Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.
-
Upload
gerard-oneal -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
3
Transcript of Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.
![Page 1: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Poverty Traps
Xavier Sala-i-Martin
Columbia University
![Page 2: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Poverty Traps: Theory• Start with Fundamental Equation of “Solow-Swan”:
– Δk=sf(k) - (δ+n) k
or
– Δk/k=sf(k)/k - (δ+n)
– If s and n are constant, and f(.) is neoclassical (concave with inada conditions), then UNIQUE AND STABLE STEADY STATE
• Poverty Trap Theory: instead of unique and stable steady state, THREE STEADY STATES and Lower and Upper steady states stable and middle one unstable
![Page 3: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Poverty Traps: Theory
1. Savings trap (savings rate is close to zero for poor countries for subsistence reasons and then shuts up as income increases)
2. Nonconvexity in the production function (there are increasing returns for some range of k)
![Page 4: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Savings and Non-Convexities Traps
δ+n
s(k)f(k)/k
StableStable
Unstable
![Page 5: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Poverty Traps: Theory
3. Demographic trap (impoverished families choose to have lots of children)
![Page 6: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Demographic Trap
s(k)f(k)/k
δ+n
Stable
Stable
Unstable
k
![Page 7: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Poverty Traps: Implications• The main implication is that a country that is “stuck” in a
poverty trap (the low income steady state) that receives aid in the form of capital that is less than the distance between its initial position and the next steady state, it converge back to the low steady state.
• Hence, the fact that aid has not worked in the past does not prove that it is ineffective.
• In fact, the poverty trap implies that the total amount of aid must be increased enough to put countries over the unstable steady state
• IMPORTANT NOTE: this is different from having two savings lines (if we have two savings lines with two steady states, then NO amount of aid will work!)
![Page 8: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Problem 1: Savings Trap
• Need to have THREE steady states:– For savings line to cross three times the depreciation line,
you need the savings rate have to behave in “s” shape: • First low and constant (the savings line declines so it crosses de
depreciation line from above and describes a stable steady state)• Then s should be raising for intermediate levels of k (so that the
product s(k)*f(k)/k is upward sloping)• Then it should stay constant at a higher level (so that s(k)*f(k)/k
becomes downward sloping again– In sum, it is NOT enough to argue that “poor people save
less”. • There is NO evidence that saving rates accelerate
sufficiently rapidly to justify the savings poverty trap (Kraay and Raddatz (2005))
![Page 9: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Problem 2: Savings Trap
• If there is technological progress, the savings trap automatically disappears!
![Page 10: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Problem 3: Demographic Trap
• If there is technological progress, the savings trap automatically disappears!
![Page 11: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Problem 3: Fertility Behavior
• True that fertility declines as income increases... but population growth is the sum of fertility, minus mortality, plus net migration
• Mortality also declines with capital (and income)• And net migration increases with capital• Hence, need to argue that fertility declines MORE THAN
OFFSET mortality declines, migration reversals and the diminishing returns to capital so that the savings and depreciation lines cross three times
• This is empirically unlikely
![Page 12: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Problem 4: Non-Convexities Trap
• Normally, non-convexities can be easily convexified (for example, by using an average of the two technologies)
• Thus, not only you need to argue that non-convexities exist, but need to argue that non-convexities cannot be “convexified” by averaging production from below the convex and above area
• This is a lot harder
![Page 13: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Problem 5: Poor Countries did not grow less than others
![Page 14: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Problem 5 (cont): Poor Countries did not grow less than others
Per Capita Growth1950-2001 1950-1970 1975-2001
Poorest Fifth in 1950 1.60% 1.90% 0.80%
Other Countries 1.70% 2.50% 1.10%Source: Easterly 2005
Sachs shows that poor countries have grown less after 1975. But how do we explain positive growth (1.9% per year) between1950 and 1970?
![Page 15: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Problem 6: Conditional Convergence
• Holding constant institutional variables, the partial correlation between initial income and growth is negative
• Again: To have poverty traps, we should have multiple steady states with same savings and depreciation lines (not that there are multiple savings lines).
• If there are multiple savings lines, there is no reason to have increased aid
![Page 16: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Source: Easterly 2005
![Page 17: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Problem 7: Little Evidence of “Take Offs”
• Define take off as a period of large sustained growth (more than 1.5%) following a long period of zero growth (defined as -0.5% to +0.5%)
![Page 18: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Source: Easterly 2005
![Page 19: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Problem 8: And take offs are not related to Aid
![Page 21: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Problem 9: Accelerations are more likely to occur poorest
countries• Haussman, Pritchett and Rodrik (2004)
• Theory suggest that accelerations should be less likely to occur among poorest countries.
![Page 22: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Problem 10: Quah (1996): Seems Evidence in favor of Traps
![Page 23: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Forecasting the future of the WDI (by country)
• Quah’s Methology: Based on historical experience
pp=probability of poor in 1960 staying poor in 2000
pr=probability of poor becoming rich rp=probability of rich becoming poor rr=probability of rich staying rich
![Page 24: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Forecasting the future of the WDI (by country)
• Npoor(2040)=Npoor(2000)*pp+ Nrich(2000)*rp
• Nrich(2040)=Npoor(2000)*pr+ Nrich(2000)*rr• Repeat the procedure infinite many times to get
the ergodic (steady-state) distribution• Conclusion: depends on Venezuela and Trinidad-
Tobago
![Page 25: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Problem
• Not very robust (Kremer, Onatski and Stock show that it depends on one or two data points)
![Page 26: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Additional Problems• There is capital in the developing world but it is
not invested in the developing world
• Correlation between Aid and Growth is zero (more on this later).
• Is it Poverty Traps or Corruption?– Countries with low scores on “corruption” tend to
grow 1.3% less than other countries (Easterly 2006)– Multiple regression: holding constant “corruption”,
the “level of poverty” does not matter (Easterly 2006)
![Page 27: Poverty Traps Xavier Sala-i-Martin Columbia University.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649d1f5503460f949f2715/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Final Note
– If it is “corruption” but we increase aid (we double in the next five years, and double it again five years later) because we think “poverty traps”, could we possibly induce more corruption?