Heterogeneidad estructural, asimetrías tecnológicas y crecimiento en América Latina

Mario, Cimoli (2005): Heterogeneidad estructural, asimetrías tecnológicas y crecimiento en América Latina. Published in: ECLAC's Publications No. LC/W.35 (November 2005): pp. 1-162.

Abstract

The book structural Heterogeneity, technological asymmetries and growth in Latin America permitted the publication of five guided studies to describe and examining principal mechanisms that explain the patterns of structural change at the region, origins of structural heterogeneity and the relation that exists among the same ones and the economic growth.

The first study analyzes the changes in the structure of job and also evidences that the problems of heterogeneity tend to get worse in the region and moreover, they derive of weakness of the weight of the technologically-more-dynamic sectors in the productive structure and in the vector exporter.

In second study is presented as referential framework a North-South ricardian model of international commerce, enriched for the contributions of ECLAC and schumpeterian literature. Here, it is analyzed in detail the sources of increase of labor productivity in the industry of the region during the last 30 years and it is demonstrated than even though there are important differences among countries, productivity gains are explained principally by the ones that occur at the same level in each sector, and no for the relocation of the labor force from sectors of low productivity toward the ones with higher productivity. For that reason, heterogeneity does not tend to disappear in the long term.

The third study measures the productive heterogeneity in Brazil starting from the dispersion of levels of productivity, among sectors and within each sector. A descriptive analysis at sectorial level is performed, and it is proposed a typology whereon sectors are classified as: leaders, stagnant, rasing or falling-behind; according to their respective performances in terms of the level and of rate of variation of productivity of work. With the help of a conventional technique called "shift and share", it is examined the contributions of the direct, composition and adaptation effects, to the variation of productivity.

The fourth study retakes and develops the concept of heterogeneity for the Mexican case. Productive activities are defined according to two distinct sectorial patterns. The first is the global productive activities, which are associated to the specific tariff regimes of the maquila sector (IME ) and to the program of temporary importations to produce goods destined to the exporting (PITEX ).

The fifth study analyzes how the interaction among the dynamic macro, the patterns of commerce and the structural transformation explain the process of development in Costa Rica. It is focused on the effects of foreign direct investments ( IED ), evaluating the capability to activate the national learning systems and innovation.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Institution: ECLAC
• English Title: Structural heterogeneity, technological asymmetries and growth in Latin America
• Language: Spanish
• Keywords: Heterogeneity; technological asymmetries; growth and Latin America
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O40 - General

References

Abramovitz, M. y David, P. A., (2001), “Two centuries of American macroeconomic growth: from exploitation of resource abundance to knowledge driven development”, SIEPR Discussion Paper no. 01-05. Aghion, P. y Howitt, P. (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT University Press. Amsden, Alice (1989), Asia's next giant: South Korea and the last industrialization, Nueva York, Oxford University Press. Arthur, B. (1994) Path-dependency and increasing returns in economics. Michigan University Press. Bértola, L. y Porcile, G. (2005) “Rich and impoverished cousins: Economic performance and income distribution in Southern settler societies”, paper presentado al 20th International Congress of Historical Sciences, realizado en Sydney, Australia, 3-9 de Julio. Capdevielle, M. (2005), “Globalización, especialización y heterogeneidad estructural en México”, mimeo. CEPAL, (2001), “Panorama Social de América Latina”. Secretaria Ejecutiva, Santiago, Chile. CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe) (2002), Globalización y desarrollo (LC/G.2157(SES.29/3)), documento preparado para el Vigesimonoveno período de sesiones de la CEPAL (Brasilia, Brasil, 6 al 10 de mayo), Santiago de Chile. CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe) (2004), Desrrollo productivo en economías abiertas (LC/G.2234(SES.30/3), documento preparado para el Trigésimo período de sesiones de la CEPAL (San Jun, Puerto Rico, 28 Junio al 2 de Julio), Santiago de Chile. Ciarli, T. y E. Giuliani (2005), “Inversión extranjera directa y encadenamientos productivos en Costa Rica”, mimeo. Cimoli, M. and Dosi, G. (1995), "Technological paradigms, patterns of learning and development: an introductory roadmap", Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 5 (3), págs. 242-268. Cimoli, M., A. Primi and M. Pugno (2005), “An enclave led-growth model. The structural problem of persistence informality in Latin America”, Discusion paper 4, GRADE, University of Trento. Dalum, B., Laursen, K. and Verspagen, B. (1999) "Does Specialization Matter for Growth?" Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 8, No. 2. Dollar, D. y Wolff, E. N. (1993), Competitiveness, convergence and international specialisation, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Dosi G.- Freeman C. - Nelson R. - Soete L. (eds) (1988), Technical change and economic theory, Frances Pinter, London. Dosi, G. (1988), “Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation”, Journal of Economic Literature, 26, págs.1120-1171. Dosi, Giovanni, Keith Pavitt y Luc Soete (1990), The economic of technical change and international trade, Londres y Nueva York, Harvester Wheatsheaf Press/New York University Press. Fagerberg, J. (1995), “Convergence or divergence? The impact of technology on “why growth rates differ”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 5, n3. Ferraz, J., D. Kupfer and Iootty (2004), “Industrial competitiveness in Brazil”, Cepal Review 82, pp. 91-117. Freeman, C., (1987), “Technology policy and economic performance: lessons form Japan”, Pinter Publisher, London Freeman, Christopher (1963), “The plastic industry: a comparative study of research and innovation”, National Institute Economic Review, Nº 26. Fuentes, R., Larraín, M. y Schmidt-Hebbel, K. (2004), “Fuentes del crecimiento y comportamiento de la productividad total de factores en Chile”, Documento de trabajo, Banco Central de Chile. Grossman, G. y Helpman, E. (1992) Innovation and growth in the global economy. MIT University Press. Hirsch, S. (1965), “The US electronics industry in international trade”, National Institute Economic Review, Nº 34. Hirschman A. (1977) “Generalized Linkage approach to development, with special reference to staples,” in Nash M. (ed.), Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of B. F. Hoselitz, University of Chicago press. Holland, M. y G. Porcile (2005), “Brecha tecnológica y crecimiento en América Latina”, mimeo. Jomo K. S. (1997), “Industrial policy and economic development in Thailand, Malasysia and Indonesia”, Westview Press Kim, L. (1993), “National system of industrial innovation: dynamics of capability building in Korea”, National Innovation System, Richard Nelson (comp.), Oxford University Press. Krugman, P. (1991) “Increasing returns and economic geography”, Journal of Political Economy, 99, pp. 483-499. Krugman, P. (1994), “Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession”, Foreing Affairs, March-April 1994, vol. 73, n.2. Kupfer, D. y C. F. Rocha (2005), “Productividad y heterogeneidad estructural en la industria brasileña”, mimeo. Metcalfe, S. (1989), “Trade, technology and evolutionary change”, Money, Trade and Payments, R. Harrington y otros (comps.), Massachusets, The MIT Press. Mortimore, M y Peres, W. (2001), “La competitividad empresarial en América Latina y el Caribe”, Revista de la CEPAL, n. 4, agosto 2001, p.37-59. Mortimore, M. y Vergara, S. (2003), “Nuevas estrategias de empresas transnacionales, el caso de México en el contexto global”, en Perspectivas y Retos de la Competitividad en México, E. Dussels (Comp.), UNAM y CANACINTRA, ISBN 970-32-1350-2. Nelson, R. (ed), (1993), “National systems of innovation’, Oxford University Press. Nelson, R. y Pack, H. (1999), “The Asian miracle and modern growth theory”, En The Economic Journal, 109, 416-436, Royal economic society, Blackwell Publishers. OIT, (2004), Panorama Laboral América Latina 2004, Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe Ormala, E. (2001), “Scince, Technology and Innovation Policy in Finland”, in P. Paredo and P. Mustar (eds), Research and Innovation Policy in the Global Economy, Edgard Elgar, London. Pasinetti, Luigi L. (1981), Structural change and economic growth: A theoretical essay on the dynamics of the wealth of nations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Peres, W. (2005), “Diversificación y desarrollo de nuevas industrias: el (lento) retorno de las políticas sectoriales de América Latina” en Cimoli M., B. García y C. Garrido (coordinadores), El camino latinoamericano hacia la competitividad. Políticas públicas para el desarrollo productivo y tecnológico, SIGLO XXI, Ciudad de México. Pinto, A. (1970), “Heterogeneidad estructural y modelo de desarrollo reciente de la América Latina” en Inflación: raíces estructurales, México, D. F., Fondo de Cultura Económica. Pinto, A. (1971), “El modelo de desarrollo reciente de la América Latina”, en El Trimestre Económico, vol. 38(2), N. 150, México, D. F., Fondo de Cultura Económica, Abril-Junio. Pinto, A. (1976), “Naturaleza e implicaciones de la heterogeneidad estructural de la América Latina”, en El Trimestre Económico, vol. 37(1), n. 145 México, D.F., Fondo de Cultura Económica, enero-marzo. Posner, M.V. (1961), “International trade and technological change”, Oxford Economic Paper, vol. 13. Prebisch, R. (1981) Capitalismo periférico: crisis y transformación. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Ray, D. (1998) Development economics. Princeton University Press. Ray, D. (2000) “What’s new in development economics?”, mimeo, New York University, Enero. Reinhardt, N. y Peres, W. (2000), “Latin America’s new economic model: micro responces and economic restructuring”, World Development, 28(9). Rodríguez, O. (1981) La Teoría del Subdesarrollo de la CEPAL. México: Siglo XXI. Ros, J. (2000) Development theory and the economics of growth. Michigan Uniersity Press. Stallings, Barbara y Wilson Peres (2000), Growth, employment, and equity: The impact of the economic reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean, Nueva York, Brookings/Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). Suzigan, W. y Villela, A. Industrial policy in Brazil. São Paulo: Unicamp. Timmer, M. P. y Szirmai, A. (2000), “Productivity growth in Asian manufacturing: the structural bonus hypothesis examined”, Groningen Growth and Development Center, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies. Vernon, Raymond (1966), “International investment and international trade in the product cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 80. Wade, R. (1988), “State intervention in outward looking development: neoclassical theory and Taiwanese practice” en White, G., editor, Developmental states in East Asia, Macmillan. Wade, R. (1990), Governing the market: economic theory and the role of government in Est Asian industrialization, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.