1. Trang chủ
  2. » Kinh Tế - Quản Lý

south east asia development 4 pptx

25 348 0

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU

Thông tin cơ bản

Định dạng
Số trang 25
Dung lượng 2,21 MB

Nội dung

4: Global shocks: oil prices Overview Global shocks and responses  Oil price  World economic growth  Real interest rates Indonesia’s “other” D.D Philippine currency crisis The resource wealth paradox  “Since the second world war it has become quite clear that rapid economic growth is available to those countries with adequate natural resources which make the effort to achieve it.”  W.A Lewis 1968, Some Aspects of Economic Development: ix  “Incentives to create wealth sometimes get blunted by the ability to extract wealth from the soil or the sea Rich parents sometimes spoil their kids; Mother Nature is no exception.”  J Sachs and A Warner 2001: “The curse of natural resources”, Eur Econ Rev  “You can’t build ships by selling fish”  B.J Habibie, Indonesian minister for science & technology (1997) The resource curse hypothesis Sachs and Warner: countries with abundant natural resource wealth grow more slowly  Dutch disease: non-resource tradable sectors don’t grow as fast  NR-rich econs don’t invest in renewable assets (capital, education)  Returns to human capital investments are likely to be low  E.g Thailand’s low secondary enrollment rates  Resource wealth may promote inefficiency and corruption  Commodity price instability may reduce investment efficiency Puzzle: why are major SE Asian countries exceptions to the Sachs-Warner story? Reasons for the SE Asian difference? Model: resource exports and Dutch Disease Traded (T) and non-traded (N) goods in a ‘small’ economy  Assume traded goods enter domestic market at (given) world price Global demand (exports) or supply (imports) infinitely elastic  Non-traded goods: domestic market clears; price is endogenous  Assume sectors: T = Traditional exports and import-competing sectors  N = non-traded services; demand is highly income-elastic  Labor is mobile among all sectors  Real exchange rate RER = pN/pT = pN/EpT* , where pT* are world prices (in $) and E = Rp/$  Ex 1: nominal exch rate appreciation (fewer Rp per $)  real appreciation, or a rise in RER  Ex 2: Rise in pN also  real appreciation Traded goods A u(T, N) RER Nontraded (services) • All traded goods aggregated on vertical axis • All non-traded goods on horizontal axis • Cannot trade N goods, so eq’m at A: production = consumption Traded goods T1 B C A T0 RER1 RER0 Nontraded (services) N1 N0 • Resource boom moves PPF out in direction of T only • Assume (for now) that demand for N remains constant at N0 • At initial prices (RER0), move to B: but excess demand for N • Adjustment requires a real appreciation to RER1 , i.e pN/pT rises Traded goods B RER2 C D A Income exp path for RER0 RER0 Nontraded (services) N N0 N • The boom generates new income for consumers • Assume demand for N is income-elastic (grows along inc exp path) • At initial prices (RER0), move to D, but excess demand for N • Adjustment requires another real appreciation toward RER2 10 Summary: the story so far  The ‘boom’ in one tradable sector (say, oil) has supply and demand side effects on the rest of the economy  Supply side: resources (e.g labor) pulled in from other sectors, incl non-tradables  To sustain N production equal to demand, their price must rise  Demand side: boom creates new income, and some (all) is spent back into economy  Spending on N raises their price  Two sources of real exchange rate appreciation  What these price changes, and associated reallocation of productive resources, mean for the rest of the economy?  Implications for growth, econ structure, income dist? 11 d w2 c a LT1 0N w1 LN w0 LN0 LM LT0 L0 LM0 0T • Measure N sector employment from 0N, T sector emp from 0T • Initial labor market equilibrium at (L0, w0) = full employment • Resource boom increases jobs in resource sector, moves LT to LT1 and wage to w1 • Spending effect increases jobs in N to LN1, raises wage to w2 ? What happens to M sector employment (and thus output)? 12 Resource boom and Dutch disease  In an economy producing resources, manufactures and services, a ‘boom’ (discovery of new resources):  Raises output of resource sector and reduces output of both other sectors through competition for labor, which raises wages … … and leads to excess demand for services, which produces a real appreciation … … which diminishes output gain in resources sector and further reduces jobs and output in manufacturing  The spending of new income created by the boom:  Raises demand for all goods, including services, which leads to a further real appreciation and wage rise … … which once again reduces jobs and output in manufacturing 13 More on resource booms Sector described as ‘manufacturing’ could instead be traded agriculture (hence ‘deagriculturalization’), or both Technical progress such as green revolution can also be a source of a ‘boom’ ‘Enclave’ sectors (e.g oil) may have little or no factor market impact but income (spending) effect may be very large 14 The OPEC oil price booms OPEC oil price rises (1973 and 1978-80) raised Indonesia’s terms of trade with rest of world 15 The OPEC oil price booms Big income effects:  Indon GDP up by ~15% in OPEC I, and ~20% in OPEC II 16 Indonesia’s “other” Dutch disease Big real exchange rate effects (domestic inflation): 17 Indonesia’s “other” Dutch disease Big structural change effects… but a puzzle too * Why did manufacturing output not decline as predicted? 18 How Indonesia avoided Dutch disease • Increased protection for industry • Nominal devaluations to offset inflationary effects of real appreciation: 1978, 1983, 1986 • Support for other tradable sectors, especially agriculture: – Infrastructure investments irrigation, roads, market facilities – Capital market investments rural credit – Human capital investments in rural areas (health & nutrition, education) – Agricultural R&D investments new rice research – Land colonization (transmigration programs) to maintain labor productivity * These measures also reduced poverty and rural-urban inequality and so built political support for Suharto regime 19 Indonesia: Central government expenditures 60.00 25.00 50.00 20.00 40.00 15.00 30.00 Percent 20.00 Development exp Total exp (US Bn) 10.00 Total exp ($ 5.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Source: Woo et al Table A12 (Development exp as % of total exp, total exp in $US 20 ... 20.00 40 .00 15.00 30.00 Percent 20.00 Development exp Total exp (US Bn) 10.00 Total exp ($ 5.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 1970 1971 1972 1973 19 74 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19 84 1985... may reduce investment efficiency Puzzle: why are major SE Asian countries exceptions to the Sachs-Warner story? Reasons for the SE Asian difference? Model: resource exports and Dutch Disease... oil) may have little or no factor market impact but income (spending) effect may be very large 14 The OPEC oil price booms OPEC oil price rises (1973 and 1978-80) raised Indonesia’s terms of

Ngày đăng: 12/07/2014, 12:20

TỪ KHÓA LIÊN QUAN