for most of these countries were very high.

Preliminary analysis of developing country data indicates some suggestive regularities. We find that growth over time is not very stable--the correlation for growth in countries across successive 5-year periods is low.’ Moreover, poorer countries have more unstable growth rates, which may be related to greater policy instability in the poorest countries. The nigh variance of growth rates is at least suggestive that relatively frequent changes in policy may help explain changes in growth rates over successive periods (and possibly that uncertainty itself depresses growth). We will discuss the analysis of the lack of persistence in growth rates below.

# 2. Long-run experience

While this project will focus mainly on the recent period for which most of the daia is available, a longer-run perspective is also helpful. Figure 1 shows some estimates of long-run growth (since 1870) in developing and developed countries for which long time-series are available. The siriking fact that emerges from this graph is that growth is much more unstable for

> 2Lucas (1988). However, opinion seems to be swinging towards lower estimates. IECSE is conducting research on the estimation of growth in socialist countries in transition.

> 5The cross-period correlations are generally below .4 and in many cases below .2 (these results are available in Levine and Renelt (19906).
5

# Tabie 2

# Growth rates of output per capita, 1965 to 1989

||GDP pe<br>Annuai|r capita<br>averages|
|---|---|---|
|Country group|<br>1965-89|1989-89|
|Low- and middia-incoma economies|1.4%|0.1%|
|Low-income economies<br>|0.5%<br>|0.2%<br>|
|Middie-income economies|2.1%|0.3%|
|Sub-Saharan Africa|0.6%|0.5%|
|Highest - Botswana|9.4%|7.8%|
|Lowest - Niger|3.2%|4.8%|
|East Asia|4.1%|3.6%|
|Highest-Korea|7.7%|8.2%|
|<br>Lewest - Philippines|1.1%|-1.8%|
|South Asia|1.7%|2.3%|
|Highest - Pakistan|2.3%|3.0%|
|Lowest - Bangladesh|0.1%|0.8%|
|Latin America and the Caribbean<br>|1.0%<br>|-1,2%<br>|
|Highest-60-89Brazil,80-89Colombia|4.2%|1.3%|
|<br>Lowest - Nicaragua|-1.8%|-3.9%|
|OECD|2.6%|2.0%|
|Highest-Japan|4.5%|3.4%|
|<br>Lowest - 65-89 New Zealand, 80-89 Netherlands|1.2%|1.4%|
|Socialist economies (low range, high range)|Low|High|
|China(1965-88)||5.4%|
|<br>Algeria (1965-88)||2.7%|
|Yugosiavia (1965-88)||3.4%|
|Czechoslovakia (1948-88)|0.8%|3.5%|
|Hungary(1948-88)|1.7%|5.1%|
|<br>Poland(1948-88)|0.1%|3.6%|
|<br>Bulgaria(1948-80,1948-88)|2.8%|5.5%|
|<br>Soviet Union (1860-85)|1.6%|4.5%|
|Averageoflast§socialisteconomies|1.4%|4.4%|

All averages are unweighted. Oil-dominated countries have been exciuded.

## Sources:

Non-socialist economies taken from WOR 1990 and upa.ued 1989 with World Bank data Socialist economies as follows: Algena - from Summers and Heston (1988) China - from Statistical Yearbook of China 1984.

Yugoslavia - from Statistical Yearbook of the SFRY, various years _ . Czechosiovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria - from Fischer and Gelb (1990), UN (1948), and WOR 1990. ; Soviet Union - High rate is from official numbers, and low rate is from Selyunin & Khanin (1987).
6 developing countries than for developed countries.‘ Most of the developing countries show distinctive starts and stops in their pattern of development. The mcxt famous case, Argentina, grew slightly above the OECD average over 1870-1913, but has lagg.‘d well behind ever since (with a particularly alarming decline after 1973). Ghana had respectable growth in 1913-50, then lagged badly in 1950-73, and finally went into catastrophic negative growth after 1973 (from which it is now recovering). Of the !1 developing countries shown, only 2 show reasonably steady growth -- Brazil and Colombia. Aside from the disruption of wars and other exogenous shocks, it is plausible that changes in policy regimes had much to do with shifts in growth performance. By contrast, the greater steadiness of growth in developed countries may reflect a more stable policy regime.

has For other developing countries, there is some doubt whether sustained per capita growth ever taken place. The incisive study of Reynolds (1985) concluded that per capita growth had definesnoi begun in 7 out of the 4U countries he was analyzing.’ The 1996 DevelopmentWorld Report while the level of “extreme poverty" as US$275 per capita consumption in 1985 PPP prices, US$370 per capita defines simple "poverty". According to data from Summers and Heston (1988), there are 8 countries below the extreme poverty line, while there are another 14 countries below the upper poverty line.° If we assume that the poverty line (or the extreme poverty line) approximates the range of minimum subsistence income, this would imply that income in these countries today is not much different from what it was in the distant past.’ Government policies may help to explain why countries have failed to grow. The analysis of the growth-poverty reiation will be discussed in a later section.

# B. Contribution to knowledge of policy-related issues

If specific policies help explain a significant portion of the substantial differences in longTun growth shown here (and thus iuge differences in per capita income), this should help convince even th- most reluctant statesman to adopt reforms. As Robert Lucas said, "The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: Once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else.” Whether policy has growth effects has long been a controversial issue. In the traditional neoclassical framework, based on the work of Solow, policies have an effect only in the transition after a policy change, not in the long run. Recent theoretical models have extended the Solow model by endogenizing technological change, making it either another form of capital or ‘ The only exceptions to the steady growth pattern of the developed countries are Japan and Spain, both of whom made the transition from developing to developed countries over the period shown.

> 5 The countries were Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nepal, Sudan, and Zaire.

> § The "extremely poor" countries are Zaire, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, Malawi, Tanzania, Ghana, and Rwanda, while the “poor” countries are Zambia, Burundi, Liberia, Niger, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Uganda, Angola, Mali, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Togo, Kenya, and Nigeria. It is significant that all of these countries are in Africa, suggesting there are region-wide factors that need to be considered, as will be done in one of the proposed case studies described below. ” This argument was suggested by Lant Pritchett.

5Lucas (1988), p. 5.
7 Figure 1 Average growth rates, 1870-1988 <!-- Start of picture text --> 8.0<br>6.0<br>|<br>4.0<br>2.0 ena oss ae<br>Qremcmmemcsmnennsaeene ee<br>0.0 =<br>-2.0<br>1870-1913 1913-1950 1950-1973 1973-1988<br>Developed countries Developing countries<br>Growth rates, developing countries, 1870-1988<br>8.0<br>6.0 ene<br>“nm weet en me<br>2.0 el et LF OR<br>0.0| Sesae eek<br>as rea ><br>-2.0 a<br>1870-1913 1913-1950 1950-1973 1973-1988<br>ARG BRA CHN COL EGY GHA<br>—momemtigemmmns ome eGeemmm eeepcees | eee afi ame meste esas come mbpo ene<br>8.0<br>6.0 een<br>4.0 oe<br>2.0 vcuea gag pus eget SOO a<br>coeee ee“ac _ | tee, :a oe<br>oe - |<br>1870-1913 1913-1950 ~ 4950-1973 1973-1988<br>IND MEX PER PHL KOR<br>rir mmm mp name fetePp esse eee ape ame mmm ese aces<br><!-- End of picture text -->
8 Figure1 (continued) Growth rates, developed countries, 1870-1988 <!-- Start of picture text --> 6.0<br>[ Sm,<br>4.0 - oe<br>eeBee.<br>GhosrllTTt m e ee, po<br>0.0 ae<br>-2.0 t-.<br>1870-1913 1913-1950 1950-1973 1973-1988<br>AUS AUT BEL CAN ONK FIN<br>8.0 Lo<br>6.0 L. 7“ y ~ ~ ~<br>2.0 ene wwe,<br>OL Serene “—<br>—<br>0.0<br>-2.0<br>1870-1913 1913-1950 1950-1973 1973-1988<br>FRA = DEU ITA JPN NLD NOR<br>—emmsjomemenae ween pee teeheees cme ap cnme com ten@ecmms ee ahips ane<br>8.0<br>40 aWMhee<br>i ae ae<br>0.0 grein ey<br>—<br>2.0 |<br>1870-1913 1913-1950 - 4950-1973 1973-1988<br>SWE CHE GBR USA ESP<br>—mamejpemmees me eepuwme ffSh ees mmm ogle omms ames oceme<br><!-- End of picture text -->
9 hypothesizing spillovers from physical and human capital investments. In the simple model that we use in this paper, all factors of production can be accumulaied. Such a model implies long-run growth effects both from the overall incentive to accumulate capital (related to overall taxes, macroeconomic stability, etc.) and from distortion of resource allocation. In this model, fiscal, monetary, trade, and financial policies can affect the level and efficiency of factor accumulation and thus steady-state growth rates.’

# C. Empirical methodology

An important and influential strand of empirical research on economic growth has focused on "growth accounting”: estimating the proportion of growth attributable to changes in labor and capital inputs, with the residual assumed to represent total factor productivity growth. This paper proposes a different approach. Instead of analyzing the "factor sources of growth", this agenda suggests analyzing the "policy sources of growth".

The framework we set out yields testable implications regarding each policy and also illustrate the implications for growth of interactions among policies. Research could investigate the predictions from theory in an effort to better understand the relationship between national policies and long-run gror ‘h. :Or There is also a substantial literature using cross-country and time-series analyses to search empirival links between long-run growth rates and eco.omic, political, and institutional variables.” It is difficult to compare effects of policies from this literature, since authors study different sets of countries, over different years, use different explanatory variables, measure policy indicators differently, and employ different data sets. In addition, most investigators consider only a small number of explanatory variables in attempting to establish a statistically significant relationship between growth anda particular variable of interest. For example, many authors who examine the relationship between fiscal policy and growth omit variables measuring trade and monetary policies, while authors who study the importance of trade policy commonly omit fiscal and international financial policy variables.

Thus, we suggest a number of extensions. First, test a set of hypotheses emerging from a common framework, Second, by compiling a comprehensive data base, compare new findings to past findings an< discover the sources of important discrepancies. This will help extract the most reliable inferences. Third, consider a broad range of national policies. This will allow one to quantify which national policies are most important in determining growth and to address important interactions among policies. Fourth, conduct detailed sensitivity analyses to gauge the confidence one should have in the findings and to uncover new areas for economic research."

> "However, the consequences of the level effects in the neoclassical model approach the growth effects of the "new" models as the capital share becomes large. 1° Appendix I contains a survey of the theoretical and empirical growth literature. See also the reviews by Chenery, Robinson, and Syrquin (1986), Chapter 1 and Levine and Renelt (1990b). "1 See the original work by Leamer (1985) and its application to growth by Levine and Renelt (1990a).
10

# D. Relevance of the agenda to policy

The present model used by most World Bank economists assumesa linear relationship between investment and growth (the incremental capital-output ratio--ICOR). The ICOR is often assumed to improve (i.e. decline) in response to reforms such as trade or financial liberalization. Although often criticized for the lack of a clear theoretical foundation, the ICOR model is a useful first approximation to capture the link between investment and growth. However, it gives little guidance to evaluate what kind of reforms are likely to raise growth for a given investment rate, or what the magnitude of such growth effects might be. It also omits the effect of changes in the level and efficient allocation of human capital. Research could make a weful contribution by providing a framework to explicitly connect policies to efficiency and growth.
11 Box 1:. Measurementof growth We generally assume that GDP is the appropriate measure of national output, and. that it is-measured correctly in the available-data. However, we should. take note of: serious. measurement issues thathave.been raised inthe literature, and use existing work: : in the fie!d ‘to avoid. drawing conclusions based:on ‘spurious growth in-output. “ One difficulty that has been mentioned in the literature is that GDP is uncorrected : - for depreciation’ of ‘capital assets and depietion. of natural resources. (International : Economics Department (1989), Ahmad et.al. (1989)) Data on depreciationand depletion. are generally scant for developing countries, and definitional issues are: formidable: Nevertheless, a few-rough corrections could be made. For example, it has been noted that: output growthin oil producing countries is biased. since extraction of oil is essentially. conversion of an asset into cash rather than~ true production: Taking this and environmental degradation into account, Repetto et. al. (1989) lowered the estimate of: growth in Indonesia from 7 percent to 4 percent over 1971-84. In cases where countries. with large mineral sectors are being studied, the. project will examine growth in the nonmineral sector to see how much it differs fromthe usual growth estimates. Another problem with measurement of both levels and growth rates of GDP ‘is. changes in relative sectoral prices across count:ies and over time. Drastically different: relative prices ormisaligned exchange. rates: makes dollar'GDP incomparable. across : countries --. this problem has been addressed.in:the International Comparisons: Project: (Summers and Heston (1988)). A:similar problemisthat constant-price- growth rates ina single country are not robust to changes in the-base year, since the weighting of different . sectors can change drastically with a change in the. base year(Azam; Guillamont, and-. Guillamont (1988)). In the countries we.analyze,we will look at therobustness of growth: rates and income levels across different methodologies.

The results from a research agenda like this should be helpful in evaluating long-run growth effects of adjustment packages. Although the importance of long-run growth is universally acknowledged, little analytical effort is spent on evaluating the growth consequences of policies relative to their short-run macroeconomic impacts. It is well known that policies to reduce macroeconomic imbalances could reduce long-run growth. For example, many debtor countries followed the combination of raising import taxes and reducing public infrastructure investment in response to the cutoff of external financing after 1982 even though it may well have reduced growth potential ((Corbo et al. (1987), Easterly (1989), Sachs (1990)). This research would also contribute to the academic debate on the size and sign of the long-run effects of macroeconomic adjustment and structural reforms (¢.g. Rodrik (1990), Sachs
12 (1987)). The bringing together of a diverse group of academic economists and Bank staff should generate fresh insights into the relationship between policy and growth.

# It. researchDesign of the agenda

under The strategy followed in the agenda is to set out and test the simplest possible framework which policies have growth effects. This framework generally has unambiguous predictions as to which policies have growth effects, and the sign of those effects. We recognize that the framework leaves out numerous interactions that may complicate the relationships set out here. Indeed, whole branches of macroeconomics, public finance, international trade, and finance are devoted to analyzing the magnitude and signs of most of the effects predicted here. Nevertheless, we argue that the broad brush treatment given by the framework of this agenda is a usefu! starting point. The policymaker and country economist do not have the luxury of analyzing effects in isolation but must evaluate a set of policies together. For this, a simple framework is needed if the analysis is not to quickly become intractable.

### A. Analytical framework

In this section, we set out a theoretical framework relating specific policies to growth. We present first policies that affect growth by affecting the level of investment, then policies that affect the efficiency of investment. Some of the policies enumerated above affect both the level and efficiency of investment, and will be discussed in both sections.

#### 1. Policies that affect incentives to capital accumulation

that We first present a model in which the level of investment is the only economic variable affects long-run growth -- we abstract from any investment allocation issues. Policies in this framework alter growth by affecting the level of investment.

include Wephysical assumeandthathuman outputcapital:”(Y) is proportional to "capital" (K), which is broadly defined to

## (1) Y=AK

The coefficient A is assumed not to vary either over time or across countries. Labor implicitly enters the model through K, since human capital is utilized only to the extent that people are in the labor force and are employed. That is, if k is human capital per person and N is number of employed persons, then the component of K due to human capital is equal to KN.

We assume an economy closed to inflows or outflows of capital, so the rate of saving and

> ‘>This production function was suggested by Rebelo (1991), and used in the work of Barro (1990, 1991) and King and Rebelo (1990).It bears a resemblance to the linear output-capital models long used in the development literature.
13 the rate of investment are equal.” If the economywide rate of accumulation of new capital (and saving) is a fixed proportion of ovtput, i, then growth of output g will be given bv: (2) g=iA-d where o is the rate of depreciation of capital. We should stress again that investment, i, is broader than the conventional definition since we include also human capital accumulation." We see that growth depends only on the economywide level of investment, i, and the technologically fixed parameters, A and d. We are omitting an explicit description of how population growth enters the model, although it will be included in the empirical implementation. Since population growth is considered to be exogenously fixed for the purposes of this proposal, it does not affect the pclicygrowth relationships we set out whether we interpret growth as per capita or gross output growth.” Since growth depends only on investment, we need to analyze how policy affects investment. We assume that economic agents maximize the present value of their future welfare extending indefinitely into the future. This is a useful first approximation to the plausible notion that investors must be rewarded with adequate returns to their capital in order to willingly postpone consumption.” With investment responding in this way, the common growth rate of output, consumption, and capital will then be given by: 5<sup>Thisassumption will be maintained throughout the analysis except for the consideration of direct foreign investment.The assumption</sup> ofa closed capital market does not rule out capital flows such as official credits, aid, or rationed commercial loans, which can be easily accomodated in this framework. Few developing economies are integrated with international capital markets, so the simplifying assumption of a closed capital market seems reasonable. For those that are open, the model would need to incorporate complications such as adjustment costs of investment. Similar effects of policy obtain in such an open capital market model (details available upon request).

‘This creates a potential measurement problem for "investment," to which we propose several imperfect but workable solutions. One is to try to directly measure human capital investment (such as education and heaith spending); this will generally only be possible in restricted samples. Another is to assume that in the long run, the policies we are considering do not affect the composition of investment between human and physical capital; this is restrictive, but permits the use of the conventionalinvestment rate as a proxyfor all investment. Finally, other proxies for human capital investment can be used, such as enrollment rates and health indicators. We will experiment with all three approaches and test applicable restrictions. In cases where the measurement problems prove insuperable, we can still use the reduced form relation between growth and policies to be presented next.

we needS1¢ laborto makesupplyan assumptionis exogenous,about thentheit willdegree growof with population.spillover of capitalTo acrosssee thegenerations. effect of populationIf there is growthcomplete onspillover per capita(so output growth,that cach new person is endowed with the existing average, k), then population growth is neutral — there is no effect on per capita growth of higher population growth. If there is zero or less than complete spillover, then higher population growth lowers per capita output growth. lSPhere is a rich literature on economic determinants of fertility and population growth (see, for example, Birdsall (1989)). We omit the potential feedback from policy to population growth in order to limit the scope of the proposal, assuming that such feedback effects are sali in comparison to the direct policy effects on growth that we analyze.

VEvidence on the response of saving to rates of return is inconclusive (see Gersovitz (1988) and Schmidt-Hebbei, Webb and Corsetti (1990).
14 (3) g =(A-6-p)/o

# where p is the rate of discount and 1/o is the intertemporal elasticity of substitution.”

Growth is given by the difference between the net rate of return on capital (A-d) and the rate of discount p, times the intertemporal elasticity of substitution. The higher is the rate of return to capital, the higher is growth. Since many policies affect how much of the return to capital investors can retain, this will be the channel through which such policies affect growth.

## a. Fiscal policy

We consider first a universal tax on income, t. The after-tax rate of return to capital becomes A(1-7), so growth will be given by: (4) g = (A(1-1) - 6 -p)/o The model makes a simple, testable prediction: growth is negatively and linearly related to the income tax rate, with coefficient -A/o. This assumes that the revenues from the tax are not used for anything that itself increases the economy’s capital, such as government investment. It also assumes that the tax cannot be evaded. Since government capital and tax evasion both affect the efficiency of investment, the implications of these will be explored in the next section.” We next note that a tax on output, such as a sales tax of rate t, will have the same effect as an income tax in this framework. An output tax applied to investment purchases will imply a net rate of return of A/(1+t). Thus, an output tax shifts down the net rate of return the same way an income tax does.” growth effect.However,Sinceif theno sales taxtax is paid onon outputinvestment, applies onlythere tois consumptino effect **on** ,thethenrate thereof return, will be noand

> 16We are assuming that all individuals have identical preferences, so we are abstracting from the savings and investment effects of distributional shifts stressed by, ¢.g., Taylor (1983). ‘Note that if the tax revenues are implicitly or explicitly transferred back to consumers, the tax would not affect the overall rate of saving and investment if private saving were a fixed ratio to private income. However, with endogenous investment and saving, the growth effects of higher taxes are the same regardless of whether the revenues from the tax are consumed by the government, transferred back to consumers, or otherwise “wasted”.

> An output tax of rate t is equivalent to an income tax of rate U(1+t).
15 thus no effect on growth. This model makes the strong prediction that taxing investment (through a general income or output tax) lowers growth, while taxing consumption does not.” The implication that investment taxes harm growth while consumption taxes do not could also be examined with cross-country data on the price of investment goods and consumption goods from Summers and Heston (1988), since prices can be assumed to reflect implicit taxes. De Long and Summers (1990) have put the relative price of producers’ durables into a cross-section growth regression. Their finding that a low price of producers’ durables is associated with high growth is suggestive. We suggest exploring these results further with disaggregated data on relative prices of different types of investment goods, and by separating out the effects of investment prices and consumption prices.

### b. Monetary policy

Monetary policy in developing countries is often driven by the financing needs created by the public sector deficit.?7 The inflation created by monetary growth operates as a tax on holdings of money. It is reasonable to suppose that money is used to purchase investment goods, and money must be held for some minimum period to make the transaction. Inflation will thus act like an output tax on investment purchases, and the effects on growth will be essentially equivalent to those described for the output tax in the previous section: (5) 8 = (A(1+87)-6-p)/o where z is the inflation rate and 8 is a parameter reflecting the average length of time that money must be held in advance of investment transactions. Thus we have the strong prediction that there is a negative relationship between growth and inflation.” This representation of the long-run growth effects of monetary policy as equivalent to a marginal tax is no doubt too simple. As we will examine in the next section, inflation may cause resources to shift between sectors. In addition, the effect of monetary policy will depend on fiscal policy decisions, so that it is impossible to treat them separately. With both income taxes and the inflation rate, the growth relationship becomes

## (6)

# — ACi-t)(1+Ba) -p-d g= o

> of the2\Thetraditional relative meritneoclassicalof consumptionmodel (see andAtkinson income andtaxesStiglitz has been(1980)extensivelyfor a discussion). debated in theNote publicthat financethe strongliteratureconclusion withinofthe no contextgrowth effect of consumption taxes would be overturned if labor supply were highly responsive to real wages and the revenues from the consumption tax were completely transferred back to taxpayers. Our hypothesis depends on the joint probability of these two conditions being low. The consistency reiation between government revenue, spending, borrowing, growth and the inflation tax is stressed by Anand and van Wijnbergen (1989) and van Wijnbergen (1989). This is analogous to results obtained for the neoclassical model by Stockman (1981). Sce also Mino (1990).
16 <!-- Start of picture text --> Box 2:_ How dogs growth begin? Why does growth stop?<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> It fe also useful ta consider modele in which growth may not take place et all because.of bad poillcles, -As:.--<br>mentioned in the introduction, not ali.developing countries show evidence of sustained per capita growth... Other...<br>economies that previously had experienced growth seem to have ground to a halt in the last decades (for example;:..<br>We 906 zero per.capita growth for Argentina 1968-88, Nigeria 1960-87, and the Philippines 1975-86}. We preeent here...<br>some basic models in which policy determines not only the level of growth, but whether growth takes place at all. (See.<br>also Nelson (1986), Azariadis and Drazen (1990), Becker, Murphy, and Tamura (1990), Murphy, Shleifer, and Viehny.<br>(1989), Rebelo (1990); and Easterly (1990e)). 7<br>a. Economieswith poverty traps a<br>Insection I.A.1, we assumed that, other things equal, all countries should have the eame saving rate:: in:<br>reality poor countries, in particular those with income levels near the poverty line, tend to have very low rates of saving...<br>suchThis phenomenonthat savings cangoesbeto easilyzero capturedas income byapproaches introducingsubsistence.into the utility function the ‘subsistence’This formulation makes the levelrate ofof consumption,savings very. . .<br>inelastic when the level of income is near subsistence. The growth rate of income for an economy with these:<br>preferences is:<br>(1) g=AMFA ik)<br>where « is the capital stock that is consistent with the subsistence consumption level. in developed economies the...<br>term «/Kie clt o zeroseand 80 the rateof growth is basicallythat given by equation (4).<br>Policies that increase + in such a way that A(1-r) < »+é will make the economy converge toward the-.<br>"poverty trap‘ «. Once the capital stock is near « a policy change that makesA (1-7) > +6 will lead the economy-.°<br>to expand. But this recovery process can be very slow. ft can take a long time for the rate of expansion to increase...<br>significantly and the brush with poverty will leave permanent scars. A period in which ¢ is temporarily high will make.<br>the income level in the economy permanently lower. ;<br>b. Models with fixed factors *<br>So far we have assumed that fixed factors do not enter into. production. However, a model in which. fixed...<br>factors become unimportant only at higher income leveis, which seems broadly plausible in light of modern industrial...<br>development, would give similar reaults. Jones and Manuelli (1990) have proposed a production function of this type,~-.<br>This mode! has the interesting property that policy can cause aneconomy to be stuck in zero per capita growth, where:<br>fixed factors prevent growth as they do in the Solow modei. This would happen if the tax rate (oran equivalent penalty}:<br>on capital accumulation is high. A low tendency to save and/or high rate of population growth would make the zero...<br>growth equilibrium more likely. .<br>The intuition behind thenature of the zero growth trap in the Jones-Manuelli modells straightforward. Ae:<br>the capital-labor ratio rises, the after-tax marginal product of capital will gradually decline to a constant, which depends:<br>on the technology and on the fevel of the tax rate. If this constant (the minimum aiter-tax rate of return to capital} is...<br>greater than the sum of the population growth rate and the rate of discount, then consumers will find it worthwhile to...<br>keep increasing the capital-labor ratic, and growth will ensue. if the condition does not hold (because taxes are high;::::<br>for example), then consumerswill not have sufficient incentive to indefinitely raise the capital-labor ratio, and output.”<br>per worker will stagnate: This.is a similar result tothe model of section a, although here stagnation could take piace:<br>at any income level, not (ust atsubsistence income. an<br>Both of the modets of this section imply inequalities invoiving the tax rate, which suggestsan importantpolloy:::<br>lesson. A minimum: threshold for reform may be needed to have any effect on growth. mo<br><!-- End of picture text -->
17 This indicates that the growth effects of inflation are smaller, the larger is the fiscal tax rate, and vice versa. Given these complexities, individual researchers will be encouraged to look also at interaction terms between inflation and other policy indicators, as weil as at alternative measures of monetary policy.

## 2. Policies that affect efficiency of resource allocation

In this section, we consider policies that affect the efficiency of investment. In other words, the policies considered here have an effect on growth even if investment is unchanged. These results are particularly interesting because they challenge the common presumption that efficiency matters only for the level of income, not for the rate of growth in the long run. If we consider the reduced form relation between growth and policy for the policies in this section, the relationships will generally be nonlinear, unlike the simple linear relationships implied by the policies in the previous section.

We need to generalize the model of section 1 to consider two types of capital K, and K,: (7) Y = AF(K,K,) where A is a technologically fixed parameter and F is a function capturing how the two types of capital can be combined to produce output. We assume that this function displays all the usual properties: constant returns to scale and a diminishing marginal product of each input. Note that any policy that affects the two types of capital the same way will have the same effects as those described in the previous section. However, we want to consider policies that penalize one of the types of capital relative to another.

The two types of capital will be given various interpretations depending on the policy described. We will assume that the relative price of the two types of capital is fixed (at unity), either because they represent two alternative uses of the same good, or because they are traded internationally. In the absence of any policy intervention, producers in competitive markets would equate the marginal products of the two types of capital: (8) F, = F, Using (8), we can solve for the ratio of K, to K, and rewrite (7) as follows:

# (9) Y = AfgK

where K is the total value of the two types of capital (=K,+K,), and ¢ is a function of the parameters of the function F, reflecting the efficient allocation of capital.

In the fixed rate of investment case, the rate of growth will be given by:

## (10)

# g=iAp-d
18 wherei is the sum of the investments made in the two types of capital goods.” Note that growth now depends on the efficiency parameter ¢, even though A is still fixed.

If the rate of investment is endogenous, then growth will be given by the following:

### (11) 8 =(F,-6-p)io

Growth will respond to the net marginal product of capital (we could put the marginal product of either type of capital, since they are equal according to ‘8)), as in the previous model.

These growth equations are the same as before, with the exception of the efficiency parameter ¢. Policies that penalize one type of capital relative to another will lower this parameter and result in lower growth, even if investment is unchanged. Growth would also fall with endogenous investment, since the social rate of return to capital will fall with distortionary policies.

#### a. Fiscal policy

#### i. Differential taxes

We consider nowa tax that applies to some types of capital goods but not others. One example would be given where K, is interpreted to be human capital and K, physical capital, and t is a tax that applies to labor income (income from human capital) but not to profits (income from physical capital). Another example would be where income from capital in the formal sector (K,) is visible to the tax authorities and subject to tax, whereas income from capital in the informal sector (K,) can be hidden from the authorities and evades the tax. In any case of this type, the after-tax marginal products of the two types of capital will be equated:

# (12) (1-t) F, = F,

The tax introduces inefficiency, because it induces too much of the second type of capital to be held, and too little of the first type. Thus, higher differential taxes will induce lower growth both for a given rate of investment, and in a reduced form relation where investment is endogenous. In terms of the equations above, the efficiency parameter ¢ will be a negative (generally nonlinear) function of the tax rate:

## (13) g=Ad¢g(z)i-d

## ?’<0

This model would suggest an equation considerably different from that usually tested in the literature: there would be an interaction term between the investment rate and a nonlinear function of the tax rate.

The after-tax rate of return to capital (either (1-r)F, or F,) will fall, inducing lower growth also when investment is endogenous as in (11): 24We continue to assume a closed capital market so that investment equals saving. If the capital market were fully open and there were adjustment costs to investment in the two goods, we would get similar policy effects to those discussed below.
19

## (14) g = (Fit) -6 p)/o

#### F,'<0

The testable hypothesis is that a tax rate applying only to some investment goods but not to others lowers growth, both for a given rate of investment and when the investment rate is chosen optimally.

For example, with a CES function with a high elasticity of substitution, the relatiunship between the rate of tax and growth is that shown in figure 2.” The efficiency implications of the tax rate (i.e. the effect on growth with a fixed investment rate) at first are small, then increase sharply as the tax rate rises. This shape also has the interesting implication that growth stays above a certain minimum no matter how high the tax rate, which reflects the possibility of substituting away from the highly taxed input. Since the curve is flat at high tax rates, this implies a certain minimum threshold reduction in taxes must be achieved to have a significant growth effect when one starts with a high tax rate.

The relation between output and income taxes is analogous to the previous section. A sales tax which applies to investment purchases of type 1 capital goods, but not type 2 capital goods, will act the same as a tax on income from type 1 capital. Thus, a sales tax on formal sector purchases that can be evaded in the informal sector will have the same efficiency-lowering effects as the income tax above.

The results for consumption taxes are also analogous to the previous section. A tax that distorts consumption decisions has no effect on growth in this model, because it does not affect the allocation of investment. Thus, a sales tax that applies only to some consumption goods and not others, while lowering the efficiency of consumption and harming consumer welfare, would not lower the rate of growth in the long run.

#### ii. Public spending financed with distortionary taxes

An inadequate level of essential public capital--such as roads, telephones, water supply systems, etc.--is also a distortion affecting efficiency of resource use. If such public capital can only be financed by distortionary taxes of the type discussed in the previous section, then one has a complex tradeoff between the two distortions.

### The production function could be expanded to be:

#### (15)

# Y = AF(K, K, K)

where K, is government capital. The parameter on K, in this equation will vary across countries or regions if the productivity of government capital varies (this can be tested in the pooled timeseries regressions). We assume government capital is financed with a fixed share s, of the rhe nicture shown is with an elasticity of substitution3. While a high elasticity may seem unreasonable in an economy with only 2 capital goods, with many capital goods it is likely that there are close substitutes to any capital good that is taxed. This model assumes only 2 types of inputs for simplicity. With multiple capital inputs, there could be multiple tax differentials. A decrease in one tax rate in isolation could increase the overall level of distortion (for an example, see Easterty (1990c)).

2SThis equivalence is noted in Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980).
<!-- Start of picture text --> .<br>!<br>a7-<<br>~he o<br>ae ( o O ~gE<br>x<br>w : E<br>— } @ am<br>; ro) ”<br>' pam |<br>= : :<br>Oo '' °~ S<br>mee y £ MW<br>oT<br>|<br>.<br>x2 f oc<br>s $s ¢ aie<br>2 oO / ©<br>—_ =<br>» Sa : E 2<br>fe) ' $8 ¢«<br>b "£ &<br>am (<br>ra , = o<br>, i ° o<br>Oo e Dd<br>om a =<br>os) r nN =<br><= é ° 2<br>aja , Ral~<br>= si - =<br>©<br>;<br>oO sf] /<br>tes v7]<br>|<br>Oo) /<br>xs see se se «<br>no © + © OO WN<br>+ rs) rot]<br><!-- End of picture text -->
21 revenues from a tax on formal sector income, to use the example from the previous section. If we reinterpret total capital K from equation (9) as including government capital K,, then the efficiency parameter ¢ and the marginal product of private capital F, will be a positive function of the share of productive government spending s,. Efficiency ¢ will be a positive function of r at low levels of the tax rate and a negative function at high levels. At a low level of taxes, the marginal product of new public capital will generally be higher than the distortionary loss of output caused by the tax, while the opposite will be true at high levels.

### This implies the following equation for growth with a given investment rate:

# (16) g=Adg(ts)i-d ¢; > 0 at low t, ¢, <0 at high tr, d, > 0

The testable prediction is that growth for a fixed investment rate is higher, the higher the share of government revenue going to productive investment, and is related nonlinearly to the tax rate. With endogenous investment, the equation becomes:

# (17) g = (F,(ts,) - 6 - p)/e F,,>0 at low t, F,,<0 at high t, F,,>0

Growth is nonlinearly related to the tax rate (positively at low levels, negatively at high levels), and positively related to the share of government spending going to investment.

#### iii. uncertainty and fiscal policy

Uncertainty about marginal tax rates can also have growth effects. If the marginal tax rate on the taxed capital good is uncertain (because of macroeconomic instability, for example), risk averse investors will substitute out of the capital good with the uncertain private return and into the other capital good. This uncertainty has an additional negative effect on the economy's growth rate from the distortion induced by the tax itself. In particular, assuming the tax rate on the first capital good is random with an expected value of 1, this will introduce a positive risk premium, P, into the equation that determines the allocation of resources:

## (18) E{(1-t)F,] = E{F,] + P(VAR(z); 7)

where E[ ] is the expected value operator. P increases when the variance of the tax rate, VAR(r), rises. Thus an increase in the variance of the tax induces a substitution into capital good 2, which lowers the marginal product of capital and the economy’s growth rate.” The testable prediction emerging from this analysis is that increased uncertainty regarding the private returns to investment across capital goods alters the allocation of resources and lowers the economy’s growth rate for a given investment rate.” This uncertainty may reflect high and variable fiscal deficits, an "overhang" of external debt, possibilities of expropriation, uncertainty 27 See the textbook by Ingersoll (1987) for a formal derivation.

% There are some circumstances when tax uncertainty will not alter savings decisions. This occurs if tax revenues are completely rebated with certainty, tax uncertainty is uncorrelated with other policies and productivity shocks, and agentsare identical.
22 regarding tax enforcement, or uncertainty about the tax rate in specific sectors of the economy.” For example, individuais have to decide how much time and resources to invest in human capital and how much to invest in physical capital. If there is more uncertainty regarding the private returns to physical capital, the uncertainty will cause too much human capital investment and lower growth. Various empirical proxies for these risks will be used to measure the risk associated with tax uncertainty including the variability of the fiscal deficit, the external debt ratio, the variance of average tax rates, variations in the sectoral composition of tax revenues, and measures of political uncertainty that have been used to quantify the uncertain returns to easily appropriated investments (Barro (1991)].

It is worth emphasizing the interactions between tax uncertainty and other policies. The magnitude of the risk premium in equation (18) depends on the existence and level of policy distortions besides tax uncertainty. Thus, the growth effects of increased tax uncertainty depend on the marginal tax rate and other policies.” Similarly, in the case where tax revenues can be spent on activities that increase the return to private investment, the magnitude of the risk premium in equation (18) and the growth effects of increased tax uncertainty will depend on the manner in which government resources are spent. The potential importance of these interactions and interrelationships among policies will be examined empirically by including interaction terms in the cross-country and pooled studies.

### b. Monetary policy

With more than one type of capital good, inflation may have an efficiency impact, in addition to the effect on growth through the level of investment described in the previous section. This would be true if some investment goods required money to be used to purchase them, while others did not. For example, if there is a subsistence or househcld sector that does not use currency for transactions, then inflation (77) will act as a tax on capital in the modern sector but not in the subsistence sector. Growth will be lowered for a given rate of investment the same way as described for a tax on one type of investment good in the previous section:

## (19) g=Adg(xz)i-d

## ¢’<0

Uncertainty about inflation can also slow growth by distorting investment decisions if inflation affects sectors differentially. The inflation tax and uncertainty about inflation will cause investors to devote a smaller fraction of their investments to the sector (which we assume to be K,) affected by the inflation tax, which reduces economic growth. Formally,

# (20) [(-1)/(1+Bx)JE(F,) = ECR) + P(VAR(2); x, 1)

> “For the role of the external debt overhang in creating uncertainty, see Sachs (1988). On uncertainty induced by unstable policies, it is interesting to recall the higher variance of growth rates in low income countries (Section [.A.1). This raises the interesting possibility that policy uncertainty could contribute to a low-income "trap" of the kind dicussed in Box 2.

> » For example, uncertainty about taxes has less negative impact on growth the higheris the expected marginal tax rate. This is because a high tax rate itself lowers growth so much that the additional effect from uncertainty is smail.
23 where x = inflation, VAR(xx) = variance of inflation, P() is the risk premium associated with uncertain inflation, and E() is the expected value operator. Empirically, the variance of inflation and of growth rates of monetary aggregates can be used to measure monetary policy uncertainty.

Again, it is worth noting that interactions between inflation uncertainty, the inflation rate, and fiscal policy may be empirically important. The risk premium depends on policies other than inflation uncertainty, and the growth effects of inflation uncertainty will depend on the level of other policy distortions.” Indeed, higher inflation alone could induce greater uncertainty about future marginal taxes because inflation can interfere with the value of collected taxes. Examination of these policy interactions will be an important component of the empirical inquiry.

## c. Financial policy

Policies toward domestic financial market activities can also hive important growth effects in this model. Financial market policies affect growth by interfering with the ability of financial markets to manage risk, evaluate and monitor firms, gather information, and mobilize resources.

As the discussion above has already indicated, differential uncertainty about the rate of return to investment can reduce growth by distorting the allocation of investment. Assume that sector one is composed of firms that receive productivity shocks.” Individuals can diversify away the risk of productivity shocks by investing in a financial intermediary (such as a bank) that owns or lends to many firms. However, if investors cannot diversify away this risk by investing in many sector one firms because policies interfere with the ability of financial markets to allocate risk, then the return to investing in sector one, F,, becomes random. This will alter the allocation of investment:

# (21) E(F,) = E(F,) + P(VAR(F,)),

where P is a risk premium that increases when the variance of returns to sector one firms rises, VAR(F,). Uncertairity plays the saine role in preventing the efficient allocation of capital (where F, = F,) that a tax does.

The empirical prediction illustrated in equation (21) is that financial market policies that interfere wit’ the ability of financial markets to help investors diversify risk can reduce growth for a given rate of investment by altering allocation decisions.” The types of financial policies that can inhibit financial market activities include direct taxes on financial institutions, high reserve requirements, interest rate controls, direction of credit toward favored sectors and other less

> 3! For example, in the model above, the risk premium becomes smaller if the inflation rate is higher or marginal tax ra.es are higher for a given variance of inflation because higher inflation itself reduces jnvestment in the currency-using sector. Thus, this predicts that the higher the inflation rate or the higher the fiscal tax rate, the smaller is the negative effect of increased inflation uiucertaintyon growth. 32 Sector two firms can also receive shocks. The important point is that one sector is riskier than another,so that uncertaintycan alter allocation decisions. 3 Levine (1990, 1991) demonstrates this formally for specific financial institutions.
24 direct intrusions. Some financial policies may also directly distort resources by favoring one type of capital relative to another (for example, a credit subsidy for certain types of investments). In the individual case studies, attempts will be made to gather direct measures of these policies. In the cross-country analyses, aggregate measures of the performance of the financial system will be used.

Financial iaarkets do more than manage risk. They evaluate firms, monitor managers, collect and process information about the national and global economy, and mobilize capital. These traits are captured by Greenwood and Jovanovic (1990), Greenwald and Stiglitz (1989, 1990), and Levine (1990, 1991). In the context of this proposal’s model, these financial market traits imply that restrictive financial market policies can reduce growth for a given investment rate by worsening the allocation of resources. Since financial market policies can both influence the uncertainty faced by investors and the rate of return to private investment, the growth effects of financial market policies will depend on other policies and the growth affects of other national policies will depend on financial market policies.* Again, these potentially important interactions among policies would be an important and novel part of an empirical inquiry.

## d. Trade intervention and exchange rate policy

To consider the effects of trade policy, we now interpret the two capital goods as representing two different types of goods that are both traded internationally (with price ratio fixed at one for convenience). The second type of capital good K, is made up of the domestically produced good, used for domestic consumption, investment, and exports. The first type of capital good, K, is imported from abroad. An import tariff (or an equivalent quota) now operates as a differential tax on the first type of capital good. As in the case of a domestic tax differentially applied, a higher import tariff T lowers growth for a given rate of investment; the relationship is nonlinear:

# (22) g=Ag(T)i-d ¢ <0

Also the tariff distortion will only lower growth if it applies to investment goods (and intermediate goods); tariffs that distort only consumption decisions have a negative welfare impact but no effect on long-run growth. The testable prediction is that the average tariff rate on investment goods and intermediate inputs should enter in a growth equation as an interaction term with investment.

While this result was framed in terms of a single import good, it would also hold for differential tariffs (or quotas) on different types of imported capital (or intermediate) goods. For example, we could interpret the two types of capital goods as both imported, while the domestic output is only used for consumption and exports. Then a higher tariff on one of the imported

> ¥ There are problems with existing empirical proxies of financial market policies. The proxies will be discussed below, but they include identificationof severely negative real interest rates, ratios of very broad money measures to GDP, and the fraction of all financialaseets held by the central bank. 35 th this model, for example, fiscal and inflation taxes have larger growth effects in an economy with well-functioning financial mancets than in an economy with highly restrictive financial market policies. The growth effects of policy interactions is demonstrated formally in Levine (1991).
25 goods will introduce a differential between their before-tax marginal products, lowering growth for a given amount of investment. This suggests that measures of dispersion of tariffs should also enter the growth equation in interaction with the investment rate.

We should also note that uncertainty as to tariff rates will have the same depressing effect on growth (for given investment) as tax uncertainty, suggesting that a measure of variance of tariff rates (or import quotas) over time shouid be added to the equation. This implies that temporary import liberalization will not help growth.” Finally, the effect of exchange rate controls could be examined in this framework. Rationing of foreign exchange at the official exchange rate often leads to the emergence of a black market, where foreign currency is sold at a large premium over the official rate. If allocation of foreign exchange at the official rate is made for some types of imported inputs but not for others, then the black market exchange rate premium acts like a differential tax on those inputs for which no foreign exchange is allocated.’ Again, the relationship between the black market premium p and growth will be nonlinear, albeit always negative:

# (23) g =Adg(p)i-d ¢'<0

e. Policies on foreign direct investment The discussion of foreign direct investment often refers to the special benefits thought to be embodied in foreign capital--technological and commercial know-how and other human capital attributes of foreign specialists, the advanced technology embodied in physical capital investments made by foreign firms, etc.* With this in mind, a natural way to treat foreign direct investment is as a separate factor of production that complements domestic capital.

In terms of the model that we are using in this section, we can think of capital type 1 as the stock of cumulative foreign direct investment, while capital type 2 is the capital stock owned and operated by nationals. Since capital type 1 contains unique features associated with foreign investment, nationals do not have the option of investing in it; conversely, foreigners cannot invest in type 2 capital. We also ccitinue to maintain the assumption that nationals do not have access to international capital markets. We wiil study only the case of endogenous investment and saving by nationals.

Since foreign nationals have the option of investing their money at the international interest rate, the equilibrium condition for the stock of foreign investment will be that its marginal

> 364 literature on uncertainty and investment supports this conclusion (e.g. van Wijnbergen (1985) and Rodrik (1989)). on the*"Thisblack assumesmarket. thatIf theinpa **ut** shoritiesare freely can enforcetraded on thatthe theblack inputsmarket, importedthen a **t** thehe allocation official rateof areforeign used inexchange productionat the andofficial notsimplyrate resosimp **l** dy generates pure rents, with no efficiency implications. However, generally resources are used to evade the controls of the authorities, or used to lobby to receive the rents, in which case the efficiency effects described continue to hold. A large literatureon rent-seeking and smuggling makes these points (e.g. Krueger (1974)). 8See Helleiner (1989) and Inotai (1990) for a survey. See also the discussionin Appendix I.
26 product be equal to the international interest rate.” We consider policies that levy a differential income tax on the income from foreign capital, which implies that it is the after-tax marginal product that is equated to the international interest rate: (24) (it) AF, =r The marginal product of type 1 capital (foreign investment) will be higher the lower is the ratio of foreign to domestic capital. A higher tax on foreign investment will require a higher marginal product from foreign capital, and thus will imply a lower ratio of foreign to domestic capital in the long-run.

With endogenous investment, the growth rate of the economy will be given by:

# (25) g = (AF, (t)-6-p)o F,'< 0

Citizens in the economy will accumulate type 2 capital at a rate that depends on the marginal product of that capital. More foreign investment (because of lower taxes, for example) implies a higher marginal product of domestic capital, so it will imply a higher growth rate. (The ratio of foreign to domestic capital will be fixed in the long run by (24) and thus the two types of capital will grow at the same rate.) The theory thus makes a strong prediction: taxation of foreign capital will decrease foreign investment and lower growth.®

## f. Sectoral policies

The model of distortions can be applied naturally to the consideration of sectoral policies. Equation (7) can be used to think of policies that affect the relative prices of different types of investment goods, such as physical versus human capital, or equipment versus structures. Disaggregated data from Summers and Heston (1988) can be used to examine the relative prices of different types of physical investment goods as measures of price distortions. In testing the predictions of the model, one could exploit also the disaggregated data on quantities of investment by type available from this data set.

Equation (7) is also a useful short-cut to think of the sectoral composition of inputs .o aggregate production.” For example, type 1 capital could be interpreted as being made up of manufacturing goods and type 2 capital as being made up of agricultural goods (although we Of course, this determination of foreign direct investment is oversimplified for the purposes of clarity. Lizondo (1990) contains a survey of the theory.

“This argument could be taken to an extreme, implying that subsidizing foreign capital would actually raise growth. There are two Withcaveatsthat should be made to this conclusion. First, subsidies of foreign capital must be financed-such as by a tax on domestic capital. rate Cobb-Douglason domestic capital. production,Second, foran examplincreas **e** ,ingrowththe growth wouldrate declineachieved with anby increasea subsidyinon theforeignsubsidy investmrate fin **a** ncedctuall b **y** an increaseworsens w **e** lfare,i **n** thesincettax it induces investment whose return does not cover the opportunity cost to the economy of the capital, which is given by the international interest rate, rc’. There is a long tradition in the literature recognizing this kind of "immiserizing growth", e.g. Bhagwati and Brecher (1980), and Brecher and Diaz-Alejandro (1977). The same conclusion holds true for any other distortion (such as tariffs) that acts as a subsidy to foreign investment.

‘TAlthough we speak of all inputs as "capital", this framework can also be used to analyze distortions of prices of intermediate inputs. Such distortions have analogous effects on growth to those of distortions of capital goods prices.
27 continue to think of output as one composite good). The wedge between marginal products of the two types can be interpreted as a differential tax that distorts the relative price of the two sectors. The tax may be implicit rather than explicit, as could arise from quantity rationing, price controls, differences in effective protection rates, etc. Relative price data from Summers and Heston (1988) could be used also to assess sectoral relative price distortions.” World Bank data on the sectoral composition of output like that used by Syrquin and Chenery (1989) can be used to examine whether the structure of output (relative to a “normal” structure) is related to such sectoral distortions.° Other direct measures of sectoral distortions could also be used, such as the measures of differential taxation of agriculture developed by Krueger, Schiff, and Valdes (1988). The disaggregated data will be used in the examination of each of the policy areas listed above. The relative price and quantity data will be related to broad measures of the various policies to assess the sectoral implications of policies. For example, one would test whether the existence of financial repression is associated with relatively expensive capital goods, relatively cheap industrial goods, etc. The resulting effects on growth can then be examined in cross-country regressions.

# g. Interactions among resource allocation policies

For simplicity, we have so far presented interaction effects as involving at most two policies together. Of course, in real world applications, there are many policies that affect many types of capital goods in different ways. In particular, some policies may have offsetting effects on growth. For exainple, one policy may penalize one type of capital while another policy subsidizes it, with zero net effect. While such an exact offset is unlikely, the total effect of a set of distortionary policies on growth will be generally less than the sum of the individual policy effects. In the empirical implementation, it is important to include interaction terms among the policies to capture these offsets.

## B. Synthetic issues

# Some issues cut across policy areas:

## 1. Growth and welfare

A major preoccupation of the development literature is the extent to which per capita income growth translates into welfare improvements for the poor and for the population as a whole. There are three elements that will be considered: (1) how the additional income arising from growth is distributed, (2) how much income is correlated with social indicators, and (3) how “An analogous exercise is that of Dollar (1990), who looked at the price of the same consumption basket relative to a benchmark country from Summers and Heston (1988) as a measure of trade policy distortion (including a correction for variation of nontradable prices across countries). De Long and Summers (1990) is also relevant here.

SA well-known regularity discussed by Chenery and Syrquin (1989) is the tendency of the share of industry to rise and agriculture to fall as per capita income rises. The approach of the "patterns" literature associated with these authors is to associate deviations from this path with policy regimes and other factors. We would follow this approach to examine specifically the effect of sectoral distortions. We may also examine the predictions of different models for the trend in the agricultural share. For exampie, Rebelo (1991) presents a model in which some sectors use fixed factors (like agriculture using land), while other sectors use only reproducible inputs. Sustained growth is still possible, and the share of the fixed factor sectors will fall under some parameter configurations.
28 income growth relates to the environment.“ While recognizing the large literature on these issues, the project will examine fresh evidence for the relationship between welfare and growth. This is important both to assess whether raising income growth is a sensible policy objective, and to identify any feedback effects on growth from the social consequences of the growth process.

# a. Inequality and growth

Table 3 shows a comparison of per capita incomes of the poorest 20 percent of the population and the average per capita income for those countries that have data on income distribution. The table shows a high degree of correlation (.77) between the per capita income and the income of the poorest part of the population -- differences in inequality do not dominate differences in per capita income across countries. If we think of per capita income as the sum of past growth, this suggest that growth dominates redistribution as a factor in the income of the poor.

But the outliers give pause to the notion that cross-sectional growth differences are all that matters -- the income of the poorest fifth in Brazil is only sixty percent of that in Morocco, despite Brazilian per capita income being two and a half times larger. Similarly, the poorest in Botswana are slightly worse off than in India, even though Botswana’s per capita income is three times larger. However, even in these outliers, the relationship between growth and inequality is unclear -- would Botswana’s poor be better off if the country had not grown? A large literature has found similar patterns to that displayed in table 1, both intertemporally and cross-sectionally. Fields’ (1989) survey of the literature indicates strong evidence of reduction in absolute poverty being associated with growth, with poverty "more apt to decrease the more rapid is economic growth".“ The notion that absolute poverty tends to increase with economic growth has been decisively refuted. The 1990 WDR found that income of the poorest tenth grew more rapidly than per capita income in 9 out of 11 developing country growth episodes. But outliers still exist -- in Costa Rica, the poor suffered an absolute decline in income despite average per capita growth of 3.5 percent over 1971-86.% The famous Kuznets hypothesis that inequality first rises and then falls with income has also been examined in the literature. Cross-section studies have tended to confirm it, while intertemporal studies --which seem more appropriate -- have found little evidence for it (Fields (1989), WDR 1990).

Other studies have looked at how inequality itself may lower growth because it tends to lead to policies that harm growth. Alesina and Rodrik (1991) found that higher inequality tends to lower growth in the subsample of democracies but is insignificant in nondemocratic countries. Almost identical results were found by Persson and Tabellini (1991), although the significance of “We do not consider another issue in this section that was briefly mentioned elsewhere in this proposal: growth could be immiserizing because policy distortions may exist that cause too much investment. ‘SFields (1989), p. 174.

“WDR 1990, p. 48.
29

### Table 3

## Inequality and growth

||Percent share of<br>income of<br>lowest 20 percent<br>(various years, 1980's)|Per capita income<br>1988|Per capita<br>income<br>lowest 20<br>percent|
|---|---|---|---|
|Bangladesh<br>|9.3<br>|170<br>|79<br>|
|India<br>|8.1<br>|340<br>|138<br>|
|Pakistan<br>|78<br>|350<br>|137<br>|
|Ghana|6.5|400|130|
|Sri Lanka<br>|48<br>|420<br>|101<br>|
|Indonesia<br>|8.8<br>|440<br>|194<br>|
|Philippines|5.5|630|173|
|Cote d'Ivoire<br>|5.0<br>|770<br>|193<br>|
|Morocco<br>|9.8<br>|830<br>|407<br>|
|Guatemala<br>|5.5<br>|900<br>|248<br>|
|Botswana<br>|2.9<br>|1010<br>|126<br>|
|Jamaica<br>|5.4<br>|1070<br>|289<br>|
|Colombia<br>|4.0<br>|1180<br>|236<br>|
|Peru|4.4|1300|286|
|CostaRica<br>|3.3<br>|1690<br>|279<br>|
|<br>Poland<br>|9.7<br>|1860<br>|902<br>|
|Malaysia<br>|4.6<br>|1940<br>|446<br>|
|Brazil<br>|2.4<br>|2160<br>|259<br>|
|Hungary<br>|10.9<br>|2460<br>|1341<br>|
|Yugoslavia<br>|6.1<br>|2520<br>|769<br>|
|Venezuela|4.7|3250|764|

Correlation Coefficien., per capita income and income of lowest quintile: 0.77

# Source: World Development Report .990

inequality was rather marginal. Lindert and Williamson (1984) present evidence against the Kaldor hypothesis that, because it is the rich that save, inequality is necessary for high saving and growth.

ratio The project would consider inequality in two ways. First, measures of inequality (e.g. the of the income share of the top to the bottom quintile) will themselves be tried as dependent variables as part of each policy task, to examine whether the same policies that affect growth also affect inequality. Second, inequality measures will be used as independent variables in growth equations to test whether higher inequality can make a given policy more or less damaging to growth. The synthesis task will explore further the empirical regularities between income growth and inequality to address the effectiveness of per capita growth as an instrument to reduce poverty.
30

# b. Growth and other welfare indicators

Per capita income shows a high degree of correlation with social indicators such as life expectancy, daily calorie supply, low birth weight, secondary enrollment, infant mortality, maternal mottality, and access to safe drinking water and sanitation services (table 4). The correlation is less strong between income and the crude death rate, population per physician, primary enrollment, and literacy ratios. There is also a correlation between percent changes in calorie supply, population per physician, and infant mortality and income growth, while percent changes in primary and secondary enrollment, literacy, life expectancy, and the crude death rate are essentially uncorrelated with growth.” Simple correlations may understate the relation between social indicators and income because the relationship may be nonlinear, as suggested by Ingram (1989). He confirmed a statistical relationship that implies that life expectancy, primary enrollment, and daily calorie intake improve rapidly as income rises from low levels, then level off as income rises beyond a certain middle income threshhold. This is plausible since these indicators are inherently bounded. This helps to explain Ingram’s finding of strong unconditional convergence across countries in social indicators, even though he finds no evidence of unconditional convergence in incomes.

However, there are sizvable outliers to the income-social indicator relationship. The WDR 1990 noted a striking phenomenon -- a major improvement in life expectancy and primary enrollment in Africa over 1965-85 despite negative growth in per capita consumption.* Conversely, Pakistan registered little improvement in net enrollment over 1965-85 (it was still only 43 percent in 1985) despite per capita growth of 2.5 percent over the period.” The relationship between growth and improvements in social indicators supports the study of growth as a generally useful proxy for broader notions of welfare improvement. However, the existence of large outliers suggests an examination of factors that can cause social improvement and growth to diverge. Social indicators to some extent reflect conscious choices made by the government and by private individuals. For example, the allocation of public expenditure has a major impact on many indicators. In each of the policy studies, we will develop one or more social indicators to be tested as dependent variables along with per capita growth as functions of policies. Some of the social indicators may also be proxies for the level or rate of accumulation of human capital, which suggests their inclusion on the right hand side of those equations that also include physical capital investment.

“Work for the 1991 WDR by Surjit Bhalla found reasonable correlations between changes in per capita income and changes in educational attainment, infant mortality, and political liberty, although the last correlation is rather weak. However, he cites other studies that claim a high correlation between per capita income and political and civil liberty (Dasgupta and Weale (1990), Scully (1988)). Looking at infant mortality, the 1991 WDR found evidence that both income growth and government health expenditure explain its decline in developing countries (King and Rosenzweig (1991), Bhalla and Gill (1991)). Correlations between changes in indicators can be seen as a stronger test of association given the possibility of spurious correlations between variables with trends.

“WDR 1990, p. 40 Another social indicator, per capita daily calorie supply, did fall in 16 African countries over 1965-86. (WDR 1990, table 28).

*ipid., p. 43.
31 Table 4 Income and Social Indicators

# ————

1985 Correlation Correlation bet.1965-85 betweeen per capita per capita growth and income and level of: percent change 1965-85 in

## SEeee

Life expectancy 67 02 Crude death rate -.31 01 Daily calorie supply per capita 70 33 Babies with low birth weight (%) 52 Primary enrollment 28 -.15 Secondary enrollment 76 -.09 Population per physician -.35 -.33 Infant mortality rate -.64 -.40 Maternal mortality rate -.43 Percent of population with access to safe drinking water 66 to sanitation services .60 Female literacy ratio 14 Male literacy ratio 18 Deforestation -11

### Deforestation

—<—<—$—<$—$< $$

#### c. Growth and the environment

Another important welfare indicator is the state of the environment. The poor quality and great scarcity of data has inhibited quantitative work relating growth to environmental degradation. Table 4 shows that one of the few quantitative measures available, the percent rate of deforestation, shows little correlation with aggregate growth (and in fact is the "wrong" sign compared to the popular perception that growth causes deforestation). However, this is just as likely to reflect the unreliability of the data as any lack of relationship between growth and deforestation.
32 Some recent research on industrial countries has suggested that, with proper policies, reasonable economic growth can be compatible with preserving the environment.” For example, the rapid fall in energy use in the OECD countries (23 percent fall in energy requirements per unit of GDP over 1970-87) suggests that other inputs can be elastically substituted for exhaustible resources if price incentives are sufficiently strong (Pearce (1990)). However, this process should not be seen as costless -- some have argued that environmental regulations lowered productivity growth in the U.S. in the 70’s and 80’s (Jorgenson and Wilcoxen (1989)).

In the developing worid, deforestation, soil erosion, and pollution have imposed significant economic costs, both measured and unmeasured. It is conceptually unclear whether higher economic growth worsens or improves the environment. The tradeoff in welfare between conventional income and environmental quality is also unclear (and may differ across countries or across income levels). While higher growth implies higher growth in demand for exhaustible resources, it also may imply a shift away from use of exhaustible resources. For example, deforestation in the Sahel and the Philippines is associated with consumption of fuelwood by the poorest segment of the population -- increased income could lead to substitution of less environmentally costly forms of energy for fuelwood. Rising income could also lead to greater demand for environmental preservation.”

# 2. Persistence of growth rates

A surprising fact is the low persistence of countries’ growth performance across periods, as mentioned in the first section. Table 5 shows the cross-section correlation between growth in subsequent decades to be around .3. This captures the persistence of relative performance, since the correlation is with respect to deviations from the average for ail countries. In other words, this correlation measures the degree to which being an above-average performer one period is a good predictor of being an above-average performer the following period. Since this correlation is with respect to the period average, it removes any common global trends in growth rates. Several hypotheses could explain the low persistence of relative performance.

Policies. While policy regimes are commonly thought to be highly persistent, this is not true for all policies, as shown in table 5. The government current expenditure variables -- consumption and education spending -- are the most persistent, far more so than growth.

> See the useful survey of Pearce (1990) and the heuristic treatment of Anderson (1990).

5'We have worked cui an example in which natural resources (assumed to be in fixed supply) not used in production enter the utility function. Sustained growth requires that the elasticity of substitution in production between reproducible inputs (capital) and natural zeroresourcesin thebeoptimalgreaterplan,thani.e.one.all naturalWith a Cobb-Douglasresources are preserved utility function,for theirtheutilityuse ofvalue.naturalWhetherresourcesthe marketin productioncan replicategoes theasymptoticallyoptimal plan to depends on appropriate pricing of natural resources.
33

## Table 5

# Persistence of policies and growth performance

Cross-section Correlation | Cross-Section Correlation between 1960s and 1970s between 1970s and 1980s

<!-- Start of picture text --> Per capita Growth .26 32<br>Black market premium 62 45<br>Inflation .40 41<br>Labor force growth -70 79<br>Government Consumption/GDP 76 64<br>Government Education Spending/GDP 75 74<br>Government Investment Spending/GDP 49<br>Real interest rates 48 32<br>Trade orientation’ 56<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- Comparing 1973-85 with 1963-73, based on 1987 WDR List of four categories: 1. strongly outward oriented

2. moderately outward oriented 3. moderately inward oriented 4. strongly inward oriented However, government investment, trade orientation, inflation, the black market premium, and real interest rates are not very persistent (although still more persistent than growh).” We will examine the ability of policies to explain the low growth persistence by examining the standard errors of pooled time-series cross-section regressions that use decennial averages for growth rates and policy variables.

Random error. A stochastic growth model, such as that of Rebelo (1991a), implies that growth will be given by a component dependent on policies and a stochastic term reflecting random shocks (such as those to the rate of return to capital). The policy component itself is less S2Most of these "policy" measures contain endogenous elements. However, it seems plausible that cross-country variation in, for example, inflation, black market premia, and real interest rates is mainly due to policy choices on money creation, exchange rate controls, and interest rate controls, respectively.
34 than perfectly persistent, as noted above. A plausible variance level in the stochastic term could explain a significant portion of the low persistence of growth rates. We performed some Monte Carlo simulations that indicate that the observed low persistence of growth rates, combined with persistence of about .6 of policies, could be reproduced with a standard deviation of 1.7 percentage points on growth rates. The project will explore further the amount of random variation underlying growth rates. The random error could be interpreted as cyclical movements, random technological or natural shocks (such as a drought), or external shocks.” External shocks. External shocks represent one particular type of random error that could cause low persistence in growth rates. However, studies such as Mitra et al. (1990) and Balassa and McCarthy (1984) have found little evidence for strong effects of external shocks on growth rates.

Transitional dynamics. Some models in this proposal would imply transitional dynamics that could cause growth to be unstable over time even with unchanged policies. For example, initially rapid and then decelerating growth could arise from transitional dynamics in an initial situation where there are imbalances between the quantities and rates of return of different types of capital. Transitional dynamics could be incorporated in the analysis by, among other things, including income level or initial capital stocks as an independent variable.

## C. Empirical Methodology

Empirical analysis should use formal econometric techniques in evaluating the predictions of the analytical framework. This section (1) repeats the main hypotheses, (2) discusses measures of national policies and, (3) outlines the cross-country procedures.

Since the empirical predictions have already been discussed in the Analytical Framework section above, Table 6 simply collects the major hypotheses that could be tested.

The major themes that emerge from the analytical framework are (1) national policies or uncertainty about national policies affect long-run growth (and do not just have one-time level effects) by altering the level of investment; (2) policies also affect growth by distorting the allocation of resources; and (3) there are important linkages among policies. For example, for a given level of investment, distortionary taxes like inflation tend to slow growth but productive government expenditures can contribute to faster growth. Thus, the growth effects of more inflation may depend on how the resources from the inflation tax are spent. In addition, the model indicates that policies that affect the allocation of resources generally have non-linear effects on growth.

# Some indicators of national policies are provided in Table 7; Table 8 lists international

level53Inof outputthe Monte(like Carlo2 cyclicalsimulation,error term)we assumedcould inducethat thenegativerandomautocorrelationerror was seriallyof growth uncorrelated.rates, whichSerialwouldcorrelationmake observingof an errora low incrose- the period correlationmore likely. The simulation is also constrained to reproduce the observed cross-sectional variance. The helpof Lant Pritchett on this simulation is gratefully acknowledged. Mgee the Summary of this issue in Bhalla (1991 WDR, chapter 2).
35 data sources. We recognize that there are conceptual and statistical problems with these measures. Research is needed to design and construct more accurate measures of fiscal, monetary, trade and financial policies. Also, since the listed indicators are commonly used, it is useful to determine whether these variables reliably predict growth. If these policy indicators are useful in explaining growth, then they may be useful target indicators in formalizing policy reform packages.

Empirical implementation should update earlier datasets. For example, the compilation of census data on educational attainment by Psacharopoulos and Arriagada (1986) could be updated with 1990 census observations in some countries.

From the WDR 1991 database, one could use the following variables:

1. Estimates of factor inputs (capital stock, labor force, arable land, aid mean education of the working population for 68 countries). Some of the specifications that will be tested include factor accumulation on the right hand side so as to test for the effect of policies on efficiency. The factor input data will be useful in this regard.

2. Welfare indicators (infant mortality, female/male ratios, mean index of civil and political liberties). These and other indicators will be useful to examine the correlation between growth and more general welfare improvement.

3. Data on project economic rates of return used in a recent paper by Kaufmann (1991).

4. Government expenditures for health and education (original source is IMF and UNESCO); private spending on health (available for 19 countries, original source is United Nations). The government spending data will be important for the analysis of fiscal policies; the private health spending will be useful in measuring factor inputs.

5. Trade policy indicators (average tariff rates, nontariff barriers (UNCTAD), index of trade liberatlization -- 1960-84 (Papageorgiou, Choksi, Michaely), index of trade liberalization -- 1978-88 (Halevi, Thomas), price distortion index (modified version of Dollar (1991).

6. Direct foreign investment flows (55 countries, 1970-89).

7. Political indicators (irregular executive transfers).

8. Measures of inequality (35 countries).
36 <!-- Start of picture text --> me . Taboo Lo<br>. Sige tabie4for tite of theconcepte to beused;-endtable 6 £7 a preliminarylist of sources::: The statement:<br>studies. Note that come of the econometric implications refurto the reduced form relation between growth and policies;<br>L. Fidostand MonetaryPoticieg = : : ne<br>regression.<br>c. Coneumption taxes have.no growth effects. Measures of the consumption tax rete will not ba.”<br>Investment rate;-and fora given tax.rateand tex-structure... Theshareof education, heal, end:<br>F, Undertainty about fiscal. and. monetarypolicy -reduces. growth -by distorting:the allocation of:<br>Bi. Restrictions of diffétential:-taxee-on foreign investment (or uncertainty about thee policies}: slow:<br>"Impedimentsto domestic firiancial market activities.(euci asinterestrate controls, directed credit”<br>icwestment included. bie f ' me<br><!-- End of picture text -->
37 <!-- Start of picture text --> Table-7:' Data for.analysis of policy and:growth ee<br>Gross output growth (GNP and GDP) Beet<br>7 . gltérnative.base years: ane<br>excluding-extractionof exhaustible resources ane<br>Labor force growth - . —<br>Employment growth (man-hours where available,:which -will beseldom) as<br>MEASURES OF PRIVATE FACTOR ACCUMULATION. nn:<br>Private investment in physical capital oo<br>Private education spending<br>Measures of enrollment (primary, secondary, highér-level) .<br>Measures of human capital stock from previous studiés. 7<br>Measures of health (such as infant mortality and life.expectancy) ls<br>consolidated nonfitiancial public sector deficits . OOS<br>Public revenuevariance:policyof: overall and-structur(levels ‘and vari a nces):.l.deficit.. AEEoat<br>Consumption taxes--bases and rates... _ wes<br>_Domestic:sales taxes on:production:inputs:and investment: goc Js:. gel<br>"0 eeorporate | BT (oe ag<br>- srhiousehold - ne : ms oreo<br>' Revenue-of commodity. marketing: boards. BE<br>Public. spending: : eae<br>_ Physical:capital formation. : oe es<br>~other ; aes<br>Education .. Sue.<br><!-- End of picture text -->
38 <!-- Start of picture text --> "Table 7 (Continuation). oo | rc<br>~-basic health: ES<br>Variance.of monetary growth, inflation : ” ot, eos ie<br>Percent ofimports subject. to licensing<br>--consumption - areE=<br>Average tariff rate and measuresof dispersion rire<br>~—consumption:: oe ae HEE<br>--intermediste-inputs. . ge _—_ eee<br>BlackRatio domestic:producer:price/world price for:major:commodities... So SEY<br>Trade market exchangerate premium (mean:and.Vvatiance) ee th<br> policy indicators-(see ‘sources below). 5S ee ET ERS<br>Financial sector policies: a a<br>Differential domestic deposit rate and international interest rate: sO SS<br>Real domestic.<br>| kc yer REE<br>Spread between:deposit:and.Jending déposit interest rate. rate: a +e<br>Ex-post reserve requirement: (bitnk reservesideposits)”<br>Interest.rateSubsidized credits.(amounts:andon government bondsinterestnsrates). DeSERS- en RERE<br>Share of total ‘financial assets:held by central bank: eee<br>Openness to foreign capital . a SEES<br>Direct foreign investment flows... | re ; cot. oe<br>_ Othernet capital flows: I EE<br>Restrictions on ditect foreign investment, foreign borrowing,:and capital-éxport (and:<br>variance of restrictions over time). : oo a<br><!-- End of picture text -->
39

|Grossoutput-growth(GNP-andGDP)<br>==sI|ternationalFinancia!Statistics(IFS)IME;WordBank.|
|---|---|
|<br><br>oe|<br>data,:Siimmers:and-Heston(1988},|
|Poputationgrowth-<br>|IFS, World Bank data; Summersand-Heston(1988): .<br> <br>|
|Labor force.growth:<br>|WorldBank-data..<br>PSita2<br>|
|Privateinvestmentinphysicalcapital<br>|Pfeffermann&Madarassy(1989),Honohan:&Atiyas:"<br>|
|Privatesaving ..<br>|Honohan& Atlyas (1989); World Bank data;.Schmidts:.<br> <br><br>|
|Privatefinancialsaving|Honohan&Atiyas:(1989)"<br>nn<br>OES|
|<br>Measures of enrolment<br>|<br><br><br>‘UNESCO,Barro<br>and Wolf (1989), WorldDevelopment::::.<br><br> <br>|
|Measuresofhuman capital stock<br>|Jamison<br>& Lau (1982),‘Bhalla(1990),Psacharapouios::<br>&Arriagada (1986),Lau,Jamison<br>|
||<br>|
|ofhealth(suchaslifeexpectancy)<br>Fiscal|<br>WorldBankdata,WHO,FAO,<br>UNStatisticalOffice:|
|<br><br>deficits<br>Public|<br> <br>ERS(1969),Easterty(1989)<br>a|
|revenue<br>|<br><br>GovernmentFinancialStatistics(GFS),|MF:EAS,WOR:<br><br>|
|Taxes|(1988)<br>:|
|-consumption, corporate, ex,.-t,|GFS<br>‘|
|Publicexpenditure:<br>|GFS,ERS,-WDR{1988)<br>ss<br><br>|
|<br>Education<br>|<br><br>GFS,UNESCO,SummersandHeston(1988):<br>“4<br><br>|
|Health:|<br><br>GFs.<br>=|
|Investment:<br>Mean,|GES,Baro.andWolf(1989),ERS,WDR(1988).<br>re<br> <br>|
|varianceofmonetarygrowth,Inflation.|<br><br>IFS-<br>ES|
|<br>Pércent:of imports subject taJicensing..<br>Average tarifftateandmeasuresofdipersion..<br>|<br><br>»Apageorgiou,: Michaely, Choksi:(1990)‘studyone<br>tradefiberalization:<br>er<br>|
|Measuresoftrade openness/intervention|Dollar:(1990),-Bhalla.(1990), Leamer.(1988), Levine...<br><br><br>|
||.<br>and.Renelt(1990a),:Balassa:(1985),<br>vat<br> <br>|
|Foreigndirectinvestmentflowsandstocks.<br>|IPSiIMF:ResearchDepanment<br>UE<br><br>|
|<br>Ratioofdomesticproducerprice:toworldprice:<br>|<br><br>FAO,ERS:(1989)-<br>ASS<br><br>|
|<br>Black market:exchange rate premium: -<br>Financialsectorpolicies<br>|<br><br>Lavine and. Reneit:(1990a} -<br>wed<br><br><br>|
|.<br>Differential domestic deposit rate and inti yates.|,<br>ae<br> (FS; Gelb (1989)--<br>7|
|RatioofM3toGOP-|IFS".<br>OLE:|
|Ratio of financial assets heid by CentralBank.|IFS,<br>WDR(1989)"<br>4|

Abbreviation: ERS: Easterly, Rodriguez,and Schmidt-Hebbdet (1989) research project-in progress...
40 Cross-country regression techniques and pooled cross-country, time-series procedures could be used to examine the predictions from the analytical framework summarized in Table 3. The studies should include the broadest possible collection of countries (usually between 60-100 countries depending on the sample period and the data). Cross-country analyses could use data aveiaged over long periods (between 25-35 years). The pooled regressions could use data averaged over fewer years in order to include multiple observations from each country. The data are averaged to abstract from cyclical fluctuations and thus focus on longer-run components of the data.

The research could be organized so that each study focuses on a key component of national policies. This organization has two important objectives. First, a researcher focussing on trade policy, for example, can specialize in designing improved measures of trade policy and also on modifying the analytical framework to draw sharper predictions on the effects of trade policy on growth, whether these effects work through the level of investment or the allocation of resources or both, and potential interactions with other policies. Thus, specialization will hopefully serve to improve our understanding of the growth effects of each national policy and highlight the most important interactions among policies. The second objective of organizing the studies around particular policies is to keep the individual research tasks feasible. After working on the relationship between one national policy and growth, a researcher may develop many indicators and many predictions regarding potential interactions with other policies. To examine these predictions and gauge the growth effects of a single policy, it will be very difficult to consider all of the policy indicators constructed for the other national policies. Continual interactions among the individual researchers will allow the "trade" researcher to use the one or two best “financia! policy” indicators in his evaluation of the effects of trade policy.

An essential aspect of any empirical investigation should be carefully testing the robustness of the findings. Levine and Renelt (1990a) show that many conclusions from past cross-country growth regressions are sensitive to slight alterations in the list of policy indicators included as explanatory variables. This is part of the motivation for simultaneously examining the growth effects of a broad collection of national policies. Other types of diagnostic testing should also be encouraged [e.g., Leamer (1983, 1985)]. If certain policy indicators are found to be highly correlated with each other so that some do not have an independently strong correlation with growth, this might allow us to investigate the linkages between policy and growth in terms of "policy packages" (however, Table 9 shows that policy correlations are not as great as usually assumed.) Grier and Tullock (1989) show that important additional information can be extracted from the data by using pooled cross-section, time-series analyses instead of simple cross-country regressions. Using data averaged over five years or over ten years yields more data points, which allow the identification of different effects of policy between continents. The scope of pooled analyses could be expanded by (1) studying the 1960-1990 and 1970-1990 periods when more detailed data are available compared to the 1951-1980 period studied by Grier and Tullock (1989), (2) using an analytical framework to interpret the results, (3) considering a broad array of national policies and their potential interactions, and (4) conducting detailed sensitivity analyses.
|Fy<br>Ss<br>aera)<br>ww <br>#9<br>|8<br>2#0<br><br>|x<br>|<br>$8<br>GS<br>|+<br>+<br>ra<br>tS<br>29<br>+<br>=<br>88<br>88 88 88<br>:<br>SS<br>¢Sgggs<br>$ 2<br>f<br><br><br><br><br><br>|
|---|---|---|
|<br>257<br>||<br>Es<br>|&<br>|§<br>|<br><br><br><br>€<br>8<br>8<br>8<br>2<br>5<br>°<br>=<br>°<br>°<br>s =<br>a<br>|
|4<br>g<br><br>|SF<br>Sos<br>|2<br>2s<br>SS<br>FF<br>a8<br>as<br>sg<br>sos<br>a8<br><br><br><br><br>|
|‘3.2<br>ge<br>ig;<br>EEE<br>.<br>a<br>|g<br>is<br>id<br><br><br><br>|iS<br>8<br>S<br>~<br>|©<br>t<br>2<br>i<br>#€<br>3<br>&<br>SEon<br>seoy<br>je<br>¢<br>4<br>S228<br>©<br>7<br>2268<br><br><br><br>|
||<br>S<br>s<br>=<br>zB<br>o<br><<br>3<br>2<br>|<br>4<br>_<br>o<br>2<br>ae<br>Ss;|s§<br>Ss<br>°<br>o<br>=<br>Ff|me&<br>$$ 58<br>Gseae<br>os<br>ss<br>Sg<br>s<br>wa Sve<br>$ S<br>gSekg<br>mt eet<br>oeeogsé<br>3<br>]<br>SLSss<br>Ff<br>&¢<br>yeeee|
|+ 3<br>8<br>“os<br>ey<br>dn<br>Es<br>3<br>Pad<br>S<br>gee<br>S<br>g<br>=<br>ca<br>|S<br>s|<br>gee<br>—F <br>BBO<br>ES5°<br>|z<br>88s<br>na<br><<br>3|gs<br>a<br>Nn<br>a<br>és<br>| 5<br>S<br>&<br>¢<br>|ds<br>gage ee<br>2%na<br>pigey<br>+<br>sa<br>a)<br>oO &<br>a ESE<br>S<br>SES2E<br>aa)<br>SREPous<br>Sour.sigs<br>9 82Q485<br>SSeaE 2<br>2233<br>}<br>Beals e<br>aaaekee<br><br>|
||©<br>SS<br>e<e <br>ahe<br>get<br>aI|.<br>|SSSe8e8<br>#88<br>#28<br>_<br>S&<br>|S2S5°88<br> 223 £82<br>s gee &8 BEEEee =<br>G&S<br>8S<br>2 $e<br>Ss<br>[OOcHEeAS<br>gee sei<br>EB cee Ze<br>F<br>OSs<br>ws<br>4<br>2G<br>id<br>g<br>8<br>z<br>:|
42

# IH. Conclusion

policiesThisfor long-pape **r** unpresentedgrowth. a research agenda designed to identify the importance of national After documenting the growth experience of developing countries over the past 25 years and discussing the importance of research that dissects the effects of national policies on growth for the World Bank, we construct an analytical framework that yields empirically testable predictions regarding the affect of fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, domestic financial policies, and policies towarc| direct foreign investment on the rate of per capita income growth. The analytical framework highlights the potential importance of interactions among policies and the effects of uncertainty regarding these national policies. For example, a decrease in tax rates on financial intermediaries t2ay have different implications for growth in a country with a well-developed tax system from a country with a debilitated tax system; uncertainty about monetary policy may not only alter investment incentives, but the effect of this uncertainty on the level and form of investment may depend importantly on policies toward financial markets. In addition to emphasizing the importance of analyzing interactions among policies, the analytical framework distinguishes two channels via which policies influence growth: by affecting incentives to invest in human and physical capital and by affecting the efficiency with which inputs are allocated. For example, trade intervention and restrictive policies on direct foreign investment may importantly distort the sectors toward which resources are allocated in ways that reduce productive efficiency and growth. In addition, fiscal policy may directly tax the accumulation of physical and human capital, so that economies accumulate less physical and human resources, lowering the rate of economic development. Thus, this framework provides a rich array of empirical predictions regarding the complex relationship between national policies and long-run growth.

The paper goes on to describe how to examine empirically the predictions of the analytical framework. We providea list of data sources, discuss alternative measures of national policies, and document a series of cross-sectional and pooled cross-section, time-series techniques that would help uncover important links between national policies and long-run growth. We believe that results from conducting the research suggested in this paper would help policy makers design policy packages that promote improvements in human welfare over the next decades.
43

## APPENDIX I

# BRIEF SURVEY OF EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL LITERATURE ON GROWTH

The formal study of economic growth and the public policies necessary to encourage sustained increases in output began over three hundred years ago.” Indeed much of the recent work on growth can be viewed as refining and formalizing the basic economic insights of classical and PoliticaldevelopmentEconomyeconomists.(1848) isFora productionexample, functionthe organizing based onthemeland,oflabor,Johncapital,StuartandMill’sthePrinciplesproductivityof of these inputs. He notes that the "increase of production ... is a result of the increase of the {inputs] themselves, or of their productiveness."* Using the simplifying assumptions of constant returns to scale, diminishing returns to each factor, and the existence of exogenous factors such as land, labor, and “productiveness,” Solow (1956), Swan (1956), Cass (1965), and Koopmans (1965) turned Mill's framework into one of economics’ major theoretical paradigms: the neoclassical growth model. The "new" growth literature builds on the neoclassical growth model by examining the implications of scale economies, externalities, and by making technology, labor, and human capital endogenously produced inputs. This review follows a thin and selective thread from the major classical economists to the neoclassical growth model to the endogenous growth models of the last five years. We also note the contributions of development economists to the study of growth. Indeed, many development economists moved away from the neoclassical growth model for the same reasons that the "new" growth economists modified it: the neoclassical growth model failed to explain important aspects of economic development.” The neoclassical growth model provided a framework for the growth accounting literature’s attempts to quantify the contribution to growth of each physical input and “productiveness."* Analyses by Norsworthy (1984), Chenery et al. (1986), and Maddison (1987) suggest that physical factor inputs account for only 50-70 percent of the growth rate of output. Although there are arguments as to the precise percentage (see: Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987) and Baily and Schultze (1990)] and the accuracy of growth accounting procedures [see Nelson (1981)], "productiveness" or technological change as it is currently termed appears to be an important component of growth. Interestingly, John Stuart Mill seems to have predicted this finding, arguing that ultimately the key to increasing per capita output is “improvements in the productive arts." Since the neoclassical growth model assumes that the rate of technological change is given exogenously, it does not provide a useful framework for understanding the economic forces and policies behind an important component of growth: technological change.” 55 Sir William Petty (1676), for example, measured, compared, and discussed changes in the standards of living in France and England. 5 Quoted from Abramovitz(1989) p. 13 with the full quote on page5. **The complaint that the "new growth literature is not really “new,” and does not adequately acknowledge the contributions of the development literature, has considerable justification. This in itself does not lessen the usefulness of the "new" models for studying growth in developing countries. 58 The pioneers in this field areAbramovitz, Dennison, Jorgenson, and Kendrick. Also sec the influential work of Kuznets (1966). 5% Efforts were made to better understand technological innovation within the contextof the neociassicalgrowth model by considering heterogencous agents (Pasinetti (1962) and Meade and Hahn (1965)] and by making endogenous the choice between labor and capital augmenting technological innovations (Kennedy (1964)}. Sce also Atkinson and Stiglitz (1969), Binswanger (1974), Dasgupta and Stiglitz (1980).
4 A limitation of the neoclassical growth model is that the steady state per capita growth rate is zero if the exogenously given rate of technological change is set to zero. The investment share does not affect steady state growth in the neoclassical growth model. Therefore, economic policy does not influence steady-state growth; economic policy only affects the level of economic output or the transition to the steady state. Since King and Rebelo (1989) demonstrate that interest rates in many countries would have to be absurdly high for transitional dynamics to explain the observed differences in cross-country growth rates, the standard neoclassical growth model does not appear to be the appropriate model for understanding sustained differences in cross country growth rates or the growth effects of policy.® Recent models seek to extend the neoclassical growth model such that growth is responsive to policy. Building on work by Arrow (1962) and Phelps (1966), Romer (1986) makes technological change endogenous by assuming that technology is a public good but that private investment in capital increases the level of technology available to all entrepreneurs. The externality associated with investment overturns the assumption of diminishing marginal returns to investment and yields a production function with increasing returns to scale, such that there is steady-state growth when there is sufficient investment. In Romer’s (1986) model a higher investment rate will accelerate economic growth. Therefore, economic policies that alter the investment rate will affect economic growth." Similarly, Lucas (1988) builds a model based on Uzawa (1962) with.increasing returns that arise from external effects associated with human capital. Lucas emphasizes that workers interact with colleagues such that each individual’s "productiveness” depends on the human capital of others. Thus, private investment in human capital by an individual increases his own productiveness but also increases the human capital and productiveness of others. The externality associated with human capital produces an aggregate production function that has increasing returns to scale. The resulting production function implies that if the economy invests a sufficient amount of resources in human capital accumulation, the economy will enjoy long-run steady state growth. Consequently, alterations in the incentives to invest in human capital have long-run growth implications. The importance of human capital in economic development has been the subject of massive theoretical and empirical study.

In the Romer (1986) and Lucas (1988) models, policy can reduce long-run growth by impeding investment in human and physical capital, so that the rate of technological advancement or human capital accumulation slows. In addition, because there are externalities to human and physical capital investment in these models, appropriate public policies can help private agents internalize these externalities and thereby accelerate long-run growth. Thus, the overall policy regime of a country, including taxes, property rights, and macroeconomic distortions, can alter savings and investment allocation decisions in ways that alter long-run growth. Nevertheless, policy can only have growth fankiw et al. (1990) find a larger role for transitional dynamics in the neoclassical mode! by assuming2 much higher capital share (including human capital). $1 In 9 different model, Scott (1969) argues that the act of investment itself creates new investment opportunities. Therefore, increasing investment can have dynamic effecte that raise the economy'sgrowth rate.

& See, for example, theoretical treatments by Schultz (1961, 1963), Becker (1964), and Ben-Porath (1967). Microeconomic evidence is provided by Psscharopoulos (198), Jamison and Lau (1982) and Griliches (1964, 1977). Rosenzweig and Evensoa (1977), Rosenzweig and Schultz (1963), and Psacharopoulos and Arriagads (1986) conduct detailed examinations of the effects of human capital accumulation in developing countries, and DeTray (1987) studies the implications of government policy. Lau, Jamison, and Loust (1990) empirically examine the roie of education in developing countries using an aggregate production function approach. Also, see the reviews by Schultz (1988) and Psacharopoulos (1988). Further work is beingdone for the World Development Report 1991.
45 effects in these models if there are externalities to investment. Recent empirical attempts at identifying external effects associated with investment in physical or human capital have had some success, but the findings have been challenged.© In attempting to understand the economic forces and public policies that influence technological advancement, recent work has also followed Schumpeter (1911, 1942) who argued that invention - the advancement of knowledge - and innovation - the implementation of such knowledge - depend on the lure of profits. In terms of invention, the energizing role of monopolistic profits and market scale is the central component of Romer’s (1987, 1990) recent characterization of economic growth.“ The invention of new technologies increases the productive capabilities of the economy, while the technology producer receives monopolistic profits. Since technology is invented by profit maximizing firms, public policies regarding patents, property rights, and taxes influence the allocation of resources to the invention of new techn slogies.“ In terms of innovation, Schmitz (1989) formalizes the economic incentives behind the adoption of technology for productive endeavors and the adaption of the technology for particular environments. Since many developing countries do not enjoy a comparative advantage in inventing new technologies, carefully studying the economic incentives and public policies underlying the exploitation and adoption of existing technologies for domestic commercial purposes seems to be particularly relevant. It seems clear that a country’s overall policy regime will affect the rate of economic innovation by altering the incentives underlying the adoption of new technologies for production.” These "new" growth models provide a rich environment in which to study the role of government. Not surprisingly, these models yield policy conclusions that are similar to many classical and development economists. Economists since John Stuart Mill have argued that if there are externalities associated with investment in physical and human capital or if there is clear need for public goods, the government can have beneficial growth effects by supporting the provision of services whose social benefits exceed private benefits, such as education and scientific research.* Many economists have argued the importance of secure property rights to promote savings and investment, the need for institutions to support economic activity on a large scale, and the desirability that taxes not be overly burdensome, arbitrary, or distortionary.* Within the context of simple endogenous growth models, Rebelo (1991) exemplifies the effects of taxation on growth. However, modelling and measuring the full complexities of fiscal policy

> © See: Romer (1987), Benhabib and Jovanovic (1989), Scott (1989), and Caballero and Lyons (1989).

“ Romer’s work builds on models by Shell (1967), and Ethier (1982). © Schmookler (1966) also focused on the endogenous creation of technology. Empirical studies of technological change have been conductedby Nishimizu and Page (1986) and Nishimizu and Robinson (1986). (1969)% Manyreviewscconomisisthe role of tradehave studiedin transferringthe adaptationtechnologiesof technologiesinternationally;created byCardoso industrializedand Dornbuscheconomies(1989)by developingdiscuss thecountries.role of privateBliss capital flows in diffusing new ideas; while Helleiner (1989) surveys the literature on transnational corporations, direct foreign investmentand the adaptation of technology internationally. For some alternative viewpoints on adaptaand innova **t** ion,ionsee Katz (1980) Rosenberg (1990), Fransman (1986), Lali (1990), and Baumol (1989).

7 See Grossman and Helpman (1969,b). See Mill (1948, p. 948), Samuelson (1954), and Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980). Morris and Adelman (1988), Olson (1982), and North (1989) discuss the role of institutions in economic development.
46 is difficult even within the simple models of the "new" growth literature. Some of these complexities have recently been captured by Barro (1990) and Easterly (1990b). On one hand, governments may provide growth-promoting public goods and design taxes to close the gap between private and social costs. On the other hand, governments may waste funds, funnel resources to endeavors that do not encourage growth, and impose taxes and regulations that distort private decisions. Aggregate measures of government size will not capture the important implications of where government expenditures are allocated and whether these expenditures are efficiently transformed into public goods and services. Furthermore, even if government funds are always spent efficiently on growthpromoting goods, there may be complex, non-linear tradeoffs between the beneficial effects of government services and the deleterious implications of distortionary taxes. Growth increases with taxation and well-focussed government expenditures at low levels and then decreases as the distortionary effects of taxation exceed the beneficial effects of public goods. Linear, cross-country regressions will not appropriately capture these relationships.

Empirically, large cross-country regressions have begun to identify empirical ties between aggregate measures of fiscal policy and growth although the results are not yet conclusive.”* Barro (1991) finds that government consumption expenditures less defense and education payments seem to be negatively related to growth. In addition, Levine and Renelt (1990a) identify specifications when government expenditures on capital goods, education, defense spending, and measures of tax sources and deficits enter as suggested by theory. But, because these results are sensitive to the “other variables" included in the regression and the time-period over which the analysis is conducted, more empirical work is needed to sort-out the relationships between aggregate measures of fiscal policy and growth.” In the area of trade policy, Adam Smith (1776) argued that international trade may enhance productivity by allowing economic pla, .rs to specialize in activities that would be unprofitable in smaller markets and by allowing countries to exploit economies of scale in their areas of comparative advantage. These ideas were further developed by Mill (1848) and Schumpeter (1911, 1942), and the relationship between trade, economies of scale, and growth has been studied extensively.” Within the context of "new" growth models, Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1989) and Grossman and Helpman (1989a.b) have constructed endogenous growth models in which openness to international trade can accelerate technological improvements by increasing the size of the market available to technology producers and allowing those countries with a comparative advantage in technology production to specialize in this key industry. Similarly, Krueger (1974), Grossman and Helpman (1989b), and Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1990) argue that trade distortions may divert talented people out of productive activities and into rent-seeking endeavors that slow technological innovation. On the other hand, Krugman (1988) notes that externalities in human capital accumulation can overturn the typical positive effects of trade. Opening to trade could induce a country to specialize in activities with small external human capital effects. Such a country could be better off in autarky where domestic production includes goods with more significant externalities although the reverse could also be true.

> ® See Landau (1983, 1986), Barro (1989), Romer (1989), Easterly and Wetzel (1989), Kormendi and Meguire (1985), Grier and Tullock (1989), Diamond (1989), Ram (198), and Koester and Kormendi (1989). Tl For a detailed discussion of past empirical work on policy and growth and for recommendations on bow to improve the design and implementation of cross-country growth studies, see Levine and Renelt (19906).

> 7 See: Kuznets (1960), Balassa (1965), Denison (1967), Corden (1971), and Tybout, de Melo, and Corbo (1990).
47 The empirical ties between trade and growth, however, are mixed. Large multicountry-case studies document generally favorable linkages between trade liberalization and growth.” Empirical studies that attempt to relate continuous, objective, internationally comparable measures of trade policy with growth, however, have thus far met with only mixed success.“ Levine and Renelt (1990a) find a two-step relationship between trade and growth: the share of trade in GDP is reliably positively correlated with the share of investment in GDP which is itself reliably correlated with growth, but the trade share is not independently correlated with growth if one controls for the investment share. More detailed empirical studies might be better able to elucidate the ties between trade policy and growth.

Direct foreign investment has received less attention than trade in the growth literature. Findlay (1978) studies the effects of policies restricting direct foreign investments and international capital flows in a standard growth model. This is extended to an endogenous growth model in Wang (1990). More general discussions of policies toward direct foreign investment are provided in the books by Wallace (1990), Cable and Persaud (1987), and Moran (1986), and in the survey by Helleiner (1989).

Just as governments may resort to taxes on trade to raise revenues, governments often finance expenditures via money creation and taxes on financial market activities. The role of money in economic activity is one of the most frequently studied issues in economics.” Cross-country empirical studies that use measures of average inflation rates, M1 growth, domestic credit creation, and the standard deviations of inflation M1 growth, and domestic credit creation have thus far met with mixed results in identifying strong ties between these measures of monetary policy and growth.” Since the negative effects of inflation on growth may be non-linear in the sense that it may take very high inflation rates to interfere with economic activity, additional empirical studies of the growth effects of inflationary finance could be a profitable area of inquiry. The theoretical links between financial markets and growth are also strong. Schumpeter (1911) argued that well-functioning capital markets were necessary if entrepreneurs were going to raise capital for new technology-improving projects, and this theme was echoed and extended by McKinnon (1973), Shaw (1973), and many others.” Recent efforts by Levine (1990, 1991) at examining financial policies in an endogenous growth model similarly demonstrate the potentially harmful effects on growth of taxing financial market activities. Empirically, Goldsmith (1969), McKinnon (1973), and Gelb (1989) find a positive relationship between measures of domestic financial market activity and growth; however, the direction of causality has not been established.

3 See Krueger (1978), Bhagwati (1978), Balassa and Associates (1982), and the World Bank (1987).

TM Negative effects of trade intervention have been identified by Krueger (1983), Havrytyshyn (1985), Edwards (1989), and Dollar (1990), but Pack (1988), Pritchett (forthcoming), Rodrik (1988), and Levine and Renelt (19902) question the strength of these findings. See also Romer (1990), Balasss (1978, 1985), Tyler (1985), Feder (1983), Kavoussi (1984), Ram (1985), Moschos (1989), World Bank Development Report (1987), and DeLong and Summers (1990).

75 See the extensive review by Orphanides and Solow (1990).

16 See Fischer (1983), Grier and Tullock (1989), Kormendi and Meguire (1985), and Levine and Reneit (1990a). 7 On capital markets in developing countries see Von Pischke, et. al. (1983), Bardhan and Srinivasan (1971), Braverman and Srinivasan (1961), Braverman and Stiglitz (1982), and the review by Bell (1988).
48 In sum, this brief review of t'* -rowth literature raises at least four important themes.” First, the broad forces behind econom.. growth - accumulation of produced factors, specialization, economies of scale, and externalities - were sketched-out by the classical economists long ago. Second, these same forces have been used by the development literature to study various aspects of economic growth. Third, by building on the insights of growth and development economists, the "new" theoretical literature on growth is also contributing models that identify specific channels through which national policies may have effects on long-run growth rates. Finally, the empirical work on linking national policies to growth is still evolving, and many basic issues regarding the longrun relationship between policy and growth - including the effects on growth of government size, the allocation of public expenditures, the financing of fiscal expenditures, trade policy, and international capital flows - remain to be more conclusively resolved. There seem to be important opportunities to evaluate empirically the theoretically predicted channels from policy to growth by improving the design of cross-country growth studies and by conducting more detailed longitudinal case studies.

> 78 We should emphasize again the narrow selectivity of this review, and for that matter, of the "new" growth literature. For example, important issues such as income distribution (Kuznets (1956-57), Adelman and Morris (1973), Robinson (1976), Nelson (1981), Sen (1981a,b), Kanbur (1987), Adelman and Robinson (1978)}, health and nutrition {Selowsky and Taylor (1973), Stiglitz (1976), Lau, Lin, Yotopoutos (1978), Bliss and Stern (1978), and Behrman and Deolalikar (1987, 1988)}, and the structural evolution of economies (Kuznets (1966), Taylor (1969, 1983), Chenery and Taylor (1968)}, have not yet received much attention by the "new" growth literature.
49

# BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramovitz, M. 1989. Tainking about Growth. Cambridge University Press.

- Adeiman, |. and C.T. Morris. 1973. Economic Growth and Social Equity in Developing Countries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

- , and S. Robinson. 1978. income Distribution Policy in Developing Countries: A . -*e Study of Korea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

- Ahmad, Yusuf J., Salah El Serafy, and Ernst Lutz, eds. 1989. Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development. Washington, OC: World Bank.

- Alesina, Alberto. 1988. ‘Macroeconomics and politics.* NBER Macroeconomics Annual. Cambridge: MIT Press.

, and Dani Rodrik. 1991. "Distributive Politics and Economic Growth." Draft of NBER paper.

- Anand, R. and S. van Wijnbergen. 1989. “inflation and the financing of government expenditure: An introductory anatysis with an appiication to Turkey." World Bank Economic Review 3(1): pp. 17-38.

- Anderson, Dennis. 1990. "Economic Growth and the Environment." Edited version of a background paper prepared for the 1989 Royal Dutch/Shell Group Planning Scenarios.

- Arrau, Patricio. 1990. *Human capital and endogenous growth in a large scale lite-cycie model." PRE Working Paper No. 342. Washington, OC: Worid Bank.

- Arrow, Kenneth. 1962. ‘The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing." Review otf Economic Studies 29 (June): pp.661-69.

- Atkinson, A. and J.E. Stiglitz. 1969. ‘A new view of technological change", Economic Journal, LIX: 46-49.

. 1980. Lectures on Public Economics. New York: McGraw-hill.

- Azam J.-P., P. Guillaumont, and S$. Guillaumont. 1988. ‘Methodological problems in cross-country analyses in economic growth." PPR Working Paper No. 22. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Azariadis, C. and A. Drazen. 1990. “Threshold Extemaiities in Economic Development. "Quarterly Journal of Economics 105: pp. 501-26.

- Baily, Martin N. and Charles Schultze. 1990. ‘The Productivity of Capita! in a Period of Slower Growth." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics Special issue: pp. 369-420.

- Balassa, B. 1965. ‘Trade Liberalization and ‘Revealed’ Comparative Advantage." ManchesterSchoo! of Economics and Social Studies, May: 99-121.

- . 1978, "Exports and Economic Growth: Further Evidence.” Journal of Develo ment Economics. 5 (June) pp. 181-189,

- . 1985. "Exports, Policy Choices, and Economic Growth in Developing Countries After the 1973 Oil Shock." Journal of Development Economics 18 p.23-35.

- Balassa, B. and Associates. 1982. Development Strategies in Semi-industrial Countries. Raitimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

- Bardhan, P.K. and T.N. Srinivasan. 1971. "Cropsharing tenancy in agriculture: A theoretical and empirical analysis,” American Economic Review, 61:48-64.

- Barro, Robert J. 1989. °A Cross-Country Study of Growth, Saving and Government." NBER Working Paper No. 2855, Cambridge, MA: NBER.

. 1990, "Goverment Spending in a Simpie Model of Endogenous Growth." Journal of Political Econo
50

# 98:pp. $103-S125.

. 1991 (forthcoming). "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries." Quarterly Journal of Economics.

- , and H.C. Wolf. 1989. ‘Data Appendix for Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries." mimeo., Harvard University and MIT.

Baumol, William J. 1989. Productivity and American Leadership: The Long View. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital. New York: NBER, Columbia University Press. (2nd ed. 1975.)

- , Kevin Murphy, and Robert Tamura. 1990. ‘Human Capital, Fertility, and Economic Growth." Journal of Political Economy 98(6).

- Behrman, J.R. and A.B. Daolalikar. 1987. “Will developing country nutrition improve with income? A case study for rural South india.” Journal of Political Economy 95: 108-138.

- and . 1988, "Health and Nutrition." in H. Chenery and T.N. Srinivasan, eds. Handbook of Development Economi¢es.Vol |. New York: North-Holland.

- Bell, Clive. 1988. "Credit markets and interlinked transactions. In Chenery, H. and T.N. Srinivasan, eds. Handbook of Development Economics: Vol !. New York: North-Holland.

- Ben-Porath, Y. 1967, "The production of human capital and the life cycle of earnings," Journal of Political Economy, 75:4.

- Benhabib, Jess and Boyan Jovanovic. 1989. "Externalities and Growth Accounting.* NBER Working Paper No. 3190. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

- Bhagwati, J. 1978. Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Control Regimes. Cambridge MA: NBER. and R. A. Brecher. 1980. “National welfare in an open economy in the presence of foreign owned factors of production," Journal of Intemational Economics 19: pp. 103-115.

- Bhalla, Surjt. 1991. “Chapter 2: Development Paths, Strategies, and Performance." Draft of background paper prepared for the WOR 1991 draft.

- Birdsall, Nancy. 1988. “Economic approaches to population growth." In Chenery, H. and T.N. Srinivasan, eds. Handbook of Development Economics: Volume |. New York: North-Holland.

- . 1989. “Economic Analyses of Rapid Population Growth." World Bank Research Observer 4(1): pp. 23-50.

- Binswanger, H. 1974. “A microeconomic approach to induced innovation," Economic Journal 84 (Dec): pp. 940-958.

- Bliss, Christopher. 1989. “Trade and development." In Chenery, H. and T.N. Srinivasan, eds. Handbook of Development Economics: Volume tl. New York: North-Holland.

- and N. Stem. 1978. "Productivity, wages and nutrition; Parts | and Il: The theory," Journal of Development Economies 5: 331-398.

- Braverman, A. and T.N. Srinivasan. 1981. “Credit and sharecropping in agrarian societies," Journal of Development Economics, 9:289-312.

- , and J. Stiglitz. 1982. “Sharecropping and the interlinking of agrarian markets," American Economic Review, 72:695-715.

- Brecher,InternationalR. A. and C. EconomicsF. Diaz-Alejandro.7: pp. 317-322.1977. ‘Tariffs, foreign capital and immiserizing growth," Journalof Caballero, Ricardo, and Richard Lyons. 1989. “The Role of Externai Economies in U.S. Manufacturing." NBER
51

# Working Paper No, 3033. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

Cable, V. and B. Persaud. eds. 1987. Developing with Foreign Invastment. London: Croom Helm.

- Cardoso, Ellana A. and R. Ocvnbusch. 1989. “Foreign Private Capital Flows. In H. Chenery and T.N. Srinivasan Handbookof Develinrent Economics. Vol. Il. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

- Cass, D. 1965. "Optimum growth in an aggregative model of capital accumulation,” Review of Economic Studies 32:233-240,

- Chamberlain, Gary. 1984. ‘Chapter 22: Pane! Data" in Z. Griliches and M.D. Intriligator, eds. Handbook of Voi ll, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

- Chamiey, C. and P. Honohan. 1990. ‘Taxation of financial intermediation measurement principles and application to five African countries." PRE Working Paper No. 421. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Chenery, Hollis B., S. Robinson, and M. Syrquin. 1986. industralization and Growth: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- , and T. Srinivasan. eds. 1988-1989. Handbook of Development Economics Vol.i-ll. New York: North-Holland.

- , and A.S. Strout. 1966. "Foreign assistance and economic development," American Economic Review 56: 679-733.

- , and M. Syrquin. 1975. Patterns of Gevelopment, 1954-1970. London: Oxford University Press.

- , and L. Taylor, 1968. “Development patterns among countries and over time." Review of Economics and Statistics 50 (November):391-416.

- Chhibber, A. and J. Khalilzadeh-Shirazi. 1988. "Public finances in adjustment programs." PPR Working Paper No. 128. Washington, OC: World Bank.

China. State Statistical Bureau. Statistical Yearbook of China 1984. Hang Kong: Economic Information & Agency.

- Cohen, Daniel. 1990. “Slow growth and LDC debt." Paper presented at NBER’s Workshop on Economic Growth, Cambridge, MA, Nov. 9-10, 1990.

- Corbo, V., M. Goldstein, and M. Khan. eds. 1987, Growth-oriented Adjustment Programs. Washington, DC: IMF and World Bank.

- Corden, W. Max. 1971. “The Effects of Trade on the Rate of Growth.” In J. Bhagwati, et.al. eds., Trade Balance of Payments and Growth: Papers in Honour of Chazies P. Kindleberger. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

- . 1989. "Macroeconomic Policy and Growth: Some Lessons of Experience.’ Paper presented at the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, held in Washington, DC, April 26-27, 1990.

- Dasgupta, P. and J.E. Stiglitz. 1980. “Industrial structure and the nature of innovative activity," Economic Journal, 90: 266-293.

- de Melo, Jaime and S. Robinson. 1990. "Productivity and extemalities: Models of export-led growth." Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper Series No. 400.

- De Long, J.B. and L.H Summers. 1990. "Equipment, Investment, Relative Prices, and Economic Growth." Paper presented at NBER Conference on Economic Growth in Vail, Colorado, April 12-14.

- Denison, &.F. 1967. economic growth rates differ: Postwar Experience in Nine Western countries. Washington, DC., Brookings Institution.

<!-- Start of picture text --> Desai, Padma. 1989. The Soviet Economy: Problems and Prospects. Oxford: Basi Blackwell.<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- de Tray, D. 1987. “Government policy, household behavior and the distribution of schooling," in: T.P. Schuttz, ed.,
52

# Research in population economics, Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

- Diamond, J. 1989. "Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation." {MF Working Paper No. 89/45. Washington, DC: IMF.

- Doliar, David. 1990. "Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-85." UCLA and World Bank.

- Easterly, Willlam R. 1989. “Fiscal adjustment and deficit financing during the Debt Crisis." In 1. Husain and |. Diwan, eds. Dealing with the Debt Crisis. Washington, OC: World Bank.

- . 1990a. "How Does Growth Begin? Models of Endogenous Development." World Bank.

- . 19906. "Endogenous Growth in Developing Countries with Government induced Distortions.” Paper presented at NBER Workshop on Economic Growth, Cambridge, MA, November 9-10, 1990.

- . 1990c. “Distortionary policy and growth in socialist economies." Paper presented at World Bank/World Economy Institute Conference on Adjustment and Growth in Pultusk, Poland. October 4-5, 1990.

- and Deborah L. Wetzel. 1989. ‘Policy Determinants of Growth: Survey of Theory and Evidence." PPR Working Paper No. 343. Wash’ igton, DC: World Bank.

- , «Rosirigue2,ank. and K. Schmidt-Hebbel. 1989. ‘Macroeconomics of the Public Sector Deficit." proposal. World

- Edwards, Sebastian. 1989. “Openess, Outward Orientation, Trade Liberalization, and Economic Performance in Developing Countries.” PPR Working Paper No. 191. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Ethier W.J. 1982. "National and international returns to scale in the modem theory of international trade." American Economic Review 72 (June):389-405.

- Fardoust, S., N. Shafik, A. Dhareshwar, and J.R. Behrman. 1990. ‘Factor productivity and economic growth: A cross-country, time-series study." Research Proposal. World Bank.

# Feder, Gershon. 1983. "On Exports and Economic Growth." Journal of Development Economics, 12 p.S9-74.

- Findlay, R. 1878. "Relative backwardness, direct foreign invesment and transfer of technology." Quarterly Journal of Economics 92:pp. 1-16.

- . 1989. ‘ls the New Political Economy Relevant to Developing Countries?" PPA Working Paper No. 292. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Fischer, Stanley. 1983. “Inflation and Growth." Cambridge, Mass: NBER Working Paper No. 1235. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

- , and A. Gelb. 1990. "Issues in socialist economy reform.’ Paper presented at the World Bank/World Economy Research Institute Conference on Adjustment and Growth in Pultusk, Poland, October 4-5, 1990.

# Fransman, M. 1986. Technology and Economic Development. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

# Gastil, R.D. 1987. Freedom in the World. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

- Gelb, Alan. H. 1989. "Financial policies, growth, and efficiency." PPR Working Paper No. 202. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- _ J.B. Knight, and A.H. Sabot. 1988. “Lewis through a looking glass: Public sector employment, rent-seeking, and economic growth." PPR Working Paper No. 133. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Gersovitz, Mark. 1988. “Saving and development." in H. Chenery and T. Srinivasan, eds. H: Economics Voll. New York: North-Holland.

ik of Deve!

Goldsmith, A.W. 1969. Financial Structure and Development. New Haven: Yale University Press.
§3

- Greenwald, 8. and J.E. Stiglitz. 1989. “Financial market imperfections and productivity growth.” NBER Working Paper No. 2945. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

, , and M. Salinger. 1990. ‘Imperfect Capital Markets and Productivity Growth."

- Greenwood, Jeremy and Boyan Jovanovic. 1990. "Financial Development, Growth, and the Distribution of income." Journal of Political Economy 98: pp. 1076-1107.

- Grier, Kevin and Gordon Tullock. 1989. “An Empirical Analysis of Cross-National Economic Growth, 1951-1980." Journal of Monetary Economics 24:p.259-276.

- Griliches, Z. 1964. "Research expenditure, education and the aggregate agricultural production function, American Economic Review, 54:961-974.

. 1977. "Estimating the retums to schooling: Some econometric problems," Econometrica, 45:1-22.

- Grossman, Gene and Elahan Helpman. 1989a. ‘endogenous Product Cycles.* NBER Working Paper No. 2913. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

- ; an oh . 1989b. "Quality Ladders and Product Cycles." NBER Working Paper No. 3201. Cambridge, MA:

- Haggard, Stephen and Steven Webb. 1990. “Political Economy of Structural Adjustment. World Bank Research Proposal.

- Halevi, N. 1989. ‘Trade restrictions and reforms by developing countries in the 1980s." UNDP-Worid Bank Trade Expansion Program Occasional Paper No. 4. Washington, OC: World Bank.

- Havrylyshyn, Oli. 1935. “The direction of developing country trade: Empirical evidence." Journal of Development Economics 19: 255-281.

- . 1990. “Trade policy and productivity gains ir: developing countries: a survey of the literature." World Bank Research Observer, 5 (1): pp. 1-24.

- Helleiner, G. 1989. ‘Transnational corporations and direct foreign investment.’ In Chenery, H. and T.N. Srinivasan, eds, Handbook of Development Economics: Volume il. New York: North-Holland.

- Heston, Alan and Robert Summers. 1988. “What We Have Learned about Prices and Quantities from Intemational Comparisons: 1987." American Economic Review 78(2): 467-473.

- Honohan, P. and |. Atiyas. 1989. ‘intersectoral financial flows In developing countries.” PPR Working Paper No. 164. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Ingersoll, J.E. 1987. The Theory of Financial Decision Making. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

- Ingram, Gregory. 1989. “Economic Development: its Record and Determinants." Paper prepared for World Management Congress, New York.

- inotai, A. 1989. “Liberalization and foreign direct investment." In A. Koves, P. Marer, eds. Foreign Economic Liberalization in Market Economies, Hungary, the CMEA and China.

- . 1990. “Experiences and lessons of foreign direct investments in selected countries." Paper prepared for MIGA Ghana investment Conference, February 1990.

- international Economics Department. 1989. “Per Capita income: Estimating Internationally Comparable Numbers.” Mimeo., World Bank.

- Jamison, D.T. and LJ. Lau. 1982. Farmer education and farm efficiency. Baltimore, M.D.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

- yones, Larty and Rodolfo Manueili. 1990. *A Convex Model of Equilibrium Growth." Journal of Political Economy. 98 (5): pp. 1008-38.
54

# Jorgenson, Dale, Frank Gollop, and Barbara Fraumeni. 1987. Pr tv! U.S. Ie Gr . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

- Jorgenson, Dale and Peter J. Wilcoxen. 1989. ‘Environmental Regulation and U.S. Growth." NBER Conference on Economic Growth. Cambridge:NBER.

- Kanbur, Ravi. 1987. ‘Structural adjustment, macroeconomic adjustment and poverty: a methodology for analysis. World Development 15:pp. 1515-1526,

Katz, Jorge M. 1980. ‘Domestic Technology Generation in LDCs: A Review of Research Findings." Inter-American Development Bank/ ECLA Research Programme in Science and Technology Working Paper #35 (November): 1-37

- kaufman, Daniel. 1991.

- Kavoussi, A. 1984. "Export expansion and economic growth: Further evidence." Journal of D: 14: pp. 241-250.

- Kendrick, J.W. 1961. Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Universtiy Press.

Kennedy, C. 1964. "induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution." Economic Journa! 74: 541-547,

- King, Beth. 1991. "Chapter 3: Investing in Peopie: The Goal and Means of Development." Background paper, World Development Report 1991.

- King, Robert and Sergio Rebelo. 1989. ‘Transitional dynamics and economic growth in the neoclassical model." NRER Working Paper 3185. Cambridge: NBER.

- , and . 1990. ‘Public Policy and Economic Growth: Developing Neoclassical implications.” Journal_of Political Economy 98: pp. S126-150.

- Koester, Richard and Roger Kormendi. 1989. ‘Taxation, Aggregate Activity and Economic Growth: Cross-Country Evidence on Some Supply-Side Hypatheses.* Economic inquiry 27 (July) p.367-86.

- Koopmans, T. 1965. "On the concept of optimal growth." In The Econometric Approach to Development Planning. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

- Kormendi, Roger and Phitip Meqguire. 1985. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Growth: Cross-Country Evidence." Journal of Monetary Econcmics 16 p. 141-163.

Krueger, A.O. 1974. "The political economy of the rent-seeking society.’ American Economic Review 64:291-303.

- . 1978. Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Liberalizat_on Attempts and Consequences. Cambridge MA: NBER.

- _ 1983. Trade and Employment in Developing Countries 3. Synthesis and Conclusions. Chicago, iL: University ot Chicago Press.

- , Maurice Schiff and Alberto Vaides. 1938. ‘Agricultural Incentives in Developing Countries: Measuring the Effect of Sectoral and Economywide Policies.” The World Bank Economic Review. 2 (3) pp. 255-271.

- Krugman, P. 1988. “Endogenous innovations, international trade and growth." Paper presented at the SUNY-Buffalo conference on ‘The Problem of Development.” May.

- Kuznets, S. 1956-1957. "Quantitative aspects of the economic growth of nations," Economic development and cyitural change. (a series of 10 articles.)

- . 1960. "Economic growth of smail nations." In £.A.G. Robinson, ed. Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations. London: MacMillan.

- . 1966. Modem Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lal, Deepak and Hia Myint. eds. 1991 forthcoming. The Political of P uity, and Growth. Vols.
55

## 1-11. Oxford and Washington, DC: Pergamon Press and the World Bank.

# Lall, Sanjaya. 1990. ‘Technology: Concepts, Methods, and issues. Paper prepared for the Intemational Symposium on Hirschman’s Work and a New Development Strategy for Latin America, February 1990.

- Landau, Daniel. 1983. ‘Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Study." Southem Economic Joumal (January) p.783-92.

- . 1986. "Goverment and Economic Growth in the Less Developed Countries: An Empirical Study for 1960-80." Economic Development and Cultural Change 35 (October) p.35-75.

- Lau, LJ., D.T. Jamison, and F.F. Louat. 1990. “Education and productivity in developing countries: An aggregate production function approach." mimeo., Stanford University.

- , W. Lin, and P.A. Yotopouios. 1978."The linear logarithmic expenditure system," Econometrica, 46: 840-868.

- Lavy, V. and P. Pedroni. 1990. “Are rates of return to investment iow in Africa?* Washington, DC: World Bank. Mimeo.

- Leamer, Edward. 1983. ‘Let's take the con out of econometrics." American Economic Review 73 (June): pp. 308-313.

- . 1985. “Sensitivity analyses would help.“ American Economic Review 73 (Mar.): pp. 31-43.

- . 1988. ‘Measures of openness.” in R. Baldwin, ed. Trade Policy issues and Empirical Anatysis. Cambridge, MA:NBER.

- Leechor, Chad and J.M. Mintz. 1990. ‘Taxing foreign income in capital-importing countries—Thailand’s perspective." PRE Working Paper No. 499. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Levine, R. 1990. ‘Financial structure and economic development." IFDP No. 381. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board.

- . 1991 forthcoming. “Stock Markets, Growth and Policy." Joumal of Finance.

- and David Renelt. 1990a. ‘A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth Regressions." World Bank. and . 19900. "Cross-Country Studies of Growth and Policy: Methodological, Conceptual, and Statistical Problems." World Bank.

- Lizondo, J.S. 1990. “Foreign direct investment.” IME Working Paper WP/90/63. Washington, DC: IMF. Lopez, R. and V. Thomas. 1988. ‘Imports and growth in Africa.” PRE Working Paper No. 20. Washington, OC: World Bank.

- Lopez, R. and M. Niklitschek. 1991 forthcoming. ‘Dual economic growth in poor tropical areas." Journal of Development Economics.

- Lucas, Robert E. 1988. "On the Mechanics of Economic Development.’ Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (July) p.3-42.

- . 1990. “Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries." American Economic Review 80 (May): pp. 92-96.

Maddison, A. 1982. Ph: of Capitalist Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- . 1987. ‘Growth and slowdown in advanced capitalist economies: Techniques of quantitative assessment." Journal of Economic Literature 25 (June): 649-698.

- Mankiw, N. Gregory, David Romer, and David Weil. 1990. ‘A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth." Harvard University.

- McKinnon, Ronald. 1973. Money and Capital in Economic Development. Washington DC: Brookings institution.
56

# Meade, J.E. and F.H. Hahn. 1965. ‘The rate of profit in a growing economy," Economic Journal, 75:445-448,

# Mill, John Stuart. 1848. Principles of Political Economy.

Mino, Kazuo. 1990. "Mor 2y and endogenous growth in a cash-in-advance economy.” mimeo., Hiroshima University.

- Moran, T.H. and contributors. 1986. Investing in Development: New Roles for Private Capital? (U.S.-Third World Policy Perspectives, No. 6, Overseas Development Council) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

- Morris, C.T. and |, Adelman. 1988, Comparative pattems of economic development, 1850-1914. Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins University Press.

- Moschos, Dematrics. 1989. "Export Expansion, Growth and the Level of Economic Development: An Empirical Anatysis.* Journal of Development Economics 30: pp.93-102.

- Murphy, Kevin, Andrei Shieifer, and Robert Vishny. 1989. "Industrialization and the Big Push.” Journalof Political Economy 97:5, pp. 1003-2026.

- . 1990. ‘The Allocation of Talent: Implications for Growth." University of Chicago.

- Nelson, Richard R. 1956. *A theory of the tow-levei equilibrium trap in underdeveloped economies." American Economic Review 41: pp. 894-908.

- . 1981. “Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: dead ends and new departures." Journal of Economic Literature 19:1029-1064.

- Nishimizu, Mieko and John Page Jr. 1986. "Productivity Change and Dynamic Comparative Advantage." Review of Economics and Statistics 68(2): 241-247.

- , and Sherman Robinson. 1986. ‘Productivity growth in manufacturing." In H. Chenery, S. Robinson, and M. Syrquin.industrialization and Growth: A Comparative Study. New York: Oxford University Press.

- Norsworthy, J.R. 1984. "Growth Accounting and Productivity Measurement." Review of income and Wealth Series 30, No. 3: pp. 309-29.

- North, Dougias C. 1989. “Institutions and economic growth: A historical introduction," World Development 17, No. 9.

- Ofer, Gur. 1987. "Soviet economic growth: 1928-1985." Journal of Economic Literature 25 (Dec.): pp. 1767-1833.

- . 1990. "Macroeconomic issues of Soviet reform." In O. J. Blanchard and S. Fischer, eds. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1990. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

- Olson, Mancur, 1982. The Rise and Fall of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

- Orphanides,MonetaryA. andEconomics.R. Solow. 1990. “Money, Inflation and Growth." In B. Friedman and F, Hahn, eds., Handbookof Pack, H. 1988. “Industrialization and trade." in Chenery, H. and T.N. Srinivasan, eds. Handbook of Development Economics: Volume |. New York: North-Holland.

- Panagariya, A. 1990. ‘The paralle! market in centrally planned economies: A dynamic analysis." Journal of Comparative Economics 14 (Sep.):pp. 353-71.

- Papageorgiou, Demetris, Michael Michaely, and Armeane Choksi, eds. 1990 forthcoming. Liberalizing Foreign Trade. Volumes 1-7. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

- Pasinettl. 1962. ‘Rate of profit and income distribution in relation to the rate of economic growth," Reviewof Economic Studies 29: 297-279.

Pearce, David. 1990. "Environment and Development: An Overview." Background paper, World Development Report 1991.
57

- Petty, Sir William. 1676. Political arithmetick. Republished in: C.H. Hull. 1899, The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Pfeffermann, Guy P. and A. Madarassy. 1989. ‘Trends in private investment in thirty developing countries." [FC Discussion Paper Number 6. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Pheips, E.S. 1966. "Models of technical progress and the golden rule of research. Review of Economic Studies 33: 133-145,

- Pritchett, Lant. forthcoming. "Measuring outward orientation in LOCs: Can k be done?" PRE Working Paper. Washington, OC: World Bank.

- Psacharopoulos, George. 1985. "Returns to Education: A Further international Update and Implications.* Journal of Human Resources 20 pp. 583-603.

- . 1988. "Education and development: A review." World Bank Research Observer 3 (1): pp. 99-116.

- . 1991 forthcoming. The Political Economy of Poverty, Equity and Growth. Special Studies Volume. Oxford and Washington, DC: Pergamon Press and the World Bank.

- , and Ana-Maria Arriagada. 1986. "The educational attainment of the labor force: An international comparison." ETD Working Paper No. 38. Washington, DC: Worid Bank.

- Ram, Rati. 1985. "Exports and Economic Growth: Some Additional Evidence." Economic Development and Cultural Change 12 pp. 59-74.

Rebelo, Sergio. 1991a. “Growth in Open Economies." World Bank.

. 1881b forthcoming . “Long Run Policy Analysis and Long Run Growth." Journal of Political Economy.

Reneit, D. 1990. “Growth Review." mimeo., World Bank.

- Repetto, Robert, Willlam Magrath, Michael Wells, Christine Beer, and Fabrizio Rossini. 1989. Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts. Washington, DC: World Resources institute.

- Reynolds, Lloyd G. 1985. Economic Growth in the Third World, 1850-1980, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

- Rivera-Batiz, Luis, and Paul Romer. 1989. "international Trade with Endogenous Technological Change." University of Chicago.

- Robinson, S. 1976. “A note on the U hypothesis relating income inequality and economic development." American Economic Review 66 (3): 437-440.

Rodrik, Dani. 1988. "Closing the productivity gap: Does trade liberalization really help?" mimeo., August.

- . 1989. "Policy uncertainty and private investment in developing countries." NBER Working Paper Series No. 2999. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

. 1990. “How should structural adjustment programs be designed?* World Development 18 (7): 933-947.

- Romer, Paul. 1986. "increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth." Journal of Political Economy. 94 p.1002-1037.

- . 1987, "Crazy Explanations for the Productivity Slowdown." in S. Fischer ed. NBER Macroeconomics Annual Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

- . 1989. "What Determines the Rate of Growth of Technological Change?" PPR Working Paper No. 279. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- . 1990a. “Endogenous Technological Change." Journal of Politica! Economy 98: pp. $71-S102.
58

- . 1990b. "Capital, Labor, and Productivity." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics Special issue: pp. 337-67.

- Rosenberg, N. 1990. "Science and Technology Policy for the Asian NICs: Lessons from Economic History." In Science and Technology: Lessons for Development Policy Robert €. Evenson and Gustav Ranis (eds). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

- Rosenzweig, M.A. and T.P Schultz. 1983. “Estimating a household production function,’ Journal of Political Economy, 91: 723-746.

- , and R.E. Evenson. 1977. “Fertility, schooling and the economic contribution of children in rural india," Econometrica, 45: 1065-1079.

- Sachs, Jeffrey D. 1987. “Trade and exchange rate policies in growth-oriented adjustment programs." In V. Corbo, M. Goldstein, and M. Khan, eds. Growth-oriented Adjustment Programs. Washington, DC: IMF and World Bank.

- . 1988. "The debt overhang of developing countries.’ in Debt, Stabilization and Development: Essays _in Memory of Carlos Diaz-Alejandro. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

- . 6d. 1990. Developing Country Debt and Economic Performance: Volume 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Samueison, P. 1954. ‘The pure theory of public oxpenditure.* Review of Economics and Statistics 36:387-389.

- Schmidt-Hebbel, Klaus, S. Wabb, and G. Corsetti. 1990 forthcoming. “Household saving in daveloping countries: first cross-country evidence.” PPR Working Paper Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Schmitz, James Jr. 1989. "Imitation, Entrepreneurship, and Long-Run Growth." Joumal of Political Economy 97(3): pp. 721-39.

Schmookler, J. 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

- Schultz, T.P. 1988. ‘Education investments and Retums." in H. Chenery and T. Srinivasan, eds. Handbook of Development Economics: Volume |. New York: North-Holland.

- Schulz, T.W. 1961. ‘investments in human capital," American Economic Review 51:p. 117.

- . 1963. The economic value of education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1911) The Theory of Economic Development. Transiated by Redvers Opie. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. Paperback edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.

. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Bros. 3rd ed., Harper and Row, 1950. Scott, Maurice. 1989. A New View of Economic Growth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Selowsky, M. and L. Taylor. 1973. ‘The economics of mainourished children: An example of disinvestment in human capital,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 22:17-30.

Selyunin, V. and G. Khanin. 1987. “Lukavaya tsifra.° Novy Mir 63 (2): pp. 181-201. (Translated by FBIS).

Sen, A.K. 1981a. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

. 1981b. “Public action and the quality of lifa in developing countries.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 43 (4): pp. 287-319.

Serven, Luis and Andres Solimano. 1990. “Adjustment Policies and Investment Performance Performance in LDC's: Theory, Country Experiences and Policy Implications," World Bank.

Shah, Anwar. 1988. ‘Public infrastructure and private sector profitability and productivity in Mexico." PPR Working Paper No. 100. Washington, OC: World Bank.

_____<sup>andJ.Slemrod.1990.‘Taxsensitivityofforeigndirectinvestment--anempiricalassessment."PREWork!</sup>
59

# Paper No. 434. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Shalizi, Zmarak, and Jonathan Skinner. 1988. “Tax_iion and output growth." PPA Working Paper No. 73. Washington, OC: Worid Bank.

Shaw, Edward. 1973. Financial Deepening in Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

- Shell, K. 1967. °A model of inventive activity and capital accumulation." in K. Shell, ed. Essays in the Theory of Optirnat Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Skinner, Jonathan. 1988. ‘Taxation and Output Growth in Africa.” PPR Working Paper No. 73. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth of Nations (edited by Edwin Cannan; New York: The Modern Library, 1937).

- Solow, Robert. 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth." Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (Feb.):pp. 65-94,

- Stiglitz, J. 1976. "The efficiency wage hypothesis, surplus labor, and the distribution of income in LDCs." Oxford Economic Papers 28: 185-207.

- . 1985. "Maney, credit, and banking lecture: Credit market and the control of capital." Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 17:133-152.

. 1989. "Financial markets and development.’ Finance and Economic Development 5: 55-68.

- , and A. Weiss. 1981. ‘Credit rationing in markets w:th imperfect information," American Economic Review 71:393-410.

- , and , 1983. ‘Incentive effects of terminations: Applications to the credit and labor markets," American Economic Review 73:912-927.

Stockman, Alan C. 1981. “Anticipated inflation and the capital stock in a cash-in-advance economy." Journal of Monetary Economics 8 (3,Nov): 387-393.

- . 1988. “Sectoral and national aggregate disturbances to industrial output in seven European countries,” Journal of Monetary Economics 21: pp. 387-409.

- Summers, R. and A. Heston. 1988. "A new set of international comparisons of real product and price levels estimates for 130 countries, 1950-1985." Review of Income and Wealth. 34 (Mar.):p. 1-25.

Swan, T.W. 1956. "Economic growth and capital accumulation." The Economic Record. 32 (Nov): pp. 334-361.

Syrquin, Moshe, and Hollis B. Chenery. 1989a. "Patterns of development, 1950 to 1983." World Bank Discussion Paper #41. Washington, DC: World Bank.

and . 19889b. ‘Three decades of industrislization." World Bank Economic Review 3 (2): pp. 145-181. L. 1969. "Development patterns: A simulation study." Quarterty Journal of Economics 83: 220-241. . 1983. Structuralist Macroeconomics: Applicable Models for the Third W. did. New York: Basic Books incorporated.

Taylor, L. 1969. "Development patterns: A simulation study." Quarterty Journal of Economics 83: 220-241.

Thomas, V., K Matin and J. Nash.

1989b. “Lessons in trade policy reform." Policy and Research Series.

Trela, irene and J. Whalley. 1990. "Taxes, outward orientation, and growth performance in Korea." PRE Workin Paper No. 519. Washington, OC: World Bank.

Tybout, James, J. de Melo, and V. Corbo. 1990. “The effects of trade reforms on scale and technical efficiency." PRE Working Paper No. 481. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Tyler, L. 1985. ‘Growth and Expor: Expansion in Developing Countries.* Journal of Development Economics 9
60 pp.121-30.

United Nations. Economic Commission for Europe. Economic Survey of Europe in 1948. Geneva: United Nations.

- Uzawa, H. 1962. "Optimal technical change in an aggregative model of economic growth." International Economic Review 6: 18-31.

- van Wijnbergen, S. 1985. ‘Trade reform, aggregate investment, and capital flight. On credibility and the value of information.” Economic Letters 17.

- . 1989, *Extema! debt, inflation, and the public sector: Toward fiscal policy for sustainable growth." World Bank Economic Review 3(3): pp. 297-320.

- Von Pischke, J. et al. 1983. Rural Financial Markets in Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

- Wallace, Cynthia Day and contributors. 1990. Foreign Direct Investment in the 1990s: A New Climate in the Third World. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

- Wang, Jian-Ye. 1990. "Growth, technology transfer, and the long-run theory of international capital movements." Journal of International Economics 29: pp. 255-271.

- Weitzman, Martin L. 1990. Comment on G. Ofer "Macroeconomic issues of Soviet reforms." tn O.J. Blanchard and S. Fischer, eds. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1990. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

- Wheeler, David. 1984. "Sources of stagnation in Sub-Saharan Africa." World Development 12 (1): pp. 1-23.

- Wood, A. 1988. "Global trends in real exchange rates, 1960-1984." World Bank Discussion Paper No. 35. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- World Bank. 1987. World Development Report 1987. New York: Oxford University Press.

- . 1988. World Daveloprnent Report 1988. New York: Oxford University Press.

- . 1989a. “Adjustment lending: An evaluation of ten years of experience.” Policy and Research Series 1. Washington, DC: Wortd Bank.

. 1989b. Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- . 1989c. World Development Report 1989. New York: Oxford University Press.

- . 1990a. “Adjustment lending policies for sustainable growth.’ Policy and Res arch Series 14. Washington, DC: World Bank.

. 1990b. World Development Report 1990. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yugoslavia. Federal Statistical Office. 1978, 1987. Statistical Yearbook of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Belgrade: Federal Statistical Office.

Zodrow, G.R. and C.E. McLure. 1988. "Implementing direct consumption taxes in developing countries." PPR Working Paper No. 131. Washington, DC: Word Bank.
PREWorkingPaper Series

||Title|Author|Date|Contact<br>for paper|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|WPS771|Macroeconomic Structure and<br>Policy in Zimbabwe: Analysis and<br>Empirical Modei (1965-88)|Ibrahim A. Elbadawi<br>Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel|September 1991|S, Jcnrnakuty<br>39074|
|WPS772|Macroeconomic Adjustment to Oil<br>Shocks and Fiscal Reform:<br>Simulations for Zimbabwe, 1988-95|Ibrahim A. Elbadawi<br>Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel|September 1991|S. Jonnakuty<br>39074|
|WPS773|Are Ghana's Roads Paying Their<br>Way? Assessing Road Use Cost and<br>User Charges in Ghana|Reuben Gronau|September 1991|J. Francis<br>35205|
|WPS774|Agricultural Pricing Systems and<br>Transportation Policy in Africa|Mark Gersovitz|October 1991|B. Gregory<br>33744|
|WPS775_|The Macroeconomics of Public<br>Sector Deficits:<br>A Synthesis|William Easterly<br>Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel|October 1991|R. Martin<br>39065|
|WPS776|Enforcement of Canadian “Unfair”<br>Trade Laws: The Case for Competition<br>Policies as an Antidote for Protection|Mark A. Dutz|October 1991|N. Artis<br>37947|
|WPS777_|Do the Benefits of Fixed Exchange<br>Rates Outweigh Their Costs? The<br>FrancZone in Africa|Shantayanan Devarajan<br>Dani Rodrik|October 1991|A. Bhalla<br>37699|
|WPS778|A Dynamic Bargaining Modei of<br>Sovereign Debt|Eduardo Fernandez-Arias|October 1991|S. King-Watson<br>31047|
|WPS779_|Special Programme of Research,<br>Development and Research Training<br>in Human Reproduction|Janet Nassim|October 1991|O. Nadora<br>31019|
|WPS780|Optimal User Charges and Cost<br>Recovery for Roads in Developing<br>Countries|lan G. Heggie<br>Viney Fon|October 1991|P, Cook<br>33462|
|WPS781_|The Korean Consumer Electronics<br>Industry: Reaction to Antidumping<br>Actions|Taeho Bark|October 1991|N. Artis<br>37947|
|WPS782|The Economic Effects of Widespread<br>Application of Antidumping Duties<br>to Import Pricing|Patrick Conway<br>Sumana Dhar|October 1991|N. Artis<br>37947|
|WPS783|The Origins and Evolution of<br>Antidumping Regulation|J. Michael Finger|October 1991|N. Artis<br>37947|
|WPS784|Chemicals from Poland:<br>ATempest<br>inaTeacup|Andrzej Olechowski|October 1991|N. Artis<br>37947|
PREWorkingPaper Series

||Title|Author|Date|Contact<br>forpaper|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|WPS$785_|How Did the Asian Countries Avoid<br>the Debt Crisis?|Ishrat Husain|October 1991|S. King-Watson<br>31047|
|WPS786_|Fiscal Policy for Managing<br>Indonesia's Environment|SadiyAhmed|October 1991|B. Prasertwaree<br>82477|
|WPS787_|Private Investment Under Macroeco-<br>nomic Adjustment in Morocco|Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel<br>Tobias Muller|October 1991|S. Jonnakuty<br>39074|
|WPS788|How Expectations Affect Reform<br>Dynamics in Developing Countries|Francesco Daveri|October 1991|S. Jonnakuty<br>39074|
|WPS789_|_ tntrahousehold Inequality and the<br>Theory of Targeting|Lawrence Haddad<br>Ravi Kanbur|October 1991|J. Sweeney<br>31021|
|WPS790|Reforming and Privatizing Hungary's<br>Road Haulage|Esra Bennathan<br>Jeffrey Gutman<br>Louis Thompson|October 1991|B. Gregory<br>33744|
|WPS791|Measuring Real Exchange Rate<br>instability in Developing Countries:<br>Empirical Evidence and !mplications|Lant Pritchett|October 1991|K. Cabana<br>37947|
|WPS792_|Reducing Labor Redundancy in<br>State-Owned Enterprises|Jan Svejnar<br>Katherine Terrell|October 1991|B. Gregory<br>33744|
|WPS793|Decollectivization and the<br>Agricultural Transition in Eastern and<br>Centrai Europe|Karen M. Brooks|October 1991|C. Spooner<br>30464|
|WPS794|HowDo National Policies<br>Affect Long-Run Growth?<br>A Research Agenda|William Easterly<br>Robert King<br>Ross Levine<br>Sergio Rebelo|October 1991|R. Martin<br>39065|
|WPS795_|Economic Stagnation,<br>Fixed Factors,<br>andPolicyThresholds|William Easterly|October 1991|R. Martin<br>33065|