How does corruption hurt growth? Evidences about the effects of corruption on factors productivity and per capita income

Corruption is a phenomenon that plagues many countries and, mostly, walks hand in hand with inefficient institutional structures, which reduce the effectiveness of public and private investment. In countries with widespread corruption, for each monetary unit invested, a sizable share is wasted, implying less investment. Corruption can also be a burden on a nation’s wealth and economic growth, by driving away new investment and creating uncertainties regarding private and social rights. Thus, corruption can affect not only factors productivity, but also their accumulation, with detrimental consequences on a society’s social development. This article aims to analyze and measure the influence of corruption on a country’s wealth. It is implicitly admitted that the degree of institutional development has an adverse effect on the productivity of production factors, which implies in reduced per capita income. It is assumed that the level of wealth and economic growth depends on domestic savings, foster technological progress and a proper educational system. Corruption, within this framework, is not unlike an additional cost, which stifles the “effectiveness” of the investment. This article first discusses the key theories evaluating corruption’s economic consequences. Later, it analyzes the relation between institutional development, factor productivity and per capita income, based on the neoclassical approach to economic growth. Finally, it brings some empirical evidence regarding the effects of corruption on factor productivity, in a sample of 81 countries studied in 1998. The chief conclusion is that corruption negatively affects the wealth of a nation by reducing capital productivity, or its effectiveness.

A brief history of Brazil's growth

The paper studies Brazil’s economic growth and begins with a brief overview of events that marked the country’s development from her discovery to the 19th century. It then divides the years between 1900 and 2008 into four periods. The breaks in regime occur in 1918, 1967 and 1980, according to the methodology created by Bai and Perron (1998, 2003). The use of the accounting methodology serves the analysis of the behavior of productivity in the previously identified different phases of the post-World War II period. High inflation might have been a reason for the decline in productivity observed between 1980 and mid-1990s. The paper shows that terms of trade have a significant effect on economic growth and output fluctuations. Other factors (such as fiscal stimulus or easy access to foreign finance) also matter for output accelerations in the short run. From 2004 to 2008, terms of trade improvement and debt reduction brought economic progress. The emergence of a new era in this millennium will depend on wiser fiscal policies than those of the past.

The evolution of international output differences (1960-2000): From factors to productivity

This article presents a group of exercises of level and growth decomposition of output per worker using cross-country data from 1960 to 2000. It is shown that at least until 1975 factors of production (capital and education) were the main source of output dispersion across economies and that productivity variance was considerably smaller than in late years. Only after this date the prominence of productivity started to show up in the data, as the majority of the literature has found. The growth decomposition exercises showed that the reversal of relative importance of productivity vis-a-vis factors is explained by the very good (bad) performance of productivity of fast (slow) growing economies. Although growth in the period, on average, is mostly due to factors accumulation, its variance is explained by productivity.

The market strategies alternatives of an e-business start-up in Brazil

The e-business market is one of the fastest growing markets in Brazil, with e-business sales accounting for BRL 14.8 billion in 2010 and a growth of 40% per year (+1000% over the past 7 years). Sales-event clubs and collective bargaining websites are one of the most dynamic segments of the e-business market: the number of new players is increasing rapidly, with over 1200 collective bargaining websites currently operating in Brazil. In that context, growth and differentiation seem to be two key success factors for Coquelux. According to webshopper (23rd Edition, e-bit), growth can be achieved by targeting middle and low-income consumers from class C, who represent 50% of the total e-commerce sales. But Coquelux, which is specialized in desire and luxury brands, has built its reputation and competitive advantage through its “exclusivity”, by targeting wealthier consumers from classes A and B who are attracted by its fashionable and high-end positioning. The evolution (growth?) of this market and the development of its competition naturally raise a strategic question for Coquelux’s managers: can Coquelux grow and still maintain its competitive advantage? Should it grow by expanding its consumer base to class C? If so, how? Consumers from classes A, B or C must be targeted through the same online communication channels. Recent studies from the ABEP/ABIPEME emphasized the importance of social networks as a tool for converting new clients and gaining their loyalty, regardless of their social class. However, high-income and low-income e-consumers do not have the same consumption habits, do not respond to the same type of marketing strategies, and most importantly, do not share the same values. Thus, it seems difficult to expand Coquelux’s consumer base to class C without changing its marketing strategies and altering its image Three options were identified for Coquelux: reinforcing its leadership on the luxury segment and focusing on a small niche market (1), which would threaten its survival in the long run; completely changing its strategy and competing for a mass market through commercial brands (2), which requires major financial investments that managers don’t have access to; or finding an intermediary solution (3). This thesis’ recommendation for the third option consists in focusing on premium brands (rather than luxury) in order to increase sales volume (Coquelux’s most profitable sales happened with local desire brands) with products that appeal to class B but also attract the emerging class C which is looking for brand recognition. It could thus implement a slow entry strategy towards the mass market without damaging its main competitive advantage.

The Brazilian real state market in 2012: robust growth or speculative bubble?

A forte alta dos imóveis no Brasil nos últimos anos iniciou um debate sobre a possível existência de uma bolha especulativa. Dada a recente crise do crédito nos Estados Unidos, é factível questionar se a situação atual no Brasil pode ser comparada à crise americana. Considerando argumentos quantitativos e fundamentais, examina-se o contexto imobiliário brasileiro e questiona-se a sustentabilidade em um futuro próximo. Primeiramente, analisou-se a taxa de aluguel e o nível de acesso aos imóveis e também utilizou-se um modelo do custo real para ver se o mercado está em equilíbrio o não. Depois examinou-se alguns fatores fundamentais que afetam o preço dos imóveis – oferta e demanda, crédito e regulação, fatores culturais – para encontrar evidências que justificam o aumento dos preços dos imóveis. A partir dessas observações tentou-se chegar a uma conclusão sobre a evolução dos preços no mercado imobiliário brasileiro. Enquanto os dados sugerem que os preços dos imóveis estão supervalorizados em comparação ao preço dos aluguéis, há evidências de uma legítima demanda por novos imóveis na emergente classe média brasileira. Um risco maior pode estar no mercado de crédito, altamente alavancado em relação ao consumidor brasileiro. No entanto, não se encontrou evidências que sugerem mais do que uma temporária estabilização ou correção no preço dos imóveis.

Strenghthening long-term growth in Brazil

This paper is devoted to an examination of the main issues identified with Brazil’s barriers to growth in the long term. It begins with a decomposition of per capita and total GDP long term growth to identify the main proximate sources of Brazil’s growth deceleration. Most of the analysis in this part concentrates on factors affecting aggregate supply. The reason for this approach is that, within certain limits past experience reveals that it is easy to stimulate aggregate demand via fiscal and monetary stimuli in Brazil. The risk is on bumping into production capacity barriers, i.e., supply constraints. Five substantially diversified but interconnected issues have been raised in the literature as supply constraints, many of which associated to a rate of savings lower than deemed necessary for sustaining faster growth: the tax burden, institutional factors, infrastructure, finance and education. Accordingly, the paper also deals with the issues of a high an increasing tax burden, institutional shortcomings and policy settings, insufficient investment in infrastructure, insufficient long term financing, and educational shortcomings, as growth impediments. A survey of policies aimed at removing the barriers to growth thus identified is presented next. The paper concludes by bringing again to the fore the need to increase savings and investment for growth resumption and by speculating on the growth potential of Brazil, conditional on productivity and investment growth.

An entry strategy with innovation and differentiation in Brazil and the United States

With the global rise of credit and debit card usage, acquirers play an increasingly important role within the payments industry by processing these types of payment transactions on behalf of merchants. This study focuses on examining two markets – Brazil and the United States – by providing an overview of the market dynamics, the state of the competitive landscape, and the role and impact of regulations and new technologies. In considering these factors, strategic recommendations are provided for new players interested in enter either market. Further, factors such as existing and future opportunities as well as risks are considered.

Essays on economic growth

A fundamental question in development economics is why some economies are rich and others poor. To illustrate the income per capita gap across economies consider that the average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of the richest 10 percent of economies in the year 2010 was a factor of 40-fold that of the poorest 10 percent of economies. In other words, the average person in a rich economy produces in just over 9 days what the average person in a poor economy produces in an entire year. What are the factors that can explain this difference in standard of living across the world today? With this in view, this dissertation is a conjunction of three essays on the economic growth field which we seek a possible responses to this question. The first essay investigates the existence of resource misallocation in the Brazilian manufacturing sector and measures possible distortions in it. Using a similar method of measurement to the one developed by Hsieh and Klenow (2009) and firm-level data for 1996-2011 we find evidence of misallocation in the manufacturing sector during the observed period. Moreover, our results show that misallocation has been growing since 2005, and it presents a non-smooth dynamic. Significantly, we find that the Brazilian manufacturing sector operates at about 50% of its efficient product. With this, if capital and labor were optimally reallocated between firms and sectors we would obtain an aggregate output growth of approximately 110-180% depending on the mode in which the capital share is measured. We also find that the economic crisis did not have a substantial effect on the total productivity factor or on the sector's misallocation. However, small firms in particular seem to be strongly affected in a global crisis. Furthermore, the effects described would be attenuated if we consider linkages and complementarity effects among sectors. Despite Brazil's well-known high tax burden, there is not evidence that this is the main source of resource misallocation. Moreover, there is a distinct pattern of structural change between the manufacturing sectors in industrialized countries and those in developing countries. Therefore, the second essay demonstrate that this pattern differs because there are some factors that distort the relative prices and also affect the output productivity. For this, we present a multi-sector model of economic growth, where distortions affect the relative prices and the allocation of inputs. This phenomenon imply that change of the production structure or perpetuation of the harmful structures to the growth rate of aggregate output. We also demonstrate that in an environment with majority decision, this distortion can be enhanced and depends on the initial distribution of firms. Furthermore, distortions in relative prices would lead to increases in the degree of misallocation of resources, and that imply that there are distinct patterns of structural changes between economies. Finally, the calibrated results of the framework developed here converge with the structural change observed in the firm-level data of the Brazilian manufacturing sector. Thereafter, using a cross-industry cross-country approach, the third essay investigates the existence of an optimal level of competition to enhance economic growth. With that in mind, we try to show that this optimal level is different from industrialized and under development economies due to the technology frontier distance, the terms of trade, and each economy's idiosyncratic characteristics. Therefore, the difference in competition industry-country level is a channel to explain the output for worker gap between countries. The theoretical and empirical results imply the existence of an inverted-U relationship between competition and growth: starting for an initially low level of competition, higher competition stimulates innovation and output growth; starting from a high initial level of competition, higher competition has a negative effect on innovation and output growth. Given on average industries in industrialized economies present higher competition level. With that if we control for the terms of trade and the industry-country fixed effect, if the industries of the developing economy operated under the same competition levels as of the industrialized ones, there is a potential increase of output of 0.2-1.0% per year. This effect on the output growth rate depends on the competition measurement used.

The BRICS: some historical experiences, growth challenges and opportunities

The acronym BRICS was a fad among the media and global investors. Now, the acronym sounds passé. However, the group of countries remains important, from both political and economic reasons. They have a large aggregate size, 28% of the global GDP and 42% of the world’s population, high growth potential due to the current significant misallocation of resources and relatively low stock of human capital, structural transformation is in progress and one of them, China, is taking steps to become a global power and a challenger to the US dominance. This paper provides a brief overview of the five economies, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. We focus on some aspects of their history, the Chinese initiatives in international finance and geopolitical strategic moves, their growth experience and structural transformation over the last 35 years, trade and investment integration into the global economy and among themselves, the growth challenges faced by their economies and the potential gains to the Brazilian economy from a stronger integration with the other BRICS. In association with its efforts to be a global power, China aims to become a major player in global finance and to achieve the status of global currency for the renminbi, which would be the first currency of an emerging economy to attain such position. Despite the similarities, the BRICS encompass very diverse economies. In the recent decades, China and India showed stellar growth rates. On the other hand, Brazil, Russia and South Africa have expanded just in line with global output growth with the Russian economy exhibiting high volatility. China is by far the largest economy, and South Africa the smallest, the only BRICS economy with a GDP lower than US$ 1 trillion. Russia abandoned communism almost 25 years ago, but reversed many of the privatizations of 90’s. China is still ruled by communism, but has a vibrant private sector and recently has officially declared market forces to play a dominant role in its economy. Brazil, Russia and South Africa are global natural resources powerhouses and commodity exporters while China and India are large commodity importers. Brazil is relatively closed to international trade of goods and services, in marked contrast to the other four economies. Brazil, India and South Africa are dependent on external capital flows whereas China and Russia are capital exporters. India and South Africa have younger populations and a large portion living below the poverty line. Despite its extraordinary growth experience that lifted many millions from poverty, China still has 28% of its population classified as poor. Russia and China have much older populations and one of their challenges is to deal with the effects of a declining labor force in the near future. India, China and South Africa face a long way to urbanization, while Brazil and Russia are already urbanized countries. China is an industrial economy but its primary sector still absorbs a large pool of workers. India is not, but the primary sector employs also a large share of the labor force. China’s aggregate demand structure is biased towards investment that has been driving its expansion. Brazil and South Africa have an aggregate demand structure similar to the developed economies, with private consumption accounting for approximately 70%. The same similarity applies to the supply side, as in both economies the share of services nears 70%. The development problem is a productivity problem, so microeconomic reforms are badly needed to foster long-term growth of the BRICS economies since they have lost steam due a variety of factors, but fundamentally due to slower total factor productivity growth. China and India are implementing ambitious reform programs, while Brazil is dealing with macroeconomic disequilibria. Russia and South Africa remain mute about structural reforms. There are some potential benefits to Brazil to be extracted from a greater economic integration with the BRICS, particularly in natural resources intensive industries and services. Necessary conditions to the materialization of those gains are the removal of the several sources of resource misallocation and strong investment in human capital.