View
226
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
© copyright
Determinants of Economic Growth:
The Case of Guatemala Maria Sophia Aguirre Department of Economics
The Catholic University of America Washington, DC
FADEP
Guatemala, Guatemala October 11, 2007
© copyright
Purpose of the Study Ø To understand the relevance of population and
family to the economic growth process in Guatemala.
Ø To investigate how the family engages in the
process of economic growth. Ø To empirically identify what model of economic
growth best fits the Guatemalan reality. Ø To facilitate and strengthen the present and future
population and family policy design and implementation in Guatemala.
© copyright
Data Used and Framework Ø Three databases
– Macroeconomic Variables compiled from 1950-2006: yearly.
– ENEI 2004 and Census of 2002: by “lugar poblado.”
Ø Framework – Test of Economic Growth Theory
– Other explanatory variables have been added as fitting. – Analysis of Family Dynamics on wealth, income and
human capital.
© copyright
Ø There is a positive correlation between ü human capital, infrastructure and economic growth ü healthy institutions and economic development ü health and income per capita
Ø These positive correlations reflect an essential causal link running from human capital to ü healthy institutions (social capital) ü infrastructure and technology
Ø Life expectancy is a significant predictor of economic growth
We know from economic analysis that in economic development
© copyright
Role of the Family in the Economy
Basic Activities Means Used Role of the
Family Purpose
Production Resources Human Capital Basic Needs
Exchange Market Human, Moral, Social Capital
Profit
Consumption Optimization and
Distribution Appropriate distribution
Wellbeing (welfare)
© copyright
Economic Theories of Growth
n Neo-Classical Theory ü Embraces Malthus’s inverse relationship between population growth and
real growth but acknowledges the key role of investment and thus savings in the process of growth.
n Human Capital Theory ü Human capital is an important source of economic development that
depends on advances in technological and scientific knowledge. Increasing returns to scale.
n Malthusian • Inverse Relationship between population and consumption.
n Neo-Malthusian Theory: Ehrlich and Hardin
• Population depletes resources and damages the environment.
© copyright
Environmental Health, Welfare and Living Conditions in Guatemala, 2004 Indicator % access
House Connection: water 89/ 99 House Connection: sewerage 59/ 99 House Connection: electricity (rural-urban) 50-62 / 100 Water consumption (liter per person) 50/100 / 600 Improved Water (urban-rural) 88/98 / 100 Improved Sanitation 90/100 Access to Basic Essential Drugs 85-90/ 91 Immunization 92/100 Under-five mortality (per 1000) 49/6 Life Expectancy 65/85 Public Expenditures on Health (%GDP) 5.7 / 6.2 Paved Roads 87/94 Telephones Mainlines (per 1000) 77/597 Cellular Subscribers (Per 1000) 165/ 605 Literacy 69.1/100
Sources: Human Development Report, 2005 and Millennium Development Goal Indicators, 2005.
© copyright
Leading Causes of Death and Health Services in Guatemala
Adults
Total Non-communicable diseases (per 100 000 population) 562.0
Maternal mortality ratio (per 100 000 live births) 240
Cardiovascular diseases (per 100 000 population) 188.0
Non-communicable diseases other than cardiovascular, injuries and cancer (per 100 000 population) 183
Injuries (per 100 000 population) 98.0 Cancer (per 100 000 population) 93.0 HIV/AIDS (825 infected and 77.8 new cases every year) (per 100 000 population per year) 21
Tuberculosis (109 infected) (per 100 000 population) 13.1
© copyright
Children (% of death among children)
Neonatal causes rate 37.3
Other causes rate (54.2% of children are undernourished in rural areas. 32% in urban areas.) 29.8
Pneumonia rate 15.0
Diarrhea diseases rate (58% access dehydration therapy) 13.1
Injuries rate 1.5
Malaria rate 0.4
Measles rate 0.1
HIV/AIDS 2.7
Services
Antenatal care coverage - at least one visit 86
Antenatal care coverage - at least four visits (%) 68
Births attended by skilled health personnel (rural/urban) 25/66.1
Contraceptive prevalence rate 43.3
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 7.0
© copyright
Poor health is highly correlated with low levels of education and poverty
7.512
64.465.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Lowestwealthquintile
Highestwealthquintile
Lowesteducation
level
Highesteducation
level
Prev
alen
ce o
f Chi
ld D
eath
(%)
Sources: Care Health Indicators for Guatemala
© copyright
Families face serious health and poverty problems
• Lack of income and assets to attain basic needs: ü Human assets ü Natural assets ü Physical assets ü Financial assets ü Social assets ü Aging security
• Vulnerability to adverse shocks are linked to an inability to cope with them
© copyright
I. Aggregated Level: Models
• The openness of the economy: +
• The Neo-Classical model seems to perform best.
– Investment and Technology: + – Population Growth: 0 – Domestic Research and Development: + – Foreign Research and Development: 0 – Foreign Technology: +
© copyright
Formal and Total Real GDP 1950-2006
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
1950
1953
1956
1959
1962
1965
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
YEAR
MIL
LIO
N O
F Q
UET
ZALE
S
REAL GDPTOTAL REAL GDP
Sources: Banco de Guatemala, Urizar, Carmen , Julio Cole, Pablo Schneider and Caroll R. de Rodríguez “La Economía Informal en Guatemala”, CIEN, 1992, and CIEN (2001)
© copyright
Population and GDP Per Capita 1950-2006
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006
Years
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
(Mill
ions
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Real
GDP
per
Cap
ita
POPULATIONReal Total GDP Per Capita
© copyright
Speed of Population Aging
Number of years for % of population aged 65 and over to rise from 7% to 14%
11585
7369
6553
474545
2641
2727
25242323222120
FranceSweden
AustraliaUnited
CanadaHungary
PolandUnitedSpainJapan
AzerbaijanChina
SingaporeChile
JamaicaSri Lanka
TunisiaThailand
BrazilColombia
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
© copyright
Speed of Aging Population 1982-2006
62
656161
60
5762
51
5248
52
59
59646464
646464
13074
83
69 7359
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
Yea
r
Number of Years
Sources: Raw data obtained from INE.
© copyright
Estimation of the Aging Population Path Given Current Population Trends (Base year: 2006)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97 105 113 121 129 137 145 153 161
Number of Years
Perc
enta
ges
© copyright
Estimation of Gross Domestic Product Per Capita Under Various Assumptions (Base year: 2006)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55
Number of Years
Log
GD
P Pe
r C
apita
GDPPC59GDPPC74GDPPCCT
Sources: Author Estimations GDPPCCT was estimated based on the current trend of aging population acceleration. GDPPC59 captures the per capita GDP path for the present population structure. GDPPC74 captures the per capita GDP path for a 2% population growth.
© copyright
Wealth Composite Distribution for Head of Households (2004)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
COM
POSI
TE
1%
8% 60%
13%
10%
8%
Sources: ENEI, 2004
© copyright
Income Composite or NBI Distribution for Head of Households, 2004
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
COMPOSITE
0.04%
29%
1%
10% 59.96%
Sources: ENEI, 2004.
© copyright
• Accentuated disparity in both income and wealth distribution – Access to credit: + – Years of education: + – Remittances: + – Per capita income: + on Inequality – Openness of the economy: + on Inequality – Political Stability/Rule of Law: +
• Human Capital – Education (measured as average years of education): 0 – Experience and stock of capital: + – Increasing returns to scale on human capital: + – Average years of education: 3 – Inefficiencies found in the social return of education.
© copyright
Marginal Benefit and Cost of Schooling, 1950-2006
0.0020.0040.0060.0080.00100.00120.00140.00160.00180.00200.00
195019541958196219661970197419781982198619901994199820022006
Years
Quetzales
MBSMCS
Sources: Own Econometric Estimation
© copyright
In Summary The Empirical Evidence
n Supports openness in the economy.
n Emphasizes the importance of investment and technology as well as education for growth.
n Indicates increasing returns to scale to human capital n Lends no support for policies directed towards population
control.
© copyright
III. Disaggregated Level Wealth
© copyright
Household Characteristics Contribution to Wealth
(% Increase/Decrease)
Sources: Own Econometric Estimation
29
26
25
6.8
6.1
2.4
-18
7.5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Marriage
Urban vs. rural
Remittances
Higher level of education
Number of children
Age of the household’s head
Type of occupation
Sex of head of household
Hou
seho
ld C
hara
cter
istc
is
Increase/Decrease of Welath
© copyright
Contribution of Marriage to Wealth (% Increase)
2924
28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total Ladino Indigenous
Race
Incr
ease
d on
Wel
ath
(%)
Sources: Own Econometric Estimation
© copyright
Percentage of Head of Households that Report Owning Property and Holding Savings
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Unions Married Separated Divorced Widowed
Own HomeHold Savings
Source: ENEI (2004)
© copyright
Remittances
• The probability of receiving remittances
increases by 18.6% when it is headed by married women.
• In other type of family structures it
decreases by 2.7%.
© copyright
III. Disaggregated Level: NBI
© copyright
Household Characteristics Contribution to Income (NBI)
(% Increase/Decrease)
2.9
1.2
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Urban vs. rural
Higher level ofeducation
Married
Hosu
ehol
d Ch
arac
teris
tics
Number of times that Increases/Decreases
Source: ENEI (2004)
© copyright
Level of Income (NBI) and Wealth of the Head of Household by Family Structure
8.95
13.84
5.51 5.48
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
MARRIED NOT MARRIED
COM
POSI
TE
NBI
WEALTH35% lower
Source: ENEI (2004)
© copyright
Average Wealth and Income Composite per Family Structure and Race
Sources: ENEI (2004)
15.08 16.07 14.15 14.26
15.84 17.92
5.85 5.60 5.94 5.55 5.50 5.10
14.22 12.55 13.20
15.14
5.71 5.27 5.31
12.28
5.39
10.97 5.47
4.78
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
Wealth Poverty Wealth Poverty Wealth Poverty Wealth Poverty Wealth Poverty Wealth Poverty Unions Married Separated Divorce Widows Single Parents
Marital Structure
Aver
age
Valu
e of
Com
posi
te
Indigenous Ladinos
© copyright
Impact of Marriage by Race
26
69
22
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Wealth Income
Perc
enta
ge In
crea
se
LadinoIndigenous
© copyright
Family Structure by Race
26
56
7 83
22
66
38
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Unions Married Separated Divorce SingleParents
Family Structure
Perc
enta
ge o
f Hou
seho
lds
IndigenousLadino
Sources: ENEI (2004)
© copyright
Human Capital
• Educational levels are affected by family structure.
• Attendance to school is higher among
married households than others. • It is also reinforced by remittances.
© copyright
Factors Affecting Child Schools Attendance
10
11
4
4
-5
8
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Marriage
Parents Education
Wealth
Income
Race: Indigenous
Area
Percentage Increase
© copyright
Level of Education of the Head of Household per Race and Family Structure
0102030405060708090
LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LRACE INDIG
Unions Married Separated Divorce Widows Single Parents
Family Structure
Per
cent
age
of H
ouse
hold
s
No-education Grade School High School
Terciary College Graduate
Sources: ENEI (2004)
© copyright
Children School Attendance by Family Structure
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Unions Marriage Separated Divorce Widows
Family Structure
Head
Cou
nt
IndigenousLadino
Sources: ENEI (2004)
© copyright
Why is family structure information relevant?
n Increase savings, and these are needed for investment
n Decreases poverty and there is a large portion of the population who live in poverty
n Access to wealth facilitates social mobility n Relevant for the determination of human capital n Broken families are a burden on public finances n For policy design purposes
© copyright
IV. Policy Recommendations • Continue to deepen the opening of the
economy while reinforce institutions at both national and local levels. – Rule of law – Transparency – Property rights – Education system – Strengthening of the family structure should
be priority.
© copyright
• Expand access to economic opportunity for low income households.
• Promote legislation that supports families vis a vis
other types of living styles. • Promotion and protect healthy families as a means
to eradicate poverty, especially the feminization of poverty.
© copyright
• Reform the public and private education system in Guatemala to improve the coverage and quality of educational services.
• The government can assist lower income families to choose among these alternatives through a voucher system or another demand-oriented financial mechanism.
© copyright
• Improve efficiency in the use of government funds now allocated to population
• Redirect the present efforts towards population control and sexual education programs
© copyright
• Develop labor legislation that facilitates and provides incentives for the harmonization of family life and professional activity for all family members.
© copyright
Conclusions
• Economic Development is an outcome of more than economic processes.
• It is an outcome of economic, social, and
political processes. • To attain it, opportunities need to be
promoted, empowerment at all levels facilitated, and stability ensured.
© copyright
Conclusions • Neo-Classical Model is supported in Guatemala.
• The openness of the economy has been positive for economic growth.
• Experience rather than education is significant for economic growth. • There is evidence for lack of efficiency in the education system.
• Rate of growth of population is not significant for economic growth. Fertility rate is significant and positive.
• Family structure is relevant for wealth. This happens to be the case after
other characteristics are controlled by.
Recommended