A note on growth, welfare and public policy

In this note the growth anti welfare effects of fiscal anti monetary policies are investigated in three economies where public investment is part of the productive process It is shown that growth is maximized at positive levels of income tax and inflation but that there is no direct relationship between government size, productivity and growth or between inflation and growth. However, unless there are no transfers or public goods in the economy, maximization of growth does not imply welfare maximization and the optimal tax rate and government size are greater than those that maximize growth. Money is not superneutral anti the optimal rate of money creation is below the maximizing rate of growth.

Linkages between growth, poverty and the labour market

From a methodological point of view, this paper makes two contributions to the literature. One contribution is the proposal of a new measure of pro-poor growth. This new measure provides the linkage between growth rates in mean income and in income inequality. In this context, growth is defined as pro-poor (or anti-poor) if there is a gain (or loss) in the growth rate due to a decrease (or increase) in inequality. The other contribution is a decomposition methodology that explores linkages growth patterns, and labour market performances. Through the decomposition analysis, growth in per capita income is explained in terms of four labour market components: the employment rate, hours of work, the labour force participation rate, and productivity. The proposed methodology are then applied to the Brazilian National Household Survey (PNAD) covering the period 1995-2004. The paper analyzes the evolution of Brazilian social indicators based on per capita income exploring links with adverse labour market performance.

Internet share of advertising expenditure : growth drivers and inhibitors in the brazilian market

Os investimentos com publicidade na Internet como uma percentagem das despesas totais de publicidade variam significativamente de um país para outro. O número é tão baixo quanto 4,7% no mercado brasileiro e tão alto como 28,5% no mercado britânico (ZenithOptimedia, 2011b). Algumas razões explicam tal disparidade. No nível macro, a participação dos gastos com publicidade na Internet está fortemente ligada a variáveis como o produto interno bruto per capita e à penetração da Internet na população. No nível micro, uma pesquisa qualitativa foi feita para identificar os fatores que contribuem e inibem o crescimento da participação da publicidade online no mercado brasileiro. A vasta lista de inibidores parece ter profundo impacto sobre como os profissionais de mercado tomar decisões de alocação de investimento em publicidade por tipo de mídia. Devido à legislação, à auto-regulamentação e às dinâmicas da indústria, grande parte da tomada de decisão é realizada por agências de publicidade. Estas parecem ter fortes incentivos econômicos para selecionar outros tipos de mídia e não a Internet ao definir planos de mídia. Ao mesmo tempo, a legislação e a auto-regulamentação fornecem desincentivos para corretores de mídia a operar no mercado local. A falta de profissionais qualificados e a padronização limitada também desempenham papéis importante para inibir uma maior participação da Internet nos gastos com publicidade no Brasil. A convergência dos resultados quantitativos com os qualitativos indica possíveis motivos pelos quais a participação da publicidade online no Brasil é tão baixa. Em primeiro lugar, a participação é explicada pelo estágio de desenvolvimento dos países. Quanto mais rico e mais desenvolvido um país, maior a proporção de gastos com publicidade online tende a ser. Em segundo lugar, o estágio econômico emergente do Brasil potencialmente dá espaço para o aumento do ineficiências do mercado, tais como programas de descontos oferecidos de forma desproporcional para os principais decisores de alocação de investimentos de mídia. Este fato aparentemente produz um feedback negativo, contribuindo para manter a baixa participação da publicidade online no total dos investimentos publicitários.

Growth,distribution and school policy

This paper investigates the relationship between growth, income inequality, and educational policies. An endogenous growth model is built in which there are two types of labor, skilled and unskilled, and the quality of the labor force (measured by the fraction of skilled workers) will ultimately determine the economic growth rate. We show that multi pIe inequality and growth paths may arise. Countries will not necessarily converge to the same economic growth and income distribution. When the proportion of skilled workers is low, the economy grows slow, and the Gini coeflicient is high. Low expected growth rate inhibits investments in human capital and the quality of the labor force tomorrow turns out to be low again, keeping the economy in the bad equilibrium. We then analyze the effects on growth and inequality of two types of government intervention: introduction of public schools and vouchers. Both types can induce the economic agents to invest more in education. The consequence will be an increase in the quality of the labor force, leading to higher growth rates and less inequality. Finally, we examine the welfare consequences of these interventions and conclude that they may be Pareto improving.

High-growth SMEs and the availability of private equity and venture capital in Brazil

This chapter discusses private equity and venture capital (PE/VC) in Brazil. Firstly, it is shown that PE/VC has a strong impact in the Brazilian capital markets, with PE/VC-backed companies representing close to half the amount raised by initial public offerings (IPOs) in the stock exchanges. By examining two of these deals, which involved small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs), it is argued that PE/VC managers have acted as catalysts of the impressive growth rates experienced before these companies entered the stock markets. Indeed, PE/VC firms represent an important segment of the capital market, with specialization to invest in high-growth innovative SMEs. PE/VC managers exercise superior selection, monitoring and governance that mitigate the uncertainty and risks of investing in such companies. Despite its successes in Brazil, PE/VC is still very much restrained by the challenging local economic and institutional environment. Thus, changes in the legal and fiscal system, simplification in bureaucratic procedures, and other such improvements will most likely result in a sensible growth in the Brazilian PE/VC industry, with positive impact in the SME access to finance in Brazil. Since most countries in Latin America share similar economic and institutional traits with Brazil, the path followed by the local PE/VC industry can serve as an example for other countries to learn with its successes and failures.

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.