Michael Spence
Published: Wednesday 18 July 2012
“Developing countries, once they enter rapid-growth mode, generate growth from capital deepening via investment, in a sense making up for past underinvestment.”

Tradable Prosperity

Article image

The global economy is experiencing a major growth challenge. Many advanced countries are attempting to revive sustainable growth in the face of a decelerating global economy. But the challenges across countries are not the same. In particular, the tradable and non-tradable parts of a range of economies differ in important ways.

In the non-tradable sector (60-70% of the economy in advanced countries), the main growth inhibitors are weak demand, as in the United States following the financial crisis, and structural and competitive impediments to productivity, as in Japan. In the tradable sector, growth depends on a country’s productivity relative to incomes and competitiveness. At the global level, there can also be a shortage of aggregate demand on the tradable side.

Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Michael Spence click here.

The Nobel laureate economist Robert Solow has shown that growth comes from three sources: the working population, capital investment, and technological progress. A growing young population helps to maintain fiscal balance and ensure intergenerational equity, but it does not by itself increase incomes. On the other hand, economic growth below the sum of growth in the working population and the labor-saving part of technological change fuels unemployment.

Developing countries, once they enter rapid-growth mode, generate growth from capital deepening via investment, in a sense making up for past underinvestment. And it is possible for advanced countries to fall behind by under-investing, particularly in the public sector, relying instead on less sustainable debt-fueled means of generating demand. So a legitimate part of a strategy to restore growth is investment.

But, as Solow noted, investment has its limits, owing to diminishing marginal returns. Often, these limits are not binding, but, once capital deepening is exhausted, technological progress, which makes inputs more productive in creating final value, is the long-run driver of growth.

The challenge is to apply these insights in a world characterized by global economic interdependence, major imbalances, and a worsening growth and employment problem. It is a world in which economies are connected directly in the tradable sector of the global economy, and indirectly through the demand and employment linkages between the tradable and non-tradable sectors of individual economies.

In the short run, the non-tradable sector is, by definition, subject to domestic-demand constraints. A shortfall in non-tradable demand inevitably limits growth on that side of the economy.

Government can, of course, bridge the gap via deficit spending (preferably focused on employment-generating investment that enhances future growth). But the advanced countries are, to varying degrees, fiscally constrained by relatively high and rising public debt, largely owing to fiscal imbalances that were hidden from view until defective growth models broke down in the crisis of 2008.

Just how fiscally constrained these countries are remains subject to debate. Italy and Spain are clearly constrained by the absence of private capital in their respective sovereign-debt markets, with rising yields threatening their fiscal stability and reform programs. They need the eurozone core and the International Monetary Fund as temporary lenders of last resort until they restore policy credibility and regain investors’ confidence.

The US sovereign-debt market shows no similar evidence of having reached a limit yet. But bond markets do not issue many early warning signals: witness the sudden run-up of yields in Italy and Spain a year ago.

The more complex growth issues have to do with the tradable part of the global economy, where global aggregate demand – and the derived demand that lands in various places in global supply or value-added chains – is the target of competition. Total demand and its growth do matter, but so does market share. Given the growth patterns across advanced and developing countries prior to the crisis, and then the large negative shock, it is likely that there is a shortfall of tradable global aggregate demand, impeding an important component of global growth.

But, for individual economies, relative productivity versus income levels determines the share of global tradable aggregate demand that is accessible. Unlike the non-tradable side of the economy, the domestic component of global tradable demand is not an absolute constraint on growth; nor is the rate of growth of global tradable demand an absolute constraint, given the possibility of increasing share.

Of course, not everyone can gain share at the same time. Fortunately, if countries increase productivity with the aim of boosting relative productivity and growth potential on the tradable side, this will increase incomes and accelerate the growth of global aggregate demand. It may look like a zero-sum game, but it is not.

When incomes get significantly out of line with productivity levels (as they have recently), reviving growth requires resetting the terms of trade, which can be done with exchange rates, whether managed or set by markets. In the eurozone, where countries with competitiveness problems do not have the exchange-rate adjustment mechanism, restrained income growth and productivity-boosting reforms are probably needed, as was the case in Germany between 2000 and 2006, and now in several southern European countries.

What is true for countries on the tradable side is also true for workers, who are differentially affected by the evolution of global supply chains. The efficient integration of global supply chains has created employment opportunities in developing countries and in the higher value-added sectors of advanced countries. But it has also reduced employment options for a subset of middle-income people in the tradable sectors of advanced economies.

Many countries are struggling to adapt their growth patterns to the new challenges they face in a slowing global economy. To be effective and properly targeted, policies need to include an accurate diagnosis of growth potential and impediments in both the tradable and non-tradable parts of the economy. Focusing on one (say, the competitiveness problem in the tradable sector) to the exclusion of the other (perhaps a serious non-tradable demand shortfall or stagnant absolute productivity) will not be enough.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Michael Spence

Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is The Next Convergence – The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World.

Top Stories

4 comments on "Tradable Prosperity"

majorpayne

July 20, 2012 5:16pm

"So a legitimate part of a strategy to restore growth is investment." Even better is to recognize that investment is what produces growth to begin with. A few years ago, during better times, the mantra among Washington state citizens was "stop spending and save for a rainy day." Their real meaning, of course, was to cut taxes so people could be happy consumers, but as population grew, the need for state revenue grew even as per capita public sector spending decreased.

The voters were persuaded by Big Money interests to repeal the state's graduated car tax, which removed a huge revenue source, and the state has been going downhill ever since. Since revenue from sales taxes and property taxes declines in bad economies, exacerbated by thousands of military personnel (who can live tax-free on base) and retirees who pay NO sales taxes (if they live near a base), the current climate is devastating for a state that relies heavily on them. To make matters worse, Washington has NO income tax, and it is in deep trouble.

With no-sales-tax Oregon next door and Idaho with a lower sales tax, our best source of revenue is now our rich neighbors to the north, who flock to Washington to enjoy our mild summers and, for them, lower prices. Guess what. Washington zeroed out funding for its department of tourism! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! No growth, no investment, and our legislature keeps wondering why the problem just keeps getting worse.

Incumbents brag about all the cost-cutting they do, challengers insist they can find more ways to cut, and business leaders blame the "public sector," especially public employee unions and teachers' unions, because their sales aren't growing.

The idiots have taken over the asylum.

bladtheimpailer

July 18, 2012 11:01pm

Spence"s analysis, probably shortened here, so I won't nit pick, makes good sense under the current economic regime. My philosophical question is can we have continual standard type of growth with finite resources or must we re define what constitutes growth, such as retro fitting? The other question Spence mentions without explanation is the slowing world economy. And why may I ask is that? Too much debt created by fraudulent lending and expansive credit practices? Capitalist of all stripes retrenching and filling up their vaults due to the uncertainty, sucking in capital,in fear of when the next crisis will explode? Or how about just plain old inequality of income killing demand, seeing as everyone is tapped out on credit?

Spence is working from within the concept and structure of the present monetary system which by it's very nature is itself the creator of the present situation. When will economists ever begin to question the system as fundamentally flawed and the root cause. Lets hear them begin that conversation instead of just showing off their knowledge about a system that "was conceived in inequity and born in sin"? Only then may we have our faith restored in their science. Otherwise we can see straight through their pontificating and know they have absolutely no concern for anyone other than themselves (neo classical mantra) just as the system's masters example now , through the ages, and into the future. Let us hear some macro discussion of the fractional reserve system as opposed to other systems instead of all this crap! Come on Spence let's see you defend the system!
God damn one percenters....

JoeWeinstein

July 18, 2012 5:21pm

The article plays a fast-and-loose theoretical game of no clear ready application to ordinary people in actual economies. The game is based on a vague and dubious conceptual distinction - not clarified by either a clear definition or a homely example - between 'tradable' and 'non-untradable' goods (or services). In principle, all goods can be traded. In practice, which goods are traded between where and when depends on all sorts of variables. For instance, change in technology or in cultural expectations or regulations may leave unaffected the supply or physical 'tradability' of an existing kind of product (e.g., hardback book, fur coat) but yet may rapidly and drastically alter demand for those products and extent to which they will be traded.

The article is said to be about 'prosperity' but it talks instead about 'growth' - and moreover it talks about 'growth' and other stuff on macro levels - in aggregate and country by country, or at most sector by sector - and further, even within a country and sector it largely disregards both per-capita averages and inequalities (variations from average).

In fact increased individual prosperity (whether in 'tradable' or other goods and services) for you and me may or may not correlate to 'growth' in a national or sector aggregate. If population is controlled - or if cultural or technological changes shift focus from costly tangibles to less-costly tangibles or to intangibles - a nation's economy and various sectors could be shrinking in aggregate, yet over time - even with ever-fewer workers - everyone could be getting (or anyhow feeling) ever more prosperous. On the other hand, in country after country we see aggregate misery rise hand in hand with aggregate 'growth'.

Trish House's picture
Trish House

July 18, 2012 2:53pm

Reading this is rather like watching a Tom Cruise movie - it puts one in an imaginary realm of a high speed, high skill game in which we all pretend to be the hero. But back in reality, when the movie is over, we go home to the same bills, job losses, cut pay, company closings, kids demands, long work weeks, can-I-save-my-house-and-not-make-my-family-homeless, shrinking economy that faced us before we escaped to fantasy.

The reality is that people want and need a secure home, a secure food supply, stability in their lives. They do not want to face a loss of those basic rights because the profit driven marketplace can't include them in the exigencies of making corporate profits. The so called "useless eaters" don't have a say in the world you are talking about, but they do care that they can maintain their own lives, grow their children, have time to love them and each other in dignity- the growth and trade problems that you discuss barely enter their heads. Because it doesn't, if the high stakes game players can't figure them into the profit margin, must we relegate them to living under bridges with no place to shower, no toilet, no security and no dignity as a person? Is that the only formula we must devise for humanity - that if you can't contribute to growth and trade and profits your value as a human becomes naught and you have no right to live?