Conference on the impact of Trade Liberalisation and Poverty

Rebeca GrynspanDirector

UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

April 15, 2005

In the last 25 years…

Latin America has undergone a strong process of economic reforms

There were great expectations that trade (and the reforms) will bring high economic growth and poverty reduction. Little attention to the specific conditions of the region: middle income countries, with very high initial inequality, on a demographic transition

010

20

30

40

50

60

7080

90

100

Uru

guay

Méx

ico

Bra

sil

Perú

Arg

entin

a

Ven

ezue

la

Col

ombi

a

Ecua

dor

Para

guay

Bol

ivia

Gua

tem

ala

Cos

ta R

ica

Chi

le

Nic

arag

ua

1980s 1990 2003

Average Tariff Average Tariff NMF NMF

> 100%

29%

10%

Regional Average Tariff, weighted by Preferential Agreements, decreased to 5%

Fall of Import Tariffs in Latin America Countries

Fall of Import Tariffs in Central America 1995-2002

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 72000 20011998 19991995

1997 2002

Trade Openness Coefficient

Ar

Bo

Br

Cl

Co

Cr

Ec

Sv

GtHt

Hn

Mx

Ni

Pa

Pr

Pe

Do

Uy

Ve

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1980-1983

20

00

-20

03

WeightedAverage

WeightedAverage

Simple Average

Simple Average

Resulting Trade Openness

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Latin America (18)

Venezuela

Uruguay

Dominican Rep.

Peru

Paraguay

Panama

Nicaragua

Mexico

Honduras

Guatemala

El Salvador

Ecuador

Costa Rica

Colombia

Chile

Brazil

Bolivia

Argentina

bilateral IPTAs bilateral EPTAs plurilateral IPTAs plurilateral EPTAs without PTAs

Export Flows by Preferential Trade Agreements, 1991

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Latin America (18)

Venezuela

Uruguay

Dom. Republic

Peru

Paraguay

Panama

Nicaragua

Mexico

Honduras

Guatemala

El Salvador

Ecuador

Costa Rica

Colombia

Chile

Brazil

Bolivia

Argentina

bilateral IPTAs bilateral EPTAs plurilateral IPTAs plurilateral EPTAs without PTAs

Export Flows by Preferential Trade Agreements, 2004

Results:

Unprecedented exports and FDI growth

Growth was resumed after the crisis and it was associated to export growth

From 1990 to 2004 the percentage of the population living in poverty declined

Ar

Bo

Br

Cl

Co

Cr

Ec

Sv

Gt

Ht Hn

Mx

Ni

Pa

Py

Pe

Do

Uy

Ve

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

GDP growth, average 1990-2003

Exp

ort

gro

wth

, av

era

ge

199

0-20

03

LAC: Economic growth and exports

Poverty and Extreme poverty in LAC 1990-2004

% of total population

Extreme poverty Not extreme poverty

But

The rate of growth was mediocre and lower than in the past, volatility of GDP and consumption was very high at the same time that coverage of the social security systems declined

Relation between exports and growth, growth and employment and growth and poverty has weakened.

Inequality raised: wage inequality, income inequality, social inequality, rural-urban inequality, regional inequality, inequality between age groups. Inequality matters: initial inequality and its evolution

Increased structural heterogeneity of the productive structure. Low increase in value added

Unemployment raised in the south and informality raised in the north. Productivity increases very slow and not across all sectors

Poverty is still higher than in 1980 in relative terms, and raised in absolute terms from 135 millions in the 80´s to 200 millions in the 90´s to 222 millions in 2004

Most countries resume growth at a slower rate than in the past

Crecimiento medio anual del PIB real

Chile

Argentina

Bolivia

Uruguay

República Dominicana

Costa Rica

México

Brasil

EcuadorVenezuela

Paraguay

ColombiaHonduras

Nicaragua

Guatemala

PanamáPerúEl Salvador

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%

1945-1980

1991

-200

0

… menos estables que lo esperado.

Isto Centroamericano: PIB, 1960-2001(Tasas anuales de crecimiento)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1985 1985-1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Tasa

s de

pro

med

io a

nual

del

PIB

América Latina Istmo Centroamericano

Fenómeno El Niño

Huracán Mitch 98.

Terremotos en El Salvador y

sequía generalizada

Fuente: de Ferranti et. al. (2000)

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Po

rce

nta

je

PIB

Consumo Privado

Volatilidad del crecimiento del PIB y consumo privado en

América Latina:(Ten-Year Window, mediana regional)

Inequality worsenLatin America: relation betwen average income of the richest 10% and the

lower 40%

LAC is the most unequal continent of the worldGini coefficients 1997-2002

América Latina

y el Caribe

Highest inequality

50% of the countries

Media

Lowest gini coefficient

Extreme poverty Not extreme poverty Index of GDP P.C.

Growth is becoming increasingly less efficient to combat poverty

Poverty and Extreme poverty in LAC 1990-2004 (millions) and per capita GDP index

Poverty: 1980-2004

1980 2004

Total poverty 135.9 222.0

Extreme poverty 62.4 96.0

Share of selected regional groups and developing economies in world exports of manufactures and manufacturing value added, 1980 and 1997(Percentage share)

Share in world Share in world exports of manufactures manufacturing value added

Region/economy 1980 1997 1980 1997

Source: International Yearbook of Industrial Statistics, various issues; World Bank, World Development Indicators 2000 (table 4.3); UN/DESA, Commodity UNCTAD secretariat calculations, based on UNIDO, Handbook of Industrial Statistics (various issues); UNIDO, Trade Statistics database; and UN/DESA, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics (various issues).

Note: Calculations in current dollars. Value-added data are based on the definition of manufactures used in industrial statistics, while export data are based on the definition of manufactures used in trade statistics. However, calculating the share in world manufactured exports based on the definition of manufactures used in industrial statistics yields very similar results for countries for which comprehensive data are available.

a Excluding China.b 1984.

Developed countries 82.3 70.9 64.5 73.3

Developing countries 10.6 26.5 16.6 23.8Latin America 1.5 3.5 7.1 6.7South and East Asia 6.0a 16.9 7.3 14.0

NIEs 5.1 8.9 1.7 4.5ASEAN-4 0.6 3.6 1.2 2.6

China 1.1b 3.8 3.3 5.8India 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.1Turkey 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.5

Conclusions:

Research points to positive effects of the reform but small gains (high political costs), but we have to recognize that the impact of trade liberalization on poverty is country-specific

There is disappointment with the results (also medium income groups, nor only the poor). Assumptions of the Washington consensus proofed basically wrong

Low growth and rising inequality limited the effects on poverty (despite an important increase in social expenditure) and continue to be the main challenges faced by the region. Inequality matters. Remember a lot of people moves around the poverty line, so impoverishment is also a concern.

Conclusions:

Trade agreements will continue to be pushed for:Trade liberalization is not a development strategy. Since the consensus moves to a highly conditioned endorsement of free trade the discussion of the development agenda turns to be more important to combine trade, growth and poverty

The gains of future trade liberalization through bilateral agreements are limited and will not come from the static benefits of trade but from the dynamic ones: economies of scale, technological change, foreign direct investment, and productivity gains coming from better trade structure (dynamic products, more value added, etc.)

There may be excessive competition among developing countries in world markets for labour-intensive goods (fallacy composition).

Conclusions:Better initial conditions of infrastructure and education determined the possibilities of benefiting from the opportunities of trade.

Public investment in infrastructure and human capital key factor to combat inequality and foster private capital formation, employment and growth Need to change the bias against public investment that is treated as expenditure together with designing the right mechanisms to benefit small public works specially in the rural areas

Openness of the capital account and remittances contributed to high volatility and a tendency to currency appreciation

Anti cyclical policiesStrong and universal social protection systems (maybe independent of type od employment?)A macroeconomic policy that will target not only price and monetary stability but growth, employment and stability in the “real” sector

Conclusions:Those countries that made a smooth transition from import substitution, to export promotion to trade liberalization obtained better results even in the rural sectors.

Need for a responsible public policy to address structural heterogeneity, weak linkages, low “density” of the productive apparatus, weak innovation and technology systems, high cost and uncertainty to penetrate markets. Special attention to rural areas and agriculture.

There are loosers and winners, averages say little in LAC. Policies to offset the costs of the transition and help vulnerable groups to successfully face increased competition and develop human capital are indispensable

We are not alone:

William Cline has suggested that “the largest gains to the poor would come from differential trade liberalisation”, Domestic policies of the United States impact on the economic performance of the region.Trade policies and subsidies in the developed world International cooperation Regional integration with cohesion and structural funds to address asymmetries

And last…

Institutions matter, without adequate institutions the benefits of trade will not be transfer to the poor and allow sustained growth: better governments and better markets.

Regulation, good governance, transparency and accountability, fiscal resourcesDemocracy (options to choose from). Room, for maneuverProtect Rightsw

Useful to Recall some of Adam Smith´s thoughts on the keys to development:

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things”

Indeed: the Smithian Pillars explained…

A Peaceful environment: Lowers transactions costs, improves contract-enforcement, attracts investment

Easy taxes: efficient and effective fiscal structure. Without a fiscal reform very little could be done in LAC´s development agenda

Tolerable administration of justice: sets the basis for fair-play, builds trust

13.6 14.8 15.17.8

3.69.4

5.7 6.0

14.5 15.37.6

7.010.0

11.112.6 11.9

10.111.4

6.9

3.0

12.6

3.5 1.40.9

29.6

38.2

19.3

33.1

16.615.7

21.8

41.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

OCDE (30) UE (15) EE.UU. SudesteAsiático (6)

ALC (19) Brasil Argentina Chile

Carga tributaria directa Carga tributaria indirecta Carga Seguridad Social

Comparación Internacional de la Carga Fiscal(*), 1999-2000 (en porcentajes del PIB)Fuente: ILPES-CEPAL, Panorama de las Finanzas Públicas, 2004. (*)Las cifras de la OECD tienen cobertura de Gobierno General, al igual que Argentina, Brasil y Chile. El resto tiene cobertura de Gobierno Central