Technological Asymmetries and Intensities in the Dialogue Between Post-Keynesianism and ECLAC Thought: Some Empirical Evidence
Abstract
The magnitude of technological asymmetries may be a determining factor for the uneven growth pattern among countries. As this is an important dimension of heterodox economic thinking in the context of the balance of payments constrained growth models, an investigation into the dynamics of the technological gap and the level of technological intensity observed between countries from the North and South is timely. This is the effort undertaken in this essay for the totality of Latin American and Caribbean countries. Based on a linear regression model for panel data, it was possible to observe that the temporal dynamics of the average level of technological intensity of the countries evaluated tend toward an equilibrium close to the intensity observed in countries such as Portugal and New Zealand. Despite this, the value found is far from countries at the top of the classification established by the Economic Complexity Index (ECI), indicating the need for public interventions to improve the productive capacities of each country over time.
Downloads
References
Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. The journal of economic history, 46(2), 385-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700046209
Albeaik, S., Kaltenberg, M., Alsaleh, M. & Hidalgo, C. A. (2017a). Improving the economic complexity index. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05826. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.05826
Albeaik, S., Kaltenberg, M., Alsaleh, M. & Hidalgo, C. A. (2017b). Measuring the knowledge intensity of economies with an improved measure of economic complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05826.
Bárcena, A. (2016). Foreword. In: A. Bárcena & A. Prado (eds.) Neostructuralism and heterodox thinking in Latin America and the Caribbean in the early twenty-first century. Santiago: ECLAC, 2016. LC/G. 2633-P. p. 13-16. Disponível em <https://repository.eclac.org/handle/11362/40121>
Bárcena, A. & Prado, A. (2016). Introduction. In: A. Bárcena & A. Prado (eds.) Neostructuralism and heterodox thinking in Latin America and the Caribbean in the early twenty-first century. Santiago: ECLAC, 2016. LC/G. 2633-P. p. 17-28. Disponível em <https://repository.eclac.org/handle/11362/40121>
Botta, A. (2009). A structuralist North–South model on structural change, economic growth and catching-up. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 20(1), 61-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2008.12.001
Caldentey, E. P. (2016). A time to reflect on opportunities for debate and dialogue between (neo) structuralism and heterodox schools of thought. In: A. Bárcena & A. Prado (eds.) Neostructuralism and heterodox thinking in Latin America and the Caribbean in the early twenty-first century. Santiago: ECLAC, 2016. LC/G. 2633-P. p. 31-83. Disponível em <https://repository.eclac.org/handle/11362/40121>
Castillo, M. & Martins Neto, A. (2016). Premature deindustrialization in Latin America. ECLAC – Production Development Series nº 205. Santiago: ECLAC. Disponível em <https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/40241>
Chávez, J. C., Mosqueda, M. T. & Gómez-Zaldívar, M. (2017). Economic Complexity and Regional Growth Performance: Evidence from the Mexican Economy. Review of Regional Studies, 47(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.8023
Cimoli, M. (1988). Technological gaps and institutional asymmetries in a North‐South model with a continuum of goods. Metroeconomica, 39(3), 245-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-999X.1988.tb00878.x
Cimoli, M. & Porcile, G. (2014). Technology, structural change and BOP-constrained growth: a structuralist toolbox. Cambridge journal of economics, 38(1), 215-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet020
Cristelli, M., Gabrielli, A., Tacchella, A., Caldarelli, G. & Pietronero, L. (2013). Measuring the intangibles: A metrics for the economic complexity of countries and products. PloS one, 8(8), e70726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070726
Cristelli, M., Tacchella, A. & Pietronero, L. (2015). The heterogeneous dynamics of economic complexity. PloS one, 10(2), e0117174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117174
Dávila-Fernández, M. & Amado, A. (2015). Entre a lei de Thirlwall e a hipótese Prebisch-Singer: uma avaliação da dinâmica dos termos de troca em um modelo de crescimento com restrição no Balanço de Pagamentos. Economia e Sociedade, 24, 87-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-3533.2015v24n1art4
De La Cruz, J. & Riker, D. (2012). Product space analysis of the exports of Brazil. US Internat. Trade Commission, Office of Economics. Disponível em <https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/EC201206A.pdf>
Gabriel, L. F., Jayme, F. G. & Oreiro, J. L. C. (2019). Mudança Estrutural, Hiato Tecnológico e Capital Humano em um modelo norte-sul de crescimento com restrição de balanço de pagamentos. Estudos Econômicos (São Paulo), 49, 465-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-41614932lfj
Gala, P., Rocha, I. & Magacho, G. (2018). The structuralist revenge: economic complexity as an important dimension to evaluate growth and development. Brazilian journal of political economy, 38, 219-236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572018v38n02a01
Gebrerufael, S. G. (2017). Dynamics of Product Complexity in Africa. Journal of Heterodox Economics, 4(1), 11-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jheec-2017-0002
Gerschenkron, A. (2015). Economic backwardness in historical perspective (1962). Cambridge MA.
Gräbner, C. & Hafele, J. (2020). The emergence of core-periphery structures in the European Union: A complexity perspective (No. 6). ZOE Discussion Papers.
Harrod, R. F. (1939). An essay in dynamic theory. The economic journal, 49(193), 14-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2225181
Hartmann, D. & Pinheiro, F. L. (2022). Economic complexity and inequality at the national and regional level. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.00818
Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 1251-1271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Simoes, A. & Yildirim, M. A. (2011). The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity. Cambridge: Center for International Development, Harvard University. Disponível em <https://oec.world/pdf/AtlasOfEconomicComplexity_Part_I.pdf>
Hausmann, R. & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of development Economics, 72(2), 603-633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(03)00124-X
Hidalgo, C. A. & Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 106(26), 10570-10575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900943106
Hirschman, A. (1958): The Strategy of Economic Development. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Ivanova, I., Strand, Ø., Kushnir, D. & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Economic and technological complexity: A model study of indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems. Technological forecasting and social change, 120, 77-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.007
Kaldor, N. (1957). A model of economic growth. The economic journal, 67(268), 591-624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2227704
Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The Manchester School, 22(2), 139–191.
Li, Y. & Rigby, D. (2023). Relatedness, complexity, and economic growth in Chinese cities. International Regional Science Review, 46(1), 3-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01600176221082308
Lin, J. Y. (2016). The latecomer advantages and disadvantages. A new structural economics perspective. In: M. Andersson & T. Axelsson (eds.), Diverse development paths and structural transformation in the escape from poverty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manna, J. V. N. C. (2020). The convergences between post Keynesian and developmental approaches: the post Keynesianism applied to emerging countries. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 40, 37-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572020-3030
Nurkse, R. (1959). Patterns of Trade and Development. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.
Observatory of Economic Complexity. (2022). The Observatory of Economic Complexity. Recuperado em 19 de junho de 2022, de The Observatory of Economic Complexity: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/es/
Oreiro, J. L. C. (2016). Macroeconomia do desenvolvimento: uma perspectiva keynesiana. Rio de Janeiro: LTC, 1.
Oreiro, J. L. C., Manarin, L. L. & Gala, P. (2020). Deindustrialization, economic complexity and exchange rate overvaluation: the case of Brazil (1998-2017). PSL Quarterly Review, 73(295), 313-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3643_73.295_3
Oreiro, J. L. C., D’Amato, S. W., D’Agostini L. L M. & Gala P. S. O. S. (2022), “Measuring the technological backwardness of middle- and low-income countries: The employment quality gap and its relationship with the per capita income gap”, PSL Quarterly Review, 75 (301):139-159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3643/17784
Rodrigues, B. (2021). A Geoeconomia Híbrida da China na América do Sul: o uso de instrumentos econômicos duais para fins geopolíticos. Carta Internacional, 16(1), e1085-e1085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21530/ci.v16n1.2021.1085
Rosenstein-Rodan, P. N. (1943). Problems of industrialisation of eastern and south-eastern Europe. The economic journal, 53(210-211), 202-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2226317
Thirlwall, A.P. (2012). Balance of Payments Constrained Growth Models: History and Overview. In: E. Soukiazis & P.A. Cerqueira (eds) Models of Balance of Payments Constrained Growth. Palgrave Macmillan, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023957_2
Van Dam, A., & Frenken, K. (2022). Variety, complexity and economic development. Research Policy, 51(8), 103949. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103949
Westphal, L. E. (2002). Technology strategies for economic development in a fast changing global economy. Economics of innovation and new technology, 11(4-5), 275-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590200000002
Copyright (c) 2024 Thiago Fernandes Ladeira, Fábio Henrique Bittes Terra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors keep copyrights and concede to the Journal the right to the first publication, with the paper simultaneously licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which allows recognised author and journal work sharing.
- Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive versions of the paper published in this journal (e.g.: publish in an instituional repository or as a book chapter) with the recogntion of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed (and are estimulated) to publish and distribute their work online (e.g.: in institutional repositories or at their personal websites) at any point before or during the editorial process, once this may generate productive alterations on the paper, as well as increse the factor of impact and quotation of the published paper (please, see Free Access Effect)
