Drawing upon the experiences of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC), we apply the Business Cycle Accounting methodology to study the phenomenon of rapid economic growth. We document that while efficiency wedges do contribute in a large part to growth, especially in Brazil and Russia, there is an increasing importance of investment wedges especially in the late 2000s, noted in China and India. The results are typically related to the stages of development with Brazil and Russia coming off a recession in the 1990s to grow in the 2000s, while India and China were on a comparatively stable growth path. Our results suggest, at least for the BRICs examined, that while efficiency wedges play a major role in jump-starting recovery, investment wedges are equally important for sustaining the recovery. Relating wedge patterns to institutional and financial reforms, we find that financial market developments and effective governance in BRICs in the last decade are consistent with improvements in investment and efficiency wedges that led to growth.
Per capita GDP growth rate is low in Brazil compared to the aggregate GDP growth due to an expanding population.
In a closed economy set-up, net exports are added to government consumption. We also consider a small open economy setting in which net exports are separately defined.
For example, if BCA exercise identifies efficiency wedges as a major player, the interpretation is that whatever primary factors are responsible for output growth, they work by improving the nation’s efficiency (or productivity).
The role of labor and government consumption wedges turn out to be somewhat sensitive to model specifications.
We explain the details in the online appendix.
We also conduct an exercise with Cobb-Douglas preferences with higher elasticity of substitution presented in the appendix.
Note that under the traditional BCA architecture (CKM 2007), the labor and capital wedges are modeled as taxes on labor income and capital income respectively, yielding the usual government budget constraint.
Aggregate demand is comprised of household consumption, gross domestic capital formation and government consumption.
We follow Gollin (2002) and compute the income share of capital from national income statistics. These are 0.474, 0.475, 0.294, and 0.401 for Brazil, Russia, India and China respectively. We further adjust for the imputed service income from consumer durables as explained in the data appendix.
We used total population for China since we do not have adult population data.
We construct the total capital stock series as the sum of net fixed capital stock and household durables and the total investment series as the sum of gross domestic capital formation and household expenditures on durables.
This assumption is not important as the preference weight and steady state level of labor wedges do not appear in the linearized system of equations.
We cannot make a distinction betweenand ωk in the benchmark model so the estimated values are the same. However, they are distinguishable in the alternative models we explore in the following section.
The detailed procedure is explained in the appendix.
The variables are plotted as log deviations from their 1990 value (1992 in case of Russia) and detrended using the average growth rate during the sample period. We also conduct a robustness check detrending all countries by a common rate of 1.5% in the appendix.
As defined in CKM (2007), a “k–th lag” is the correlation between the t–kth value of the variable of interest with output at period t.
Equilibrium conditions are listed in the appendix.
Rahmati and Rothert (2011) further adds debt price wedges in the international capital market similar to Otsu (2010a) and Lama (2011).
On estimating the stochastic process, we impose a restriction on the lag matrix P such that there is no spill-over into/from the trend wedge from/into the other wedges.
China had its own share of political troubles brewing from the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.
Data is collected from the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (henceforth, WCY)
Antunes, A., and T. Cavalcanti. 2003. “Corruption, Credit Market Imperfections, and Economic Development.” Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 4 (43): 627–642.10.1016/S1062-9769(03)00039-5Search in Google Scholar
Antunes, A., T. Cavalcanti, and A. Villamil. 2008. “The Effect of Financial Repression and Enforcement on Entrepreneurship and Economic Development.” Journal of Monetary Economics 55 (2): 278–297.10.1016/j.jmoneco.2007.10.006Search in Google Scholar
Calvo, G. A. 2000. “Balance of Payments Crises in Emerging Markets: Large Capital Inflows and Sovereign Governments.” In Currency Crises, edited by P.R. Krugman. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cavalcanti, T., P. Elosegui, G. McCandless, and E. Blanco. 2008. “Business Cycle Accounting for Argentina Utilizing Capital Utilization.” Ensayos EconÓmics 1 (50): 97–125.Search in Google Scholar
Chakraborty, S. 2009. “The Boom and the Bust of the Japanese Economy: A Quantitative Look at the Period 1980–2000.” Japan and the World Economy 21 (1): 116–131.10.1016/j.japwor.2008.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Cho, D., and A. Doblas-Madrid. 2013. “Business Cycle Accounting East and West: Asian Finance and the Investment Wedge.” Review of Economic Dynamics forthcoming.10.1016/j.red.2012.10.003Search in Google Scholar
Cole, H., and L. Ohanian. 2004. “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis.” Journal of Political Economy 112 (4): 779–816.10.1086/421169Search in Google Scholar
Dekle, R., and G. Vandenbroucke. 2012. “A Quantitative Analysis of China’s Structural Transformation.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 36 (1): 119–135.10.1016/j.jedc.2011.07.004Search in Google Scholar
Findlay, R. 1978. “Relative Backwardness, Direct Foreign Investment, and the Transfer of Technology: A Simple Dynamic Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 92 (1): 1–16.10.2307/1885996Search in Google Scholar
Greenwood, J., Z. Hercowitz, and G. Huffman. 1988. “Investment, Capacity Utilization, and the Real Business Cycle.” American Economic Review 78 (3): 402–417.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, J., and S. Sahu. 2008. “Transition Accounting for India in a Multi-Sector Dynamic General Equilibrium Model.” Discussion Papers 08-03, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.Search in Google Scholar
Klein, A., and K.Otsu. 2013. “Efficiency, Distortions and Capital Utilization during the Interwar Period.” Mimeo, University of KentSearch in Google Scholar
Ljungwall C., and X. Gao. 2009. “Sources Of Business Cycle Fluctuations: Comparing China and India.” CERC Working Paper 7.Search in Google Scholar
Otsu, K. 2010a. “A Neoclassical Analysis of the Asian Crisis: Business Cycle Accounting for a Small Open Economy.” B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, Topics 10 (1): Article 17.Search in Google Scholar
Otsu, K. 2010b. “International Business Cycle Accounting.” University of Kent, School of Economics Discussion Paper Series, KDPE-1010.Search in Google Scholar
Rahmati, M., and J. Rothert. 2011. “Business Cycle Accounting in a Small Open Economy.” Mimeo, University of Texas at Austin.Search in Google Scholar
Rajan, R. J., and L. Zingales. 2003. “The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial Development in the Twentieth Century.” Journal of Financial Economics 69 (1): 5–50.10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00125-9Search in Google Scholar
Saijo, H. 2008. “The Japanese Depression in the Interwar Period: A General Equilibrium Analysis.” B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, Topics 8 (1): Article 13.Search in Google Scholar
Uhlig, H. 2009. “A Toolkit for Analysing Nonlinear Dynamic Stochastic Models Easily.” In Computational Methods for the Study of Dynamic Economies, edited by R. Marimon and A. Scott, 30–61. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199248273.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston