亚开行-新兴欧洲和中亚的结构改革与生产率增长-2017.11-38页-1mb

报告摘要

Summary of "Structural Reform and Productivity Growth in Emerging Europe and Central Asia"

Core Content

This working paper by Yordan Georgiev, Pirosa Nagy-Mohacsi, and Alexander Plekhanov analyzes the relationship between structural reforms and productivity growth in Emerging Europe and Central Asia (EECA), with a focus on the period from 1990 to 2014. It explores the patterns of income convergence, the evolution of total factor productivity (TFP), and the speed and sequencing of reforms. The paper also examines the distributional consequences of these reforms, including their impact on inequality and life satisfaction.

Main Points

I. Introduction

Since 1990, EECA countries have undergone significant economic transformation, leading to income convergence with advanced economies.
However, this convergence has been accompanied by rising inequality and lower life satisfaction.
The pace of reforms and economic growth has slowed in the last decade, necessitating a shift toward a new growth model.
The paper revisits the region's experience and contributes to the understanding of how to avoid the "middle-income trap."

II. Reforms and Productivity

A. Patterns of Convergence

After the initial transition recession, EECA experienced rapid income convergence toward G7 levels.
The 2008–2009 global financial crisis interrupted this trend.
Central Europe saw a slower decline in convergence rates compared to the broader EECA region.
This pattern is similar to broader emerging market trends, such as in China.

B. Evolution of Total Factor Productivity

TFP was initially low in EECA due to inefficient resource allocation under central planning.
Structural reforms in the mid-1990s significantly boosted TFP, contributing to fast income convergence.
The shift from manufacturing and agriculture to services was particularly rapid in EECA, reaching 55%–60% of GDP in several countries.
Labor and human capital contributions were modest due to low fertility, high mortality, and outward migration.
Physical capital contributions were also limited because of the high capital stock at the start of the transition.

C. Quantifying the Impact of Structural Reforms

Structural reforms have a measurable impact on productivity and growth.
Reforms that go beyond cycle management significantly influenced growth in the 1990s and early 2000s.
EBRD transition indicators show a strong correlation with institutional quality and governance indicators.
The correlation between transition indicators and WGI improved from 0.7 in 1996 to 0.9 in 2014.
Reforms in key sectors such as retail, trade, and finance have shown a positive impact on productivity.
Proper sequencing of reforms is crucial for productivity growth at different stages of development.

Key Findings

Faster reforms generally led to faster growth and lower transitional employment costs.
Late reformers such as the Slovak Republic and Georgia still managed to catch up, indicating that reforms can be successful even if delayed.
The first-generation reforms (market-enabling) were implemented quickly and included small-scale privatization and liberalization of prices and trade.
Second-generation reforms (market-deepening) involved large-scale privatization and the establishment of commercial banking and capital markets.
These were more advanced in Central Europe and later in Southeastern Europe, supported by EU accession.
Third-generation reforms (market-sustaining) focused on institutional development, including corporate governance, competition policy, and property rights.
These reforms were implemented later, in the mid-1990s, and showed more variation across countries.

Challenges and Outlook

The pace of reforms has slowed since 2010, and reversals have become more common.
The balance of upgrades and downgrades in reform indicators has shown no clear trend, with a near-zero balance in 2016.
Inequality and life satisfaction have been negatively affected by the transition process.
The need for structural reforms remains critical to sustain productivity growth and income convergence.

Conclusion

Structural reforms have been instrumental in driving productivity and economic growth in EECA.
However, the distributional impact of these reforms has led to increased inequality and lower life satisfaction.
The slowdown in reform progress and economic growth since 2010 suggests a need for a new growth model.
The success of reforms varies across countries and regions, depending on the political system and the distance to the technological frontier.
Proper sequencing of reforms is essential to ensure sustainable productivity growth and avoid the middle-income trap.

Key Information

Timeframe: 1990–2014
Region: Emerging Europe and Central Asia (EECA)
Key Institutions: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), World Bank, World Governance Indicators (WGI)
Main Factors: Market liberalization, privatization, institutional development, and governance quality
Main Outcomes: Income convergence, TFP growth, but also rising inequality and lower life satisfaction
Recommendations: Emphasize structural reforms, especially those that support innovation and firm productivity, while considering their distributional effects.