2018年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Belgium_Selected_Issues_27页_780kb

Belgium: Selected Issues Summary

Core Content

This report analyzes the factors contributing to Belgium's productivity slowdown and explores the potential impact of policy reforms. It focuses on sectoral and firm-level productivity trends, the role of regulation, infrastructure quality, and aging populations. The findings are based on empirical data and counterfactual simulations, aiming to provide actionable insights for policymakers.

Main Points

• Productivity Growth Decline: Belgium's labor productivity growth has declined significantly over the past two decades, from 2% in the 1990s to 0.7% in 2010–2016. This decline is more pronounced than in many peer countries, including Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

• Sectoral Shifts: The shift from manufacturing to service sectors has had a notable impact on productivity. Service sectors, particularly non-tradable ones, have seen slower productivity growth, while manufacturing and construction have performed better. This shift explains about half of the productivity gap with neighboring countries.

• Regulation and Competition: Belgium faces excessive regulation in network industries and professional services, leading to reduced competition and higher markups. These regulatory barriers negatively affect firm productivity and may result in resource misallocation. Reducing regulations to OECD best practices could increase total factor productivity (TFP) by 0.2 to 1 percentage point annually, with the largest gains in construction, ICT, and retail.

• Infrastructure Quality: Declining infrastructure quality, especially in transportation, has adversely affected productivity in sectors that rely heavily on it. Improving infrastructure is crucial for enhancing productivity, particularly in industries with high transportation costs.

• Aging Workforce: Belgium's workforce is aging rapidly, with the share of workers aged 55+ increasing from 6.5% in 2000 to 15% in 2017. This aging trend has a negative impact on labor productivity growth, though the effect may be influenced by the structure of large firms in the sector.

• Spillover Effects: Regulatory barriers in upstream sectors (e.g., services) have negative spillover effects on downstream industries, reducing their productivity and increasing input costs. This highlights the importance of addressing regulatory distortions across the entire economy.

Key Findings

Empirical Results

• Direct Regulatory Effect: Higher regulatory barriers are associated with lower productivity and higher markups. For example, a one standard deviation increase in regulation reduces TFP growth by 1.5 percentage points.
• Indirect Regulatory Effect: Downstream sectors experience reduced productivity due to indirect regulatory exposure, with a negative impact ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points.
• Infrastructure Impact: Improved infrastructure quality increases labor productivity by 1.4 percentage points per standard deviation.
• Aging Impact: An increase in the share of older workers reduces labor productivity by 0.7 percentage points per standard deviation.

Counterfactual Simulations

• Reducing regulation to OECD average could boost TFP growth significantly across sectors.
• The largest gains would be in construction, ICT, accommodations, food, and retail.
• Infrastructure improvements and competition promotion are essential for long-term productivity growth.

Policy Recommendations

• Promote Competition: Reduce regulatory barriers in service sectors to enhance firm productivity and lower markups.
• Invest in Public Infrastructure: Improve the quality of transportation and other critical infrastructure to support productivity in relevant sectors.
• Enhance Human Capital: Address the challenges of an aging workforce through targeted training and lifelong learning programs.
• Support Institutional Reforms: Strengthen institutions that tackle anti-competitive behavior and improve bankruptcy procedures to increase firm dynamism.
• Monitor Sectoral Shifts: Continue to assess the impact of sectoral reallocation on productivity and adjust policies accordingly.

Supporting Data

• Firm-Level Data: Utilized data from the ORBIS database for 14 advanced economies (1996–2013).
• Sample Sizes: Belgium's sample size ranges from 5,000 to 8,500 firms, while other countries have larger samples.
• Regulatory and Infrastructure Metrics: OECD Product Market Regulation (PMR) indices and Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) infrastructure quality measures are used to assess the impact of regulations and infrastructure on productivity.

Conclusion

Belgium's productivity slowdown is driven by a combination of sectoral shifts, regulatory barriers, declining infrastructure quality, and an aging workforce. Addressing these issues through targeted reforms and investments could significantly improve productivity growth and help maintain external competitiveness in the face of demographic changes.