Attend Spring Meetings on Development topics from Apr 17-21. Comment and engage with experts. Calendar of Events

Syndicate content

Add new comment

Manoel, thanks for your questions/comments. Here are my responses in the order of your 8 questions/comments. Hopefully, these will lessen the confusion: (1) A good measure of global integration, perhaps above all, is alignment of domestic prices (of factors and goods) with global prices. With the elimination of apartheid sanctions, removal of a plethora of trade taxes and capital controls and a move from a dual exchange rate system to a flexible one, I think the evidence of "deepened global integration" seems pretty strong for South Africa. Moreover, trade/GDP (an outcome of integration) increased from 40% in 1994 to over 70% in 2008. So, yes, very much a reflection of the initial conditions, and still an unfinished agenda, I agree, although I would not categorize it as a closed economy. (2) Yes, low growth is the main challenge before we think about making it inclusive. That's precisely the point para 4 makes. (3) There are comparability issues with labor data over time, but it seems that female participation has increased significantly since the apartheid days. This would suggest a shift from "not economically active" category to "unemployed". (4) In fact, growth driven by factor accumulation during transition or "catch-up" phase is fully consistent with the Solow growth model. It's only in steady state that it gets more tricky. Moreover, the transition phase can be fairly long, which is why investment/GDP is one of only two variables (trade openness being the other) that Levine and Renelt(1992) find positively and robustly correlated with long-run growth. Since growth is volatile and investment is not, it is true that year-on-year changes in growth are driven by changes in TFP growth. TFP growth is also important to generate returns on capital so as to boost investment. And that brings us back to S Africa's challenge -- that private investment response to returns on capital has been weak for the reasons (rooted in the political economy) argued in the article. (5) Please see response to (1). FDI is low not because of lack of integration but likely because of risk perceptions felt by long term investors. There are a whole lot of other measures of integration which have been on the up. (6) Agreed, which is why the blog post doesn't say that competition is the only problem. (7) Bruno and Easterly (1995), Fischer (1993) etc don't include returns to capital in their analyses. If these are high, in addition to macro-stability (or low macroeconomic uncertainty), and private investment is not respondive, it adds another layer to their hypothesis. (8) Hopefully, these responses injected more economics into the arguments.