1 / 33

Development approaches, inequality and child wellbeing: L.America vs. EE-FSU during the 2000s

Development approaches, inequality and child wellbeing: L.America vs. EE-FSU during the 2000s. Giovanni An drea Cornia University of Florence ------------------------------------------------------------- Unicef Training Seminar, BKK, 15-6-2011. history of main development successes.

krysta
Télécharger la présentation

Development approaches, inequality and child wellbeing: L.America vs. EE-FSU during the 2000s

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Development approaches,inequality and child wellbeing:L.America vs. EE-FSU during the 2000s Giovanni Andrea Cornia University of Florence ------------------------------------------------------------- Unicef Training Seminar, BKK, 15-6-2011

  2. history of main development successes • Success:1st wave of Tigers (1960s-70s) less by 2nd wave (1980s-90s) • home-made India+China models are only in part successes(+GDP growth, but rising inequality, stagnant LEB) • 2000s L.A. ’growth with equity’ in open econ (despite evidence that opening  un-equalizing) ? • L.A. recent experience stands in contrast with most EE-FSU which followed ultra-liberal policies

  3. Performance 1

  4. L.A: Redistributive GDP growth (growth incidence curves)

  5. Growth is neutral – despite rapid growth – in EE-FSU GDP % growth (x-axis) and Gini coefficients (y- axis) in 24 transition economies, 2000-6

  6. Performance 2: Inequality fell a lot in Latin America DGini income: 1990-02 (light blue) versus 2003-7 (dark blue), LOC vs NO LOC Left of Centre Regimes Non- Left of Centre Regimes 1990-02: 9 up, 5 down, 4 no change 2002-07: 4 up, 11 down, 3 no change

  7. Changes in Gini of distribution of household net income per capita, over-1989-00 (blue bars), and 2000-6 (red bars) in 25 EE-FSU countries 1989-00: 23 up, 1 down, 1 no change 2000-06: 12 up, 7 down, 6 no change

  8. Performance 3. During the crisis the poverty rate stagnated in LA (left panel), but rose in EEFSU (right panel)

  9. Performance 4 Trends in gross enrolment rates in upper secondary education in sub-regions of EE-FSU (% of population aged 15-18)

  10. L.AMERICA: Gross Enrolment Rates of 15-19 years old by Income Decile Ca. 1990 and 2005 2000 2009 Bolivia 81.9 89.0 C.Rica 72.3 84.9 Honduras 54.6 67.6 Paraguay 72.5 81.3 Peru 83.4 89.6 Source: CEPAL .

  11. What explains different performance in LA vs EEFSU? (i) Initial conditions and exogenous shocks during 2000s ? • Two regions are ‘similarly heterogeneous’ (chart) • Similar GDP/c and structure of regional economies • EE-FSU started out with • stronger administrative institutions • higher human capital • Both affected in the 2000s by similar shocks : • Large terms of trade gains on the exports of primary commodities • Increasing flows of migrant remittances • Enhanced access to financial markets which generated both positive and a few negative effects

  12. $ GDP/c in different sub-groups of EE – FSU and LA countries, 2005

  13. (ii) Differences in policies 1 • (i) Fiscal deficit and public debt. • Both regions followed a policy of low deficits, low public debt and low inflation • (ii) Private debt. • EE-FSU incurred a large increase in private debt, in foreign currency (chart) • not so in L.A. • (iii) Current account/GDP. • EE: huge deficits up to 25% a year for many years (chart) • Consistent surplus in LA over 2003-8,

  14. Average values of Current Account Balance/GDP in different country groups, 2000-07 Baltic countries L.America Oil producing group I: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela group II: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. group III: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine. group IV: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, group BC: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

  15. Policy differences 2 • (iv) portfolio flows: • EE: huge rise in foreign lending to private sector • moderate rise in LA (+occasional capital controls) • (v) FDI: • high reliance (6-8 % of GDP a year) in EE-FSU, • reduced (3.5-4.5%) in L.A. • (vi) exchange rate: chart • several currency boards and fixed pegs in EE-FSU, intermediary regimes in L.A. • (vii) regulation of banking sector • Strict regulation of domestic banks (deleveraging) in LA • Strong leverage +reliance on branches of foreign bank in EE-FSU (ch)

  16. Policy differences 3 • (viii) trade policy: • EE-FSU, no geogr diversification,(W.Europe) fixed pegs  imports • In L.A. open trade account plus diversification (China). Competitive exchange rate provides some protection • (viii) tax policy: • + 1.5% in tax/GDP ratio in EE-FSU, 2.5 in LA (>in some – chart) • Use of flat tax in EE-FSU, income tax/VAT in LA • (ix) social transfers: • C.E. has powerful welfare state but in FSU+SEE social sector favors pensions but cut child allowances & soc. assistance • In LA, soc. prot. is less developed but both social protection + soc. ass. grew (85 ml covered by CCT and CT - (1.0% GDP)

  17. Reynolds–Smolensky (RS) index for L.A.countries, 1990s & 2000s (Gini pts) RS index = difference btw the Gini coefficients of the distributions of income before & after taxes

  18. In EE-FSU many countries adopted the ’Flat Tax’

  19. Policy differences 4 • (x) labor market policies: • rise in n. workers covered by collective contracts • work inspections against informal employment, • Central wage bargaining in Arg., Uruguay, Brazil • rise in minimum wage (Brazil) • (xi) human capital formation: • Decline in secondary school enrolments in EE-FSU  leading to rise in Gini of human capital workforce • Steady rise in 2ary enrolments and lower dispersion of distribution of enrolments  lower ‘skill premium’

  20. Trend in the ratio minimum/average wage

  21. EEFSU spends - on average – more on social transfers than L. America

  22. But Latin America has high targeting of CCT and other social transfers

  23. The Politics of Policies: In L.America, the ’damage’ caused by W.C: policies in the 1980s-90s led to the election of ‘progressive’ regimes more sensitive to issues of ‘social justice’: trend in n. of political regimes, 1990 - 2009

  24. In EE-FSU regime changes in 2000s favors independent (technocratic) - still ‘rebounding’ from heritage of communism

  25. Conclusions • The neo-liberal ‘debt/export-lead growth’ EE-FSU model lead to: • faster short term growth, but • greater instability – and a more acute recession during the financial crisis • Greater income inequality, rising poverty, stagnation in child wellbeing • The L.A. model emerges in contrast as a kind of new social-democratic model in open-economy (more shock-able) • Current EEFSU crisis is a repeat of the debt Latino debt crisis of the 1980s • Do policy makers ever learn from the recent history? Yes, … but only from their own mistakes (not from those of others)! • The political regimes of the two areas during the last decade influenced the policy approaches ….. What causes changes in political regimes?

More Related