The Latin American Development Problem: An Interpretation

is a prevalent feature of these economies, and it may be important in explaining their poor economic performance.2 Because high volatility in economic activity in the region often masks the underlying flat or negative trends in economic performance, I focus on trended data on GDP per capita.Using data for ten Latin American countries, I report the following facts about the development problem in Latin America.3 First, between 1960 and 2009, Latin America features low and declining GDP per capita relative to the United States.Second, a decomposition of GDP per capita reveals that none of the difference is explained by differences in the quantity of work hours, while less than 20 percent of the difference is explained by a lower employment-topopulation ratio in Latin America.The bulk of the difference in income stems from low GDP per labor hour (that is, labor productivity) in Latin America relative to the United States.Third, when I decompose GDP per hour using an aggregate production function that includes physical and human capital as inputs, I find that almost none of the difference is explained by systematic differences in the ratio of physical capital to output and that some of the difference is explained by differences in the quality and quantity of human capital.More importantly, most of the difference stems from differences in total factor productivity (TFP).This emphasis on the role of TFP in explaining the economic performance of Latin America is consistent with the earlier analyses.4 I argue that in the context of a model with physical and human capital accumulation, TFP in Latin America only needs to be about 60 percent that of the United States to account for a 25 percent ratio of GDP per hour.Fourth, I report labor productivity in agriculture, industry, and services and argue that aggregate productivity differences between Latin America and the United States are not the result of sector-specific distortions.Therefore, I seek an economywide explanation for low productivity in Latin America.Given these facts, I then consider a model in which institutions and policy distortions in Latin America cause relative measured TFP to be 60 percent of the U.S. level.The model follows Restuccia and Rogerson in extending the neoclassical growth model to allow for establishment heterogeneity.5 This framework has been used extensively in empirical applications of productivity 2. The extensive literature on volatility and growth finds a strong empirical negative relationship between volatility and long-run growth; see, for instance, Ramey and Ramey (1995); Hnatkovska and Loayza (2005); Aghion and Banerjee (2005).3. The countries are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.See the data appendix for more details.4. See, for example, Elias (1992);

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.