Stages of Development; Current Implications for Emerging Markets Part2

In a previous post (link) the stages of development were discussed in the context of the transition from a traditional rural society to a modern capitalistic consumer-driven economy.  Initially, abundant labor and high returns on capital  spark lengthy periods of “miraculous” growth. Later, as labor becomes scarce and the technology frontier is approached, returns on capital decline and GDP growth has to be driven by household consumption.  In this post, the factors of production (labor and capital) are looked at in detail.

The expenditure approach is commonly used in macroeconomics to describe economic output in terms of the money spent by consumers (households and government) and investors (private business and government). Net exports are added to measure whether an economy captures foreign consumer demand through exports  or relinquishes foreign demand through imports. For example, as a net exporter China is repressing domestic consumption to capture foreign consumer demand, while as a net importer, the United States is  stimulating domestic consumption and relying on foreign producers. Another approach to understand economic output is to measure the contribution to GDP growth coming from the  factors of production: labor and capital.

The Conference Board database on national accounts (link) provides a long-term view on productivity. The data illustrates what factors of production are driving the economy, and it is useful to measure the evolution of productivity over time.

As an economy begins to  modernize, labor productivity growth will be high and investors can deploy capital with high returns. As rural migration accelerates and more capital is deployed, countries experience stages of “miracle” growth when both labor and capital productivity are high. Eventually, a country achieves a significant degree of integration into the modern global capitalistic economy. At this time, labor becomes scarce and capital returns muted. Mature economies come to rely for growth mainly on the expansion of consumer services and hard-to-achieve technological innovation.

The charts below, based on the Conference Board data, aim to illustrate how the process plays out over time for countries at different stages of the development process. The first section looks at the United States and several mature emerging markets that have already experienced a one-time phase of “miracle” growth. The second section looks at India and Vietnam, two economies currently experiencing high growth

I. Mature Economies

The United States 

The United States has been a mature economy at the technology frontier since the early 2oth century. A broad expansion of consumption in the 1950s and 1960s drove high GDP growth. GDP Growth trended down from over 4% in the 1950s to below 2% in the 2020s, and has become  dependent on debt accumulation and Fed-driven asset appreciation. Contribution to GDP growth from labor has gradually declined over the period, despite high immigration, a huge one-time increase in female participation in the workforce, and steady improvements in the quality of labor. Growth in the working age population is projected to be near zero in the 2020s. Despite the United States’s dominant position in technological innovation, total factor productivity (the residual increase in growth that is not driven by capital and labor) has fallen from 1.5% in the 1950s to zero over the past decade.

 

Brazil

Brazil’s economy took off in the 1950s and experienced “miraculous”growth in the 1960s and 1970s, driven by high levels of investment and labor growth. Since the 1980s, Brazil has been mired in a “middle-income trap” caused by  a massive expansion of unproductive government spending, a stagnant consumer, a failure to promote innovation, and institutional breakdowns (i.e. corruption). Since 1980, GDP growth has averaged about 2%, falling to near zero over the past 12 years.

Labor quantity growth in Brazil is now near zero, though labor quality continues to improve.  Capital investment has not been driving growth, due to low returns on investment. Remarkably, total factor productivity, which was high in the 1950-1980 period, has now been negative over the past 40 years, and fell by 1.4% annually during the 2010s.

Korea

Korea’s economy took off in the 1970s and experienced its economic miracle between 1983 and 1997. Real GDP growth was very high for nearly three decades (1969-1997). As the economy  achieved advanced economy status, growth has slowed down over the past 20 years. GDP growth has fallen from 7% annually in the 1990s, to 4.5% in the 2000s and 2.5% over the pat 12 years. Over the past decade, labor quantity growth has been near zero, and though still positive, labor quality improvements are well below those of the miracle years. Total factor productivity has fallen from the 2.5% annually of the miracle years to 0.5% over the past decade. Korea is now a mature economy operating at the technology frontier. This means it competes directly in innovative products with developed nations, while facing strong competition from China on traditional products.

China

China’s economy took off in the 1970s, and then entered a 30-year period of “miraculous” growth with Deng Xiaoping’s reform in the 1980s. This extended period of growth allowed China’s coastal areas to reach a significant level of economic maturity, though much of the hinterlands remained isolated from the modern economy. China’s growth was driven by massive rural immigration and  high levels of investment by both the government and foreign enterprises, which converted China into the “workshop of the world.” The growth model followed closely what Paul Krugman described in his 1994 paper “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle,” which pointed out that growth in Korea, Thailand and Malaysia was driven by extraordinary growth in inputs like labor and capital rather than productivity.

China (Alternative)

China’s economic growth is considered by many economists to be overstated by the Chinese government. This is particularly valid over the past decade as the quality of growth has declined because of unproductive investments. The Conference Board provides an alternative measure of GDP which may be more realistic. According to the Conference Board’s alternative estimates, China’s GDP growth for the past twenty years was 7.1% compared to the 8.6% recognized by the government (and reported by institutions like the IMF and World Bank). If the alternative numbers are accepted, then China’s GDP output can be considered to be 30-40%  less than reported. Alarmingly, under the alternative analyst, investment drove almost all growth over the past twenty years, and the contribution to growth from total factor productivity has been negative over the period (-0.1 annually compared to 1.3% annually reported officially.)

Thailand

Thailand took off in the 1950-1970 period, with high GDP growth fueled by a healthy combination of labor, capital and total factor productivity. It enjoyed its “miracle” growth phase between 1980-1997, marked by slower labor growth, more moderate TFP growth, and, as Krugman pointed out, increasing reliance on the capital input. The “miracle” came to an end with the “Asian Financial Crisis” (1997-1990), and since then growth has moderated, with a decline in both labor and TFP growth. Since the financial crisis, TFP growth has averaged 0.6% annually and labor quantity growth has been a meager 0.1% annually, turning negative over the past decade. Apart from the high growth take-off period of 1950-1970, Thailand’s growth has relied heavily on capital inputs.

 

Malaysia

Malaysia, more than Thailand, fits Krugman’s observation that Asian growth is overly driven by capital.  Malaysia took off in the 1960s, and like Thailand, had a period of “miracle” growth in the 1980s and 1990s, ending with the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Growth recovered in the early 2000s, but since then has drifted down to moderate levels. Malaysia’s growth throughout this entire period has been driven by capital expansion, with only moderate contribution from labor and, remarkably, none from total factor productivity. Malaysia had some moderate growth in TFP during the 1960s take-off period, but since then TFP’s annual contribution to GDP growth has been negative every decade. Labor’s contribution has been healthier, providing a constant contribution of around 1% annually over the past five decades.

 

New “Miracle Economies”

India

India’s economy initiated a moderate take-off in the mid-1980s, with the launching of structural reforms. Growth accelerated in the 1990s, reaching high miracle-like levels in the 200os. Growth slowed to mid-single digit levels in the 2010s and is expected to remain at this level, which is high for current international parameters, but low in comparison to previous “miracle” economies. India has displayed Asian-style reliance on the capital input, with unusually low contribution to GDP from growth in labor inputs. India had a brief surge in labor in the 1970s, but this had fallen to 0.5% annually in the 200os and zero annually during the 2010s. This is an anomaly compared to other developing countries at this stage of growth when rural labor is very abundant. It can perhaps be explained by( 1)  scarce growth in mass production, labor-intensive manufacturing, (2) very low levels of female incorporation into the workforce, and (3) government initiatives to improve living conditions in rural villages. TFP was low to negative in the decades before structural reforms were implemented.  TFP’s contribution to annual GDP growth rose to 1.1% in the 1980s and 0.9% in the 1990s, 1.1% in the 2000s and 2.2% in the 2010s. For the miracle-like growth enjoyed by India in the decade prior to the pandemic to persist, it will be necessary for TFP contribution to remain high and for labor quantity growth to improve considerably.

Vietnam

Vietnam’s economy took off in the 1980s, supported by massive migration and capital deployment. Investment surged in the 1990s and has remained high since then, converting Vietnam into an alternative manufacturing  center for many multinationals. Labor growth remained high through the 2000s, but fell sharply in the 2010s. Vietnam fits squarely in Krugman’s description of a capital intensive Asian “tiger.” Total factor productivity has had negative contribution to GDP growth for most of postwar Vietnam’s economic history, turning positive only during the 2010s. A combination of high TFP growth, a resumption of labor growth and continued foreign direct investment will be needed for Vietnam to sustain high GDP growth levels. So far, Vietnam has closely followed the growth path of China. However, if its Communist Party  follows the ideological course taken by Xi’s China, foreign investors are likely to quickly move on.