Latin America’s response to China and India: overview of research findings and policy implications

Observatorio de Política

Esta sección incluye artículos que discuten en forma rigurosa, perono técnica, temas corrientes de política económica que son de interés porsu vinculación al mundo real, aún cuando la literatura económica no loshaya todavía incorporado definitivamente y artículos que presentan conte-nidos teóricos o resultados empíricos con implicancias de política relevan-tes. Esta sección procura acercar a los investigadores académicos con losformuladores de política aportando, respectivamente unos y otros, desarro-llos teórico-conceptuales y empíricos importantes y claridad e informaciónsobre las prioridades de política. Los artículos enviados a para esta Secciónno están sujetos a los procedimientos normales de referato de la Revista.

Latin America’s Response to China and India:Overview of Research Findings and PolicyImplications1

DANIEL LEDERMANWorld Bank, Washington, DC

MARCELO OLARREAGAUniversity of Geneva

GUILLERMO PERRYFedesarollo, Bogotá2

Resumen:

El éxito económico de China e India es mirado con admiración pero tam-bién preocupación por los efectos que el crecimiento de estas economíaspueda tener sobre América Latina y el Caribe (ALC), en especial sobresectores productores de manufacturas y servicios. La evidencia aquí resu-mida indica que ciertos sectores productores de manufacturas y servicios,en especial en México y también en menor medida América Central y elCaribe, han sido afectados de manera negativa por la competencia deChina e India en terceros mercados. También, las importaciones por parte

1 This Overview summarizes the results of a large set of background papers commissionedfor a Regional Study under the direction of the Office of the Chief Economist for Latin Americaand the Caribbean at the World Bank. The papers are listed in the bibliography and can be foundat www.worldbank.org/lac. We are grateful to Peter Drysdale, Andrea Goldstein, Gordon Hanson,Bernard Hoekman, Rajiv Kumar, Pravin Krishna, Alan Winters, and participants and authors’workshop in Washington, DC, at a SCAPE conference in Singapore, a and Center of GlobalDevelopment conference in Beijing for discussions and insightful comments. Maria FernandaRosales and Eliana Rubiano provided stellar research assistance.

2 This paper was written while Guillermo Perry was Chief Economist for Latin American andthe Caribbean at the World Bank.

Revista de Economía y Estadística - Vol. XLV - N˚ 2 - (2007) - pp. 151-193Instituto de Economía y Finanzas - Facultad de Ciencias EconómicasUniversidad Nacional de Córdoba - Argentina

Daniel Lederman, Marcelo Olarreaga, Guillermo Perry152

de ALC de productos originarios en China e India han sido asociadas aefectos modestos en términos de desempleo y costos de ajuste en el sectorde manufacturas. Sin embargo, hay evidencia substancial de efectos agre-gados positivos para las economías de ALC derivados del mayor peso deChina e India en las exportaciones mundiales, flujos financieros, e inno-vación tecnológica. Más allá de que se observa una alta heterogeneidadde tales efectos para los distintos países de ALC, el crecimiento de Chinae India implica nuevas posibilidades de producción para ALC, en parti-cular para aquellos sectores con una fuerte incidencia de recursos natu-rales y conocimiento científico, beneficios que no solo se deben al creci-miento de los mercados domésticos de estos dos países asiáticos, y susefectos sobre el precio de los commodities, sino también de la existenciade complementariedades con terceros mercados a través de cadenas deproducción, disponibilidad de bienes intermedios y de capital mas bara-tos, y de spillovers tecnológicos. En resumen, el crecimiento de China eIndia no ha sido un juego se suma cero para ALC, pero los beneficiospotenciales no están siendo apreciados en su justa dimensión. Es crucialque para que ALC aproveche la creciente presencia de China e India enlos mercados mundiales se adopten estrategias que faciliten la participa-ción de las empresas de ALC en cadenas de producciones globales, asícomo la presencia comercial en los mercados domésticos de China eIndia. Los gobiernos de ALC deben evitar las tentaciones de aplicar polí-ticas proteccionistas y deben focalizarse en facilitar el proceso de ajusteen los sectores afectados, así como también el cambio en la estructura deproducción dirigida hacia sectores mas intensivos en recursos naturalesy conocimiento, adoptando las políticas adecuadas en las áreas de edu-cación, innovación, manejo de recursos naturales y desarrollo rural.

Palabras Clave: Teoría Económica e Investigación, Libre Comercio,Política Comercial, Mercados y Acceso a Mercados.

Clasificación JEL: F1, F4.

Abstract:

The economic success of China and India is looked upon with admirationbut also concern about the effects that the growth of these Asian economiesmay have on the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region’smanufacturing and services sectors. The evidence summarized hereindicates that certain manufacturing and service industries in somecountries, particularly in Mexico and to a lesser extent in Central America

and the Caribbean, have been negatively affected by Chinese and Indiancompetition in third markets. Also, LAC imports from China and Indiahave been associated with modest unemployment and adjustment costs inmanufacturing industries. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence ofpositive aggregate effects for LAC economies associated with China andIndia’s greater presence in world exports, financial flows, and innovation.Even though there is significant heterogeneity of such effects across LACsub-regions, China and India’s growth is creating new productionpossibilities for LAC economies, in particular for sectors that rely onnatural resources and scientific knowledge, which not only benefit fromthe growing internal markets of the two Asian economies and their effecton commodity prices, but also from complementarities in third marketsthrough production networks, cheaper inputs and capital, and innovationspillovers. In sum, China and India’s growth has not been a zero-sum gamefor LAC, but the potential benefits are not being fully realized. It is crucialthat LAC countries take full advantage of the growing presence of Chinaand India in world markets by adopting offensive strategies that facilitateboth the participation of LAC firms in global production networks andtheir commercial presence in the two Asian economies’ markets.Governments should avoid protectionist temptations and should focus onfacilitating the adjustment in affected sectors, as well as the emergingstructural shift towards more natural-resource and scientific-knowledge-intensive sectors by adopting adequate education, innovation (bothpatentable and non patentable), natural resource management, and ruraldevelopment policies.

Keywords: Economic Theory & Research, Free Trade, Trade Policy,Markets and Market Access .

JEL Classification: F1, F4.

I. INTRODUCTION: MOTIVATION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

China and India’s fast economic growth during the past decade isparalleled only by their growing presence in policy discussions throughoutthe Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region. The success of theseAsian countries is looked upon with admiration, but there is also concernabout the effects that growing Chinese and Indian exports may have on themanufacturing and service sectors throughout the region. Blame for theprivate sector’s poor performance in some LAC countries often falls on the

153Latin America’s Response to China and India

Daniel Lederman, Marcelo Olarreaga, Guillermo Perry

growing presence of China, and to a lesser extent India, in world markets(see Box 1).

Box 1: The impact of China’s growth as seen by public opinion in LAC

“[We] must not repeat the mistakes of the nineties, when an ‘invasion’ ofChinese products destroyed entire sectors of our industry […].”Communiqué of CAME (Medium Enterprises Association of Argentina),April 6, 2004.

“Countries around the world are bracing for a surge of cheap importsfrom China, which benefits from cheap, union-free labor and risingproductivity.” Taipei Times, January 2, 2005.

“Textiles and shoes are the sectors most harmed by the Chinese,” saysDilma Rousseff (Brazilian President Lula’s chief of staff), Bloomberg,September 29, 2005.

“CAFTA backers say this will help American nations compete with cheapimports from China and other Asian nations.” AFP, July 30, 2005.

“I made it very clear to Minister Bo Xilai that we will take the legal stepsto give Brazilian industry the right to protect itself.” Luis Furlan, BrazilianMinister for Industry, Development and Commerce after meeting with hisChinese counterpart, October 4, 2005, as reported by Yahoo!

“It is not clear whether or not China is actually competitive. Perhaps it is,but perhaps its current success is based on the fact that they do not respecta series of rules that other countries, such as Mexico, do respect.”President Fox at the October 2002 APEC summit, as reported on October22 by Reforma.

Part of the concern in LAC can be attributed to the loss of economicimportance vis à vis the two Asian economies, in spite of a broad range ofreforms in the region, which started in the mid- to late-1980s. In 1980LAC was twice as large as China and India, which jointly represented 3percent of world GDP. By 2004, LAC was 20 percent smaller than Chinaand India. Today China is the sixth largest economy in the world when

154

Latin America’s Response to China and India 155

measured in terms of GDP and India the tenth largest economy. Togetherthey account for 6.4 percent of world GDP3.

The fast economic growth of China and India was accompanied bytheir rapid integration into world markets while LAC lagged behind.Today China and India’s share of world exports is 50 percent larger thanLAC’s share, whereas in 1990 the reverse was true. In the late 1980s LAChad a trade-to-GDP ratio roughly equal to the trade-to-GDP ratio of China,and two times larger than the trade-to-GDP ratio of India. By 2004, thetrade-to-GDP ratio of China was 35 percent larger than the trade-to-GDPratio of LAC, and India’s trade-to-GDP ratio was only 14 percent smallerthan LAC’s. China is currently the third largest trading economy in theworld (just behind the United States and Germany), while India ranks 25th.

Similar trends are observed in terms of inward flows of foreigndirect investment (FDI), trade in services, and innovation. In 1990, theOECD’s stock of foreign capital in LAC was 5 times larger than their stockin China and India. By 2004, OECD’s stock of foreign capital in LAC wasonly twice as large. China and India’s exports of services to the UnitedStates increased more than threefold during the period 1994-2004,whereas LAC exports increased twofold. Similarly, in terms of innovation,the number of patents registered in the U.S. by China and India was 75percent smaller than the number registered by LAC in 1990. By 2004,China and India were jointly patenting twice as much as LAC, in spite ofChina’s and India’s lower levels of development when measured in termsof GDP per capita.

A superficial look at these trends would suggest that China andIndia’s growth has been pushing LAC countries out of world markets, andthat is probably why defensive strategies dominate policy discussions inthe region. However, China and India’s rapid growth can be seen as anopportunity that has been actually helping LAC economies, not onlybecause of the rapid growth of the Chinese and Indian domestic markets,but also because of the opportunities their growth may offer in terms ofnew production possibilities, FDI and financial flows. The objective of thisstudy is to disentangle these forces and assess how the overall growth oftrade, FDI, finance and innovation in China and India has affected LAC,and how LAC firms and governments have adjusted and should respond.

3 All calculations are based on GDP data measured at market prices.


The main findings indicate that the growth of China and India hasnot been a zero-sum game for LAC countries, but there is significantheterogeneity across LAC sub-regions. First, the growth of the two Asianeconomies, in particular China, offers a growing opportunity for LACexporters to these markets, although it has not been fully exploited yet.China and India also represent a growing source of financing (Chinese FDIin LAC reached U.S.$4 billion in 2004, and the stock of Chinese FDI inMexico in 2004 exceeded U.S.$28 billion). As China, in particular,liberalizes its financial sector the potential for becoming an importantsource of financing for LAC economies is large. In 2004 China was amongthe top 10 creditors in the world and India will soon be among them ifcurrent trends continue. In terms of innovation, the scope for bilateralcooperation is large and is exemplified by the Chinese-Brazilianagreements on satellite development which have led to the joint productionof remote sensor satellites used for space imaging. China provided 70percent and Brazil 30 percent of the financing and technology. There alsoexist bilateral agreements between Chile and China in the areas of miningand geosciences, plant quarantine, and forestry (Dominguez et al., 2006).

Moreover, there is evidence of positive net overall effects for LACeconomies associated with the larger presence of China and India in thirdmarkets. For example, the rising correlation between the growth of the twoAsian economies and LAC economies (with the exception of CentralAmerica and the Caribbean) seems to have been driven mainly by demandexternalities and higher prices for commodities where LAC’s comparativeadvantage lies. At the aggregate level, higher levels of Chinese and Indiantrade, inward flows of FDI, and patenting are found to be generallyassociated with higher levels for LAC economies as well, or at least notdeclining levels of FDI or patenting. The growing presence of intra-industry trade, production networks, and the production opportunitiesfacilitated by cheaper imports, lower cost of capital and innovation, aresome additional channels through which trade, FDI and innovationexternalities may have positively affected LAC economies. Overall, theevidence suggests that concerns regarding China and India’s displacementof LAC from FDI, export and innovation markets are misplaced. On thecontrary, LAC has been benefiting from the two Asian economies’growing presence in world markets.

The aggregate gains have been accompanied by some pain as someindustries, firms, and sub-regions have been negatively affected by therapid growth of the two Asian economies. The background studies found

156


this to be the case, for example, in industrial and electrical machinery,electronics, furniture, textiles, and transport equipment, mainly in Mexicoand to some extent in Central American countries. However, most of thedeterioration in the position of LAC exports in third markets relative toChina’s and India’s has to do more with domestic supply-side conditionsthan with lower demand for LAC products due to China and India’sincrease in market shares.

In terms of FDI, there is also some weak evidence of inflows of FDIinto LAC’s manufacturing sector being substituted for FDI in China andIndia’s manufacturing sector, particularly Central America and theSouthern Cone. But these effects are not statistically robust andcomplementarities are the norm even in manufacturing. Furthermore,China has become a large net exporter of capital, due to its accumulationof reserves which has contributed to keeping international interest rateslow and ample global liquidity.

In the service sector India has outperformed Latin America interms of export growth over the last decade. However, LAC’s exports ofservices to the United States (its main export market) are seven timeslarger than China and India’s exports to the United States. This partlyreflects one large advantage of LAC over China and India for the deliveryof services to American consumers: proximity. This is particularlyimportant in the tourism sub-sector, where LAC has been performingrelatively well when compared to the rest of the world,4 but also in healthand retirement services. In terms of displacement of LAC serviceexporters by India, in only one of the eight service sub-sectors examined(other business, professional and technical services) is there robustevidence of India’s export of services displacing LAC exports. For othersub-sectors the impact of India’s growth on LAC exports of services is notrobust across specifications.5

It is also true that there is an impact of growing imports from Chinaand India on manufacturing unemployment and factor adjustments costs inLAC, as expected, given the lower labor costs in the twoAsian economies,

4 This may be explained by proximity, but also endowments and entrepreneurship. There are116 UNESCO Heritage sites in LAC, versus 33 in China and 26 in India.

5 In an alternative specification where exports from China are weighted by the lagged shareof Indian exports, Freund (2007) found a negative and statistically significant impact in four serv-ice sub-sectors, a positive and statistically significant impact in one service sub-sector, and no sta-tistically significant impact in three service sub-sectors.


but its economic significance is found to be marginal.6 This, of course,does not mean that addressing the high unemployment levels in themanufacturing sector of some LAC countries, as well as the factoradjustment costs faced by LAC firms, is not a priority.

Moreover, the specialization pattern of LAC is changing in favor ofnatural-resource and scientific-knowledge-intensive industries, and part ofthis change can be attributed to China and India’s rapid growth. There isalso evidence that China and India may be pushing some LACmanufacturing sectors in some countries toward more low-wage unskilled-labor-intensive activities (e.g., the apparel sector in Haiti and Nicaragua),as, for them, there is more scope for substitution in skilled-labor-intensiveindustries. In other countries and sectors, in contrast, firms are adjustingtowards higher-quality and skilled-intensive products (e.g., apparel inCosta Rica and Dominican Republic). Such differential effects areexplained by variations in both factor endowments and the quality ofpolicies and institutions.

The move towards natural-resource-intensive products implies amore concentrated export bundle in LAC. This raises concerns regardingthe vulnerability of LAC to future (negative) terms of trade shocks, butmore importantly there is also a feeling within LAC that the gainsassociated with natural-resource-intensive exports are not being widelyspread. The economic, but also political, sustainability of thisspecialization in natural-resource-intensive sectors depends on the extentto which gains are shared with owners of other factors of production.

In sum, there is strong evidence that at the aggregate level the effectof China and India’s growth on LAC has been positive, even though someindustries in some countries may have been negatively affected. The rapidgrowth of China and India’s demand for LAC products (commodities butalso manufactured products), which is not being fully exploited by LACexporters, and complementarities in trade flows, FDI, and innovation arethe forces that explain why LAC countries should be rooting for moregrowth in China and India. But there is no gain without pain. To be able totake advantage of the opportunity offered by China and India’s growth,

6 In the early 2000s, according to statistics provided by UNIDO’s INDSTAT database, theaverage monthly salary in manufacturing in China and India oscillated between U.S.$120 andU.S.$150 per month. The equivalent figure in Argentina was U.S.$1112, in Uruguay U.S.$1010,in Chile U.S.$882, in Brazil U.S.$860, in Mexico U.S.$670, in Costa Rica U.S.$495, in ColombiaU.S.$350, in Bolivia U.S.$262, in Guatemala U.S.$120.

Latin America’s Response to China and India

some industries will need to adjust as they will be subject to strongercompetition from the two rapidly growing Asian economies. The need foradjustment varies across LAC countries depending on their factorendowments and their exposure to direct competition from China andIndia. For example, even though the trend changed around 2003, Mexicois the only country in LAC whose comparative advantage has been movingin the same direction as the comparative advantage of the two Asianeconomies. This obviously calls for larger adjustment needs than in therest of the region.

In terms of policy implications, the evidence suggests a change inthe policy priorities for the LAC region. To help the emerging adjustmentof firms towards higher-quality and scientific-knowledge-intensiveproducts, more emphasis should be placed on education policies thatwould help workers acquire the necessary skills. Support to bothpatentable and non-patentable innovations should also be strengthened tohelp private-sector firms adjust towards more scientific-knowledge-intensive sectors and products. Policies to facilitate rural development andnatural-resource-based industries and management should also see theirimportance rise to help LAC economies respond well to the higher demandand prices for commodities. Also, policies and private-sector initiativesshould aim to exploit the untapped opportunities offered by the growth ofthe two Asian economies’ internal markets through export and FDIpromotion activities, as well as helping LAC firms better integrate inglobal production chains. In the short term, negatively affected industriesand factors of production require stronger safety nets to help workersduring the transition.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II summarizesthe evidence about the positive aggregate effects of China and India’sgrowth in world trade markets, FDI flows, and innovation activities onLAC economies. Section III presents evidence on the effects of China andIndia’s growth within industries, concluding that negative effects arelimited to certain manufacturing and service sectors, in particular inMexico and to a lesser extent in Central America and the Caribbean.Section IV summarizes evidence of the effects of China and India’s growthon specialization patterns and factor adjustments, and actual and potentialpolicy responses by LAC Governments. Section V concludes bysummarizing the policy implications.

159


II. THE GROWTH OF CHINA AND INDIA IS NOT A ZERO-SUMGAME FOR LAC

As mentioned, the growth of China and India could have affectedLAC economies through at least three channels, namely trade, FDI andfinancial flows, and innovation. These topics are covered in the followingparagraphs.

Trade

Since the mid-1990s there has been a rising correlation of businesscycles between LAC and the two Asian economies. The exceptions areCentral America, where the correlation with China has been declining,especially after 1999, and Mexico which has had a stable correlation withChina, even though it has been increasing since the late 1990s (see Figure1). This suggests that the growth of China and India is being partiallymirrored by most LAC economies.

Figure 1.aExplaining the Rising Output Correlation between LAC and ChinaOutput Co-Movement: 10- year Window Rolling Correlations

LAC Sub-regions vis-à-vis China

160


Figure 1.bLAC Sub-regions vis-à-vis India

Source: Calderón (2007)

In a background paper for this study, Calderón (2007) built anempirical model to disentangle the forces behind this synchronization ofbusiness cycles. The author explains 55 percent of the change in outputcorrelation between LAC and China and 50 percent of the change betweenLAC and India through demand spillovers, changes in production structureasymmetries, bilateral intra-industry trade, and inter-industry trade.7 Asshown in Figure 2, most of the rising correlation with China can beattributed to demand spillovers,8 particularly in small LAC economies. 9

The same pattern is observed for India.

7 The degree of business cycle synchronization between countries is measured by the correla-tion between the cyclical components of real output. The cyclical component of real output isobtained using the band-pass filter proposed by Baxter and King (1999). Once the business cycle iscomputed for each country, Calderón (2007) calculates the correlation between de-trended output incountries i and j over the following non-overlapping 10-year periods: 1965-1974, 1975-1984, 1985-1994, and 1995-2004. He then regresses these correlations on variables that measure the degree oftrade integration, output specialization and demand spillovers controlling for other factors.

8 A word of caution is warranted here, as demand spillovers are identified using time dum-mies in a regression explaining the correlation of output. Other factors (common supply shifts forexample) could be captured by time dummies.

9 For Central America, demand spillovers also explain a large share of the declining outputcorrelation. This signals that the relative demand in China for goods produced in Central Americahas been declining, especially since the late 1990s.


Figure 2Explaining the Rising Output Correlation between LAC and China

Source: Calderón (2007).

Part of these demand spillovers can be explained by the risingcorrelation between Chinese and Indian business cycles, and worldcommodity prices, in which LAC tends to have a natural comparativeadvantage (see Figure 3).

Figure 3LAC’s Comparative Advantage inNatural-resource-intensive Products

Note: The natural resource index is calculated as the trade balance (exports minus imports) in ores,mineral, fuel, agricultural raw materials and food divided by the labor force. Units are U.S.$ perworker. MENA stands for Middle East and North Africa, EAS for East Asia, SSA for Sub SaharanAfrica, ECA for Eastern and Central Europe, SAS for SouthAsia, HOECD for high-income OECDcountries and TIG for the three original East Asian Tigers (Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong).Source: Perry and Olarreaga (2007).


The largest increase in correlation with China’s industrialproduction index occurred in metals and minerals (driven by copper, andsince 2004 by iron ore and zinc) as well as beverages (driven by coffee):see Figure 4. Although one has to be careful inferring causation from theseresults, the coefficient on the impact of Chinese industrial output on theworld price of crude oil is also large and increased from 0.81 at thebeginning of 2000 to 1.88 by the end of 2005. Sugar prices also seemed tohave benefited from the growth of China and India, whereas the price ofsoybeans and wheat shows a strong and rising correlation with the Chineseproduction index until late 2004, but has been declining since then. Similarpatterns are observed with the correlation of Indian industrial output andworld commodity prices, with the exception of minerals.

This rising correlation occurred as the share of China and India inworld demand for commodities increased significantly.10 Figure 5 showsthe share of China and India in world markets for selected commodities in1990 and 2004. For most commodities in Figure 5, China and India’s shareof world consumption has more than doubled over the period and is ashigh as 25 percent.

Figure 4.aChina and India: Impact on Commodity Prices

Industrial Production in China vs. World Commodity Prices Indices

10 The statistical significance of the correlation coefficients increases more sharply and thecoefficients are statistically different from zero from 2002 onwards.


Figure 4.bIndustrial Production in India vs. World Commodity Price Indices

Source: Calderón (2007)

Moreover, even though the absolute level is still small in somecommodities (e.g., petroleum), the change in quantities consumed byChina and India accounts for a larger share of world prices movementsobserved during the period (Figure 6).11

Figure 5Share of China in World Markets: Selected Commodities

Source: Lederman, Olarreaga and Rubiano (2007).

11 China and India have contributed on average to 12 percent of the increase in demand inworld markets over the period 1990-2004.


Figure 6China and India’s Contribution to the Growth in World Demand,

1990-2004: Selected Commodities

Source: Authors’ calculations using import data from the United Nations’ Comtrade.

The fact that the rising correlation in business cycles seems to bebetter explained by demand externalities, rather than by increases inbilateral trade flows, is confirmed by Lederman, Olarreaga and Soloaga(2007), who utilize a traditional gravity model of trade to explain both theimpact of China and India’s GDP growth on LAC’s exports to these twomarkets, as well as the impact that the growth of China and India’spresence in world markets had on LAC exports to third markets.12 Thepositive impact of the former is large but is dominated by the latter.

The impact of China’s GDP growth during the period 2000-2004 onits demand for LAC goods can explain around 7 percent of LAC’s exportsin 2004. In spite of the rapid increase in bilateral exports to China (andIndia) over the period 1990-2004 (see Figure 7) the estimated growth inChina’s demand for LAC exports was 28 percent higher than the observed

12 The gravity model of trade explains bilateral trade flows with economic size (GDP) ofimporters and exporters, the bilateral distance between trading partners, and other control vari-ables. To capture the impact of China and India’s growth on LAC exports to the two Asianeconomies’markets in a sample composed of Latin American exporters to and importers from theworld, Lederman et al. (2007) isolate the impact of China and India’s GDP growth on LAC’s bilat-eral exports by estimating sub-region-specific effects that vary by exporting and importing coun-try or sub-region. To control for the correlation between the expected value of bilateral trade flowsamong country pairs and the variance of their regression errors, which itself may be increasingwith trade flows, thus biasing estimates from linear regressions, they use a Negative Binomialestimator (see Santos Silva and Tenreyro 2005).


increase in exports, signaling some missed opportunities. The growth inChinese demand for commodities13 was even larger, representing 10percent of LAC exports in 2004, and accounting for 74 percent of theactual growth in LAC exports of commodities to China.14

Figure 7Share of LAC exports to China and India

Source: United Nations’ Comtrade

The estimated growth in Chinese demand for LAC goods was quiteuneven across LAC sub-regions. The last two columns of Table 1 presentthe estimated impact of China’s GDP growth on LAC exports to China byregion, both as a share of total LAC exports in 2004 and as a share ofLAC bilateral export growth. The largest estimated increases in Chinesedemand were for Southern Cone and Andean goods (with an increaseequivalent to 15 and 10 percent of their total exports, respectively). Theestimated growth in Chinese demand for Central American and Caribbeanproducts represented only 2 and 1 percent, respectively, of their totalexports in 2004.

0 5 10 15

Venezuela

Guatemala

MexicoEcuador

Colombia

BoliviaCosta Rica

NicaraguaLAC

Uruguay

BrazilArgentina

Chile

Peru

1990 2004

13 Commodities are here defined as goods falling in the HS 01 to HS 24 classification of theHarmonized System.

14 Thus, there is less evidence of missed opportunities in commodity exports.


Table 1Impact of China’s (and LAC’s) GDP Growth on

LAC Non-fuel Exports to China

Source: Lederman et al. (2007).

Note: When the p-value on the estimated coefficient is smaller than 0.10 the authors set column(iv) to 0, i.e., the predicted change in the left hand side variable is not different from zero.Numbers in bold are for the impact of China’s GDP growth on LAC exports (China demand).“Own supply” captures the impact of LAC’s GDP growth on their exports to China. The firstcolumn reports the estimated coefficient on the impact that China or LAC’s GDP has on bilateralexports of each LAC sub-region to China. The second column reports the p-value for the statisticalsignificance of the estimated coefficient. For any p-value above 10 percent, the authors set theestimated coefficient equal to zero in all other columns. The third column contains the in-samplechange in the explanatory variable (the log of the GDP of China or LAC). The fourth column givesthe product of the estimated coefficient with the change in the relevant explanatory variable. Thefifth column calculates the percentage change in bilateral exports to either China associated withthe values calculated in the fourth column. The sixth column provides the change on bilateralexports as a percentage of each sub-region total exports in 2004. The last column gives thecontribution to bilateral export growth over the period that can be attributed to the growth inChina’s demand or LAC’s sub-region supply associated with their respective increases in GDP

167


Table 1 also gives the estimated contribution of LAC’s sub-regions’GDP growth to their exports to China. With the exception of CentralAmerica, whose GDP growth had a marginally positive impact on itsexports to China, the impact of all other sub-regions’ GDP growth on theirexports to China is not statistically different from zero.

The estimated change in Indian demand for LAC products was alsoimpressive. It represented 112 percent of LAC exports to India over theperiod, again signaling some missed opportunities. However, given thatthe size of the bilateral trade with India is quite small, this growth in Indiandemand for LAC products only accounted for less than 0.5 percent of LACexports in 2004 (driven by Andean countries and the Southern Cone). Theincrease in Indian demand for LAC commodities was negligible.

In terms of the impact of the growing Chinese presence in worldmarkets on LAC exports to third markets, Lederman et al. (2007) found noevidence of net substitutability.15 Rather, the growth in Chinese exports tothird markets led to an increase (although not statistically significant) inLAC exports to these markets, signaling demand complementarities at theaggregate level. However, it is likely that these opportunities have not fullymaterialized. The authors also found a positive and statistically significantimpact of Chinese exports to LAC on LAC exports to third markets,suggesting that imports of a larger variety of cheaper Chinese intermediategoods are positively affecting LAC’s competitiveness in third markets.There is also evidence of “learning by exporting”, as LAC exports toChina have a positive and statistically significant impact on LAC exportsto third markets. In the case of India, however, there is some mild evidenceof net substitutability between Indian trade flows and LAC exports to thirdmarkets through some channels (Indian imports from third markets), butthat is partly compensated by complementarities through other channels(exports of India to third markets, and exports of India to LAC).

Overall these results suggest that the growth of China and India inworld markets has created opportunities for LAC. The growth of Chinaand India’s demand over the period 2000-2004 accounts for 8 percent ofLAC exports in 2004 (mainly driven by China). However, this remains anuntapped opportunity that has not been fully exploited, especially byexporters in the Southern Cone and amongAndean countries. There is also

15 The growing Chinese or Indian presence is captured by exports of China or India to thesame third market.


no economically significant evidence of substitution between China andIndia’s trade flows and LAC’s exports to third markets. On the contrary,LAC exporters seem to have been benefiting from the growing presence ofthe two Asian economies in world markets, particularly China.

Another of the background papers for this study examines theimpact on LAC economies of future trade policy changes in China andIndia. Suescún (2007) builds a dynamic general equilibrium model of theworld economy to assess the short- and long-term implications of futuretariff reductions in China and India. The first experiment considers aunilateral gradual reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers on primarygoods to the levels observed in developed countries (an 80 to 90 percentreduction of trade barriers on primary goods). The second experiment alsoincludes the reduction of tariffs on manufactured goods to the levelsobserved in developed countries. The third experiment takes into accountthat these tariff reductions may take place in a high-growth environment inChina and India, by increasing the initial productivity growth rate of thetwo Asian economies by 2 percent.

Results from Suescún (2007), as shown in Figure 8, suggest animprovement in LAC exports under the three scenarios, driven mainly byLAC manufacturing exports. The reason for this is that China and India’sprotection of the manufacturing sector is above the level of protection oftheir agricultural sector.16 As the Chinese and Indian economies liberalize,this creates relatively larger opportunities for LAC exporters ofmanufacturing. Figure 8 shows the deviation from the trend in LAC’s totalexports and manufacturing exports under the three scenarios mentionedabove. Thirty years after having introduced the initial shocks, LAC’s totalexports increased between 1 and 3 percent depending on the experimentrelative to their trend level.17 The increase in LAC’s manufacturingexports under the second and third experiments is much larger: an increase

16 Although agricultural domestic subsidies are not included in these calculations, these arequite important in both China and India.

17 Note that the first experiment E1 has a positive impact on LAC’s manufacturing exports.The reason for this is twofold. First, as primary good prices in China and India fall, their producersof intermediate goods based on primary goods redirect their sales to world markets. This benefitsusers of such goods in LAC and other regions. Second, as the price of these goods declines inChina and India, this leads to a positive income effect in China and India that will lead to anincrease in their demand for manufacturing goods, and therefore an increase in LAC’s manufac-turing exports. Obviously, the increase in LAC’s primary good exports under experiment E1islarger than the increase in LAC’s manufacturing exports.


of between 3 and 5 percent relative to their trend level thirty years afterhaving introduced the initial shock.

This suggests that bilateral trade agreements with China and Indiaor multilateral agreements in the current Doha Round of trade negotiationsmay help LAC exporters, particularly in the manufacturing sector, whichis where China and India’s growth has been associated with someeconomic adjustment, particularly in Mexico.18

Figure 8LAC Export Growth after Simulated Tariff Reductions

in China and India

LAC exports of manufacturing

Notes: Each line denotes the percentage deviation from the trend in export growth in LAC afterthree different shocks. Experiment E1 considers a gradual reduction of tariff and non-tariffbarriers on primary goods to the levels observed in developed countries. Experiment E2 alsoincludes the reduction of tariffs on manufactured goods to the levels observed in developedcountries. The third experiment E3, in addition to tariff reductions, increases the initialproductivity growth rate of the two Asian economies by 2 percent.Source: Suescún (2007).

FDI and financial flows

Chinese and Indian FDI in the region has been growing steadilysince the mid-1990s. Chinese FDI in LAC reached U.S.$4 billion in 2004,and both Chinese and Indian FDI in the region has been growing fast inrecent years.19 This simply reflects the emergence of China and India as

18 Note that Suescún does not consider bilateral or multilateral tariff reductions in his setup.

19 For example, Bolivia is expected to approve in fall 2006 a $2.3bn bid by Jindal Steel andPower of India to extract one of the world’s largest untapped iron ore deposits. See Aykut andGoldstein (2006).


exporters of capital to world markets. In 2004 China was among the topten countries in terms of net foreign asset holdings, and while India wasstill a net debtor the trend was towards becoming a net creditor. Asdiscussed by Lane and Schmukler (2006), more than 80 percent of theseholdings were in reserve assets. However, as China and India liberalizeprivate capital outflows, the potential for them to become a major sourceof portfolio and foreign direct investment in LAC is large.20 Moreimportantly, regardless of whether China and India’s capital flows areaimed at LAC markets, their growth accompanied by an increase in netforeign lending has contributed to lowering the cost of capital for LAC netdebtors.

Moreover, China has become active in the region in terms ofbilateral aid, especially in Central America and the Caribbean region.Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, and Honduras have benefited fromChinese aid in the last ten years, including the construction of hospitals,schools, and roads, reconstruction after hurricanes, etc.21 Part of this aidcould also be used to promote bilateral investment and trade relationshipswhich, as argued above, are below potential (at least in Central America).

In terms of China and India’s potential to displace inflows of FDIinto LAC, similar aggregate patterns to the ones observed for trade arefound using an empirical model based on the Knowledge-Capital Model(KCM) of multinational enterprises, which allows for both horizontal andvertical motivations for FDI.22 In a background paper for this study,Cravino, Lederman and Olarreaga (2006) explore the extent to which

20 A Chinese 2002 pilot scheme to promote outward FDI was extended nationally last year,and earlier this year, the government launched a qualified domestic institutional investor programaimed at increasing the ability of domestic residents to invest in foreign securities including stocksand bonds. Restrictions to outflows of FDI in India are also being removed (Lane and Schmukler,2006).

21 Part of the motivation behind this bilateral aid is associated with the recognition of Taiwan:of the 26 countries in the world that recognize Taiwan, 11 are in Central America and theCaribbean region (Dominguez, 2006).

22 See Carr, Markusen, and Maskus (2001). In the Knowledge-Capital Model (KCM), bilat-eral FDI stocks are explained by variables that capture horizontal and vertical motives for FDI.Horizontal motives are captured by the sum of source-country and host-country GDPs as a meas-ure of total market size, and the squared GDP differences. According to the KCM, the coefficienton the sum of GDP should be positive, since larger markets should attract multinational enterpris-es. The KCM predicts that, controlling for the sum of GDP, differences in country size discouragehorizontal FDI. The intuition is that when one of the countries is small, multinational firms wouldopen production facilities mostly in large economies. Vertical motives are captured by the absolutevalue of differences in skilled labor abundance between the source and the host country. Themodel also includes other control variables to capture investment and trade costs.

23 Cravino, Lederman, and Olarreaga (2006) use various estimators: OLS, Poisson to correct


increases in OECD’s aggregate FDI in China and India came at theexpense of FDI in LAC. They found that China and India’s FDI inflowshad a positive effect overall on the stocks of OECD capital in LAC, butalso in the rest of the world.23 There are some exceptions when theauthors focus on the manufacturing sector (using U.S. data), but resultsare not robust across specifications and will be discussed in the nextsection.

Regardless of whether LAC’s FDI is a complement or a substituteto growing stocks of FDI in China and India, Cravino, Lederman andOlarreaga (2007) assess the overall performance of LAC relative to Chinaand India, by comparing the stocks of FDI in LAC relative to the twoAsian economies. In spite of the rapid growth of foreign capital in Chinaand India, OECD’s stocks of FDI in LAC in 2003 were much larger thanthe stocks of FDI in China and India, after controlling for the relative sizeof the economies. Table 2 shows the ratio of stocks of FDI divided byGDP in some LAC countries relative to the same ratio for China, India,and Hong Kong and China together.24 The first column on each of thethree control groups provides the values of the aggregate stock of FDIfrom the OECD, the second column provides values for U.S. stocks ofFDI, and the third column provides values for U.S. stocks of FDI in themanufacturing sector. As can be seen from Table 2, stocks of FDI in LACwere larger than stocks of FDI in China or India in most countries in 2003after controlling for the economic size of the host-country economy. Thiseven holds for U.S. stocks of FDI in the manufacturing sector with theexception of Argentina and Guatemala relative to China and Hong Kong.

In sum, the results of Cravino et al. (2007 and 2006) suggest thatfears of a global competition for FDI seem misplaced in light of the data.The overwhelming evidence is that growing investment opportunities forthe OECD in the Chinese and Indian markets have led to more OECD FDIin LAC, as production possibilities expand for OECD’s multinationalfirms.

for the correlation between the expected value of bilateral capital stocks and the variance of theirregression errors, and Negative Binomial to control for over-dispersion (the increasing correlationbetween the expected capital stocks and the variance of their regression errors).

24 Hong Kong has been a part of China since 1997 and therefore should be considered partof the Chinese economy. Moreover, some observers have argued that China’s and Hong Kong’strade data should be combined to approximate the trade flows coming from China mainland dueto transshipments of merchandise through Hong Kong.

25 There is also an indirect effect of China and India’s growth on the price of new technolo-


Table 2OECD Stocks of FDI in LAC Relative to their Stock of FDI in Chinaand India, Controlling for Host-country Economic Size, 2003

Note: Values represent the ratio of stocks of FDI divided by GDP in each LAC country relative tothe stock of FDI divided by GDP in either China, China and Hong Kong, or India. In the case ofmanufacturing FDI we take the stocks of FDI relative to manufacturing value added. Data is fromUNCTAD, OECD, BEA, WDI and China Statistical Yearbook, 2003.Source: Cravino et al. (2007).

Innovation

The rising integration of India and China with the global economymight also have had repercussions for the growth of other economiesthrough their contributions to global knowledge. For instance, innovationsproduced by Indian and Chinese researchers might have commercialapplications that could provide learning opportunities for innovatorsresiding in other countries.25 It is also possible, however, that the patternsof innovation of these emerging economies could be competing withinnovations emanating from other countries. When these innovations arepatentable, then this competition might imply losses of economic rents forinnovators in other developing countries, including in LAC. Figure 9 showsthat, in fact, the growth of India and China and their increasing globaleconomic integration during the 1990s has been associated with increasedpatenting activity in the United States Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO). It is particularly noteworthy that Indian and Chinese patenting

gies for LAC. As their growth as export processors increases the demand for new technologies,this increases incentives to invest in R&D in the OECD, which lowers the price of new technolo-gies in LAC.

26 See Government of Chile. 2004. Joint Feasibility Study on a Free Trade Agreement


activity came from very low levels in the late 1980s and recently surpassedLAC’s total patent counts. Nevertheless, these facts do not necessarilysuggest that LAC is losing out from India’s and China’s performance.

Figure 9Indian, Chinese and LAC Patenting Activity in the United States,

1963-2004

Source: Authors’ calculations.

To assess the extent to which patenting activity by China and Indiais affecting the patent counts received by LAC innovators, we conductedan econometric investigation of the empirical links between past patentingactivity in LAC, China, India, and the rest of world, while estimating at thesame time the effects of contemporaneous patenting activity across theseregions of the world. The intuition behind these econometric models issimple: innovation in LAC today can be affected by past accumulatedknowledge, by current patterns of innovation, and by current investment inresearch and development (R&D). The results suggest that there are noapparent significant effects of contemporaneous patenting by India andChina on patents received by LAC innovators. The results do suggest,however, that past knowledge provided by the stock of patentsaccumulated prior to 1981 is feeding the process of innovation incontemporary LAC. The main policy implication that can be derived fromthis evidence is that there is potential for promoting innovation withcommercial value in LAC by learning from innovators in India andperhaps China. Consequently, scientific exchange and cooperationprograms between LAC and these emerging economic powerhousesshould be pursued. In fact, some LAC countries are already pursuing thisagenda. For example, Chile’s recent signing of a trade agreement with


China was accompanied by a scientific and research cooperationagreement.26

III. IMPACT OF CHINAAND INDIA’S GROWTH WITHIN INDUSTRIES

If, at the aggregate level, the rapid growth of China and India seemsto be helping LAC, or at worst has no impact, this is not necessarily thecase when measuring the impact at the industry or firm level, whenpositive externalities (complementarities) across industries are not takeninto account. When focusing the analysis at the industry level the potentialfor substitutability between LAC exporters and Chinese and Indianexporters to third markets is much stronger.

Using a gravity-type empirical model for bilateral exports at theindustry level, based on a monopolistic competition model of trade, andabstracting from general equilibrium effects, Hanson and Robertson (2007)explored the impact of the increased supply capacity of China onArgentina,Brazil, Chile and Mexico’s manufacturing exports at the industry level.Their analysis focused on the top manufacturing exports of these fourcountries which represent at least 85 percent of their manufacturing exports(metals, machinery, electronics, transport, and industrial equipment).

More specifically, they ran a regression of bilateral sectoral exportson importer country dummies, exporter country dummies, and factors thataffect trade costs (bilateral distance, sharing a land border, sharing acommon language, belonging to a free trade area, import tariffs). Whenthese importer and exporter dummies are allowed to vary by sector and byyear, they can be interpreted as functions of structural parameters andcountry-specific prices and income levels that determine a country’sexport supply and import demand. They then decompose manufacturingexport growth for the four LAC countries into three components: (a)changes in sectoral export-supply capacity, (b) changes in import-demandconditions in a country’s trading partners, and (c) trade costs and otherresidual factors. Changes in import-demand conditions can, in turn, bedecomposed into two parts, one of which captures changes in incomelevels in import markets and another of which captures changes in sectoralimport price indices for those markets, which are themselves a function ofother countries’ export-supply capacities, including China.

between Chile and China. www.direcon.cl27 Causality is derived using Chinese tariffs as instruments for Chinese export variety.


Results suggest that within manufacturing industries, LatinAmerica’s export capabilities tend to be relatively strong in industries inwhich China’s export capabilities are also strong, suggesting the region isrelatively vulnerable in these specific sectors to export-supply shocks fromChina. While changes in Latin America’s export-supply capacities havecontributed to growth in exports, changes in Latin America’s import-demand conditions have not, at least since 2000. They examined twosources of negative import-demand shocks: China’s growth in exportsupply, which may have lowered import prices in destination markets anddiverted import demand away from Latin America; and the slowdown inthe growth of the U.S. economy, which may have reduced growth indemand for the region’s exports. The results suggest that had China’sexport-supply capacity remained constant after 1995, exports for the fourLatin American countries would have been 0.5 to 1.2 percentage pointshigher during the 1995-2000 period and 1.1 to 3.1 percentage points higherduring the 2000-2004 period. Had U.S. GDP growth been the same overthe 2000-2004 period as it was over the 1995-2000 period, Latin Americanmanufacturing exports would have been 0.2 to 1.4 percentage points higher(see Table 3).

Table 3Counterfactual Decompositions of Latin American Export Growth

Notes: This table reports actual and counterfactual export growth in Latin American countries basedon two scenarios: U.S. GDP growth over 2000-2004 equals that for 1995-2000, and China’s export-supply capacity remains constant over the sample period (1995 to 2004) at levels equal to 1995 values.Source: Hanson and Robertson (2007).


In another background paper for this study, Freund and Ozden(2007) undertook a similar exercise covering all manufacturing andagricultural goods. They estimated a trade-gravity model in firstdifferences, where the change in LAC exports by country at the industrylevel is explained by exporting country dummies that vary by year tocapture changes in export supply conditions and importing countrydummies that also vary by year to capture changes in overall demandconditions in each market, as well as product dummies that vary by yearbut only at the two-digit level of the ISIC. The impact of China on LACexports to third markets is captured by the change in China’s exports tothird markets. A negative and statistically significant coefficient on thislast variable would indicate that in that industry Chinese exports arehurting LAC exporters of the same products.

Freund and Ozden also found that increased exports from China aremainly hurting Mexican exporters of manufacturing goods, namelytextiles, electronics and electrical appliances, and telecommunicationsequipment. In spite of the differences in specification and estimationtechniques, the results by Freund and Ozden are qualitatively similar tothose estimated by Hanson and Robertson. Freund and Ozden found largeimpacts for Mexico in electronics and telecommunications equipment. Inother industries, such as textiles, they found smaller numbers whichindicate that Mexico’s exports are 1 percentage point smaller in theabsence of China’s export growth to third markets. Freund and Ozden doreport some negative impacts for other LAC regions (i.e., CentralAmerica), and again for manufacturing exports only, but the impacts arenot economically meaningful. When focusing on the impact by industry(two digits of the Harmonized System), they found that of the 97 two-digitindustries only 16 experienced a statistically significant decline in exportsto third markets due to growing exports of those same products by Chinato these same markets. Overall, the results of Hanson and Robertson andFreund and Ozden suggest that there is some evidence of substitutabilitybetween LAC exports and Chinese exports to third markets withinindustries, but these effects are limited to a few countries (mainly Mexicoand, to a minor extent, Central America) and a few manufacturing sectors.

Services is a sector where India in particular has outperformed LACin terms of export growth. However, LAC’s exports of services to theUnited States are still seven times larger than exports of services by Chinaand India combined (see Figure 10). This partly reflects the importance ofproximity for the delivery of services, for example in tourism, which is

177


particularly important for the Caribbean region, and where Indian andChinese competition may not be very strong.

Using a similar approach to the one in Freund and Ozden (2007)described above, Freund (2007) explores the extent of substitutabilitybetween LAC and Indian exports of services to the United States. Usingpanel data on business, professional, and technical services, she finds noevidence that Indian exports have significantly displaced LAC exports ofservices. When the analysis is undertaken by service industry, she findsrobust evidence of displacement in only one sub-sector, namely otherbusiness, professional and technical services, where a one percent increasein growth from India has been associated with a 0.3 percent decline ingrowth from LAC. However, this is a “catch all” category so it is difficultto pinpoint the true economic importance.

Figure 10United States’ Imports of Services by Region, 1994-2004

Notes: SCM stands for South America, Central America and Mexico.Source: Freund (2007).

In the other eight service sub-sectors considered, there is either noimpact or a positive and statistically significant impact on LAC exports tothe U.S., again suggesting some complementarities. Nonetheless, whenIndia’s export growth is weighted by the importance of India in eachmarket, Freund finds a negative and statistically significant impact in foursub-sectors (legal services, research and development and testing services,industrial engineering, and other business, professional and technicalservices), and a positive and statistically significant impact in one sub-sector (construction and engineering services). In the other four industriesthere is no statistically significant effect.


China’s export growth to third markets may not only be hurtingexisting LAC exporters (the so-called intensive margin), but also exportersof goods and services that have not yet been exported (the so-calledextensive margin). In a background paper for this study, Feenstra and Kee(2007) focus on the extent to which the growing export variety from Chinato the U.S. market decreased the extent of export variety from Mexico.They found that every 1 percentage point increase in export variety fromChina (which has been growing at an average of 3 percent per year) hasled to a half percentage point reduction in export variety from Mexico.27

However, this has been more than compensated by Mexico’s preferentialaccess to the U.S. market which has led to a 2 to 4 percent increase inexport variety from Mexico for every percentage point reduction inpreferential tariffs. In fact, the semi-elasticity between tariff cuts andexport variety estimated by Feenstra and Kee is higher when thecompetition from Chinese exports is taken into account. This result haslong-term implications, as increases in export variety have been shown topositively affect total factor productivity and growth in a sample ofdeveloping countries (Feenstra and Kee, 2006).

In terms of FDI substitutability and complementarities withinindustries, Table 2 above provides some numbers regarding the relativeimportance of U.S. stocks of FDI in LAC’s manufacturing sector relativeto U.S. stocks of FDI in China and India. With the exception of Argentinaand Guatemala when compared to the aggregate of Hong Kong and China,all countries in LAC have a larger stock of U.S. manufacturing FDI.Cravino, Lederman, and Olarreaga (2006) use the KCM model wedescribed above for aggregate FDI to measure the extent of substitutabilitywith respect to U.S. FDI in the manufacturing sector. As mentioned, theseauthors found no robust evidence of substitution or complementaritiesbetween LAC’s stocks of U.S. FDI in the manufacturing sector and Chinaand India’s. Fears of losing foreign capital in the manufacturing sector toChina and India seem unfounded. However, given that at the aggregatelevel they found strong complementarities, the fears may be explained bythe relative performance.

28 Part of the higher price of Mexico, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic in Figure 11is explained by their increasing preferential access to the U.S. market, but results regarding quality


IV. FACTOR ADJUSTMENTS, SPECIALIZATION PATTERNS, ANDPOLICY RESPONSES

Positive impacts of China and India’s growth at the aggregate levelin LAC, together with some negative impacts at the industry level, suggestwithin- and across-industry adjustments, as well as some potential policyresponses by LAC’s governments.

Freund and Ozden (2007) found evidence of quality downgradingin Central America, using a price equation that explains changes in LACunit export prices to third markets as a result of changes in the size of theexport market and changes in prices and imports from China. For theother sub-regions, there is no statistically significant evidence one way orthe other, except on overall exports of LAC to the OECD where there isweak evidence of quality upgrading as competition from Chinaintensifies.

Focusing on the apparel industry, which has been hit strongly bycompetition from China and India after the removal of GATT’s Textilesand Clothing Agreement quotas under the Multi-Fiber Agreement,Ozden (2006) observes that different countries have shown differentadjustment patterns. Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Mexicotook advantage of the Caribbean Basin Initiative preferences andNAFTA to initially increase their export volume. However, with theremoval of MFA quotas, they moved to higher priced/quality exports(see Figure 11).28 El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras did not seem toimplement any structural changes in their apparel industry but simplyincreased their production and exports at the same quality/price level.Nicaragua and Haiti were new entrants to the apparel markets and theirexports increased dramatically, but under competition from Asiancountries they moved down the quality ladder to lower priced/qualityexports.29

upgrading for Costa Rica and Nicaragua hold after controlling for tariff preferences.

29 One has to be careful in attributing these changes to the removal of the MFA quotas andthe growing presence of China and India in these markets. Other factors such as preferences to theUnited States markets (which Ozden controls for in his econometric framework) may be partlydriving these results.

30 The RCA index used corresponds to the Vollrath (2001) measure, which captures the netcomparative advantage of a country in a given industry by also taking into account imports. The


Figure 11Relative Export Prices of Apparel, 1989-2004

Note: Export prices for each group are calculated relative to the average U.S. import price.Source: Ozden (2006)

Using an index of potential industry wages –measured by the exportweighted sum of GDP per capita— Freund and Ozden (2007) observedthat LAC is moving toward higher-wage products, though at a rather slowrate, especially when compared with China. There is also some evidencethat China is depressing LACs’s upward movement, as China is displacingLAC in some relatively high-wage industries.

This is also confirmed by Lederman, Olarreaga, and Rubiano(2007), who found that LAC and China’s specialization patterns exhibitsome substitutability for skilled-labor-intensive industries but appearunrelated in unskilled-labor-intensive industries. In the case of India,however, there are signs of strong substitutability in both unskilled andskilled-intensive industries suggesting that India is putting pressure onlabor at both ends of the skill spectrum. Lederman, Olarreaga, andRubiano also found evidence of strong complementarities between LAC’sand China and India’s specialization pattern in natural-resource-intensiveindustries and to some extent industries intensive in scientific knowledge.Without China and India’s growth, and the induced increase in theirdemand for commodities since the mid-1990s, LAC’s revealedcomparative advantage in natural resources would have been 30 percentsmaller, and the revealed comparative advantage in scientific-knowledge-intensive industries would have been 17 percent smaller. This suggests thatthe growth of China and India may be pushing LAC towards sectorsintensive in these two factors and away from both skilled- and unskilled-


labor-intensive industries. Indeed, they found that there may have beensome scope for substitutability in the trade specialization patterns of LAC,and of China and India in the early 1990s, but with the exception ofMexico, LAC and the two Asian economies have been moving apart intheir trade specialization pattern.

The evolution of the correlation between Chinese and IndianRevealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) and the RCAs for an aggregateof thirteen LAC countries between 1990 and 2004 is shown in Figure 12.30

The line indicated with a “star” shows the correlation with China and thestraight line the correlation with India. At the beginning of the period, thecorrelation between Chinese and Indian RCAs and LAC RCAs waspositive but modest (around 0.2), suggesting that China and India werespecializing in the same products as LAC. However, the trend is clearlydownwards and by the end of the period, the correlation with China wasaround -0.2 and the correlation with India was close to zero. This suggeststhat by the end of the period, LAC’s trade specialization pattern wascomplementary to the Chinese specialization pattern and unrelated to theIndian one. The same pattern is observed for all countries with theexception of Mexico.

Figure 12 also shows the evolution of an export concentrationHerfindhal index (higher values indicate a more concentrated exportbundle), where the vertical axis on the right provides the scale and theline with triangles shows the evolution of the index. The evidencesuggests that LAC as a whole has been moving towards higherconcentration of its export bundle since the mid-1990s.31 During thesame period China has moved towards a more concentrated exportbundle, in particular since the mid-1990s, whereas India has shown somediversification. Overall this suggests that the explanation behind thefalling correlation between LAC and China is that LAC and China aremoving towards more specialization but in a different set of products. In

RCA index is also normalized by the country-year means so that it is comparable across time andcountries.

31 There is a move towards export diversification at the beginning of the 1990s, probablyprompted by LAC’s trade reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as also shown in De Ferrantiet al. (2002), but this has been followed by a move toward specialization as trade theory wouldpredict, but also partly explained by the commodity boom. The trends in Figure 12 are dominatedby the large LAC economies, Brazil and Mexico.

32 This assumes that production and adjustment costs are separable. But without this assump-tion it is impossible to estimate factor shortages without having a measure of adjustment costs.


the case of India, the trend would also be explained by the diversificationof India’s export bundle.

Figure 12Is LAC Competing in the Same Products as China and India?

Source: Authors’ Calculations

Concerns about the potential adjustments costs faced by LatinAmerican firms subject to increased import competition from China andIndia in their domestic market led Casacuberta and Gandelman (2007) toexamine whether firms that were exposed to competition from the twoAsian economies were subject to higher adjustment costs for unskilledlabor, skilled labor, and capital. They measured the impact of adjustmentcosts on firms’ behavior by looking at the extent to which firms adjust totheir factor shortages from one period to the next. Factor shortages aredefined as the difference between actual levels of factor employment anddesired levels of factor employment; the latter are given by optimal factordemands derived from a Cobb-Douglas production framework in africtionless world.32

Casacuberta and Gandelman found that only a small share of factorshortages or surpluses are addressed by firms from one period to another,which they interpret as a signal of large adjustment costs in a sample ofUruguayan manufacturing firms. However, increasing competition fromChina and India only marginally changes the extent of the adjustment,

33Wages, capital stock, and import and export penetration are instrumented using lagged val-ues, the share of unskilled labor in the industry, and a proxy for transport costs.


even though adjustment costs seem to be marginally higher for both skilledand unskilled labor in the presence of factor surpluses (i.e., when firmswould like to reduce their level of factor employment) when competitionfrom China and India is strong. On the other hand, adjustment costs seemto be marginally lower for skilled and unskilled labor in the presence offactor shortages (i.e., when firms would like to hire).

A potential explanation for this asymmetry lies in the perceivedvolatility of Chinese and Indian imports. If these are perceived to be morevolatile than imports from other regions (because they are new players inworld markets, with a relatively more distant trading partner and withwidely different cultural and business practices), then one would expectfirms to be more reluctant to fire workers and more willing to hire workerswhen exposed to more import competition from China or India rather thanfrom more established and better understood trading partners. The dataconfirms this with a coefficient of variation for imports from China andIndia that is twice the coefficient of variation of imports from the rest ofthe world. Addressing the causes of this volatility (which can sometimesbe policy-induced, e.g., antidumping duties, non-tariff barriers, etc.) islikely to help reduce the adjustment cost in the presence of surpluses.

An important concern for policymakers associated with the growingpresence of China and India in LAC markets (see Figure 13) is the impactthis competition may have on employment, and in particular labor-intensive manufacturing employment, where China and India’scomparative advantage lies. Manufacturing employment has significantlydeclined in the region, while imports from China and India were growing.A quick back-of-the-envelope analysis would suggest that the two Asianeconomies carry the blame for the loss of employment opportunities inmanufacturing activities in LAC.

Amore careful analysis suggests otherwise. Castro, Olarreaga, andSaslavsky (2007), explored the impact that growing imports from Chinaand India had on manufacturing employment inArgentina, which is amongthe countries in the region that experienced the largest declines inmanufacturing employment over the last decade (31 percent), whileexperiencing an important increase in import penetration from China (seeFigure 13). These authors built a dynamic econometric model where labordemand in each industry is a function of wages, the capital stock, prices,and productivity. The last two (prices and productivity) are a function ofimport and export penetration, which allow them to identify the impact

184


that trade with China and India is having through these two channels onlabor demand in Argentina’s manufacturing sector.33

Figure 13Share of China and India in Latin American Imports,

1990 versus 2004

Source: United Nations’ Comtrade

Results suggest that increased trade with China can only explain anegligible share of the decline inArgentina’s manufacturing labor demand.Moreover, the increase in overall import penetration during the periodcould only explain a relatively small share of the decline in manufacturingemployment.34 To be more precise, a 1 percent increase in importpenetration leads to a 0.07 percent decline in labor demand. Given thatimport penetration increased by 79 percent over the sample period (1991-2003), the decline in labor demand that can be attributed to the increase inimport penetration is around 6 percent. As manufacturing employmentdeclined by 31 percent over the sample period, the increase in importpenetration can at most explain 20 percent of the observed loss inmanufacturing employment. The other 80 percent had other causes (laborlegislation, privatization, technological change, etc…). Moreover, theincreased importance of China as a source of imports had an almost

34 Hoekman and Winters (2005) in their recent survey of the evidence on the links betweentrade and employment conclude that there is no robust evidence either way, particularly in themanufacturing sector of developing countries.

35 The use of antidumping duties by LAC on imports from China will be limited by mostLAC countries’ recognition of China as a “market economy” last year. This affects the flexibility


negligible marginal impact on the decline in labor demand associated withthe increase in overall imports. An increase in the share of imports fromChina of 1 percentage point led to an additional 0.02 percent decline in thegrowth of Argentina’s labor demand. Thus, the six-fold increase in theshare of imports from China over the period (from 1 to 6 percent) couldonly explain an additional 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the observed decline inlabor demand. Results for India suggest that the increase in its share ofArgentina’s imports has had no impact on labor demand (beyond theoverall impact of import penetration on labor demand).

Perhaps surprisingly, export penetration does not seem to affectlabor demand in Argentina’s manufacturing industry. The reason could bethat exports do increase output and therefore labor demand, but they arealso often accompanied by export-induced technological change that islabor-saving. The evidence suggests that in Argentina these two forcescancel out and there is no large impact on employment. This implies thatChinese and Indian competition in third markets may not be having muchof an impact onArgentina’s manufacturing employment either. This result,however, may not carry over to countries subject to a higher degree ofcompetition in third markets, such as Mexico.

In terms of LAC governments’ responses to the growth of importsfrom China and India into the region, Facchini et al. (2007) found thattariffs tended to be higher on products heavily imported from China, butlower on goods imported from India. The evidence they provide is notlimited to tariffs, however: non-tariff barriers have become a predominantform of protectionism and Chinese exporters have been particularly hit byLAC countries, while Indian exporters enjoyed below-average levels ofprotection in LAC. For example, Brazil initiated 15 antidumping casesagainst China as notified to the WTO;Argentina, 40 cases; and in the early1990s Mexico imposed antidumping duties over 1,000 percent on importsof shoes, toys, and textiles from China (Dominguez et al., 2006). Togetherthey have initiated more cases against China than the European Union, theUnited States, or Canada.35

They explained the differences in protection levels vis à vis Chinaand India using a lobbying model with imperfect substitution between

they enjoyed earlier under WTO rules to set high and discretionary duties, even though Article VIof GATT which regulates antidumping duties is quite flexible and subject to abuse.

36 Quality proximity is proxied by the absolute value of the difference in the share of industrylevel exports to the TRIAD.


domestically produced goods and imported goods. They found thatincentives to lobby were higher when products were close substitutes tothe ones domestically produced, resulting in higher tariffs in equilibrium.After bringing the model to the data, they found that this was a reasonableexplanation for the higher tariffs observed on goods imported from China,as estimates suggest that they are closer substitutes to domesticallyproduced goods than goods imported from the rest of the world. Similarly,it can also explain the lower levels of protection on goods imported fromIndia, as estimates suggest that goods imported from India are more distantsubstitutes to domestically produced goods than goods imported from therest of the world. However, given that production efficiency losses arelikely to be higher in goods with higher substitution, this suggests that theprotectionist response is occurring in sectors where they most hurt.

Protectionist responses can also occur behind the border.Baroncelli, Krivonos and Olarreaga (2007) measured the degree ofdiscrimination vis à vis foreign applicants in the trademark registrationprocess in China, India, and Latin America, with the differences in the rateof registration of foreign and domestic applicants. They found somesignificant differences in the rate of registration of LAC trademarks inChina with respect to domestic applicants, as well as between the rate ofregistration of Chinese and domestic trademarks in LAC’s trademarkregistration offices (see Figure 14 for evidence of trademark protectionismtowards China in LAC).

They explain this pattern using a model with verticallydifferentiated goods, and show that incentives to discriminate againstrelatively close substitutes are larger, as they lead to larger increases inprofits for domestic producers and smaller declines in consumer welfare.On the other hand, incentives to discriminate towards products at oppositeends of the quality spectrum are small, as any discrimination would becaptured by other producers in the middle of the quality spectrum. Theythen confront the model to the data and find some evidence thatdiscrimination in the trademark registration process tends to be higheragainst applicants from countries that produce goods that are of similarquality.36 The high substitutability between Chinese goods and LAC’sgoods estimated by Facchini et al. (2007) would then explain why theremay be higher trademark protectionism between LAC and China.

37 As shown by Lederman, Olarreaga and Payton (2006) in a background paper for aRegional Study on Enhancing Firm Capabilities, export promotion agencies in Latin Americahave been particularly successful at promoting exports in recent years. However, their focus has


Figure 14Trademark Protection or Protectionism towards China in LAC?

Notes: The discrimination in trademark registration index is measured as the ratio of foreignapplications divided by foreign registrations, divided by domestic applications divided bydomestic registrations. Any value above 1 suggests that there is a tendency towards registering alower number of foreign trademark applications than domestic applications.Source: Baroncelli, Krivonos and Olarreaga (2007)

V. POLICY IMPLICATIONSIn general, the evidence discussed in this study suggests that LAC

countries should reshuffle their development-policy priorities in responseto the emergence of China and India in global markets. The highercorrelation between the business cycles of LAC and the two Asianeconomies is mainly driven by demand spillovers, largely explained by thehigh correlation between China and India’s industrial output and worldcommodity prices. This suggests that the current commodity boom that isbenefiting LAC is largely dependent on the continuing growth of the twoAsian economies. Fragilities in China and India’s economies, or changesin consumer preferences, should therefore be tracked with particularattention by those LAC economies that have a large share of their economyattached to natural-resource-intensive products.

As indicated, partly under pressure from China and India, LAC’sspecialization patterns have been shifting towards higher natural-resourceand knowledge-intensive activities and products. To facilitate this shift andincrease the potential benefits from it, LAC countries should improve theirnatural resource management and rural development policies, while at thesame time strengthening policies and institutions for the promotion ofskills and innovation (patentable or not).

188


In terms of trade policies, both at the border and behind the border,there is evidence that there has been a protectionist response on the part ofLAC governments to the growth of imports from China in particular,partly due to the larger vertical and horizontal product substitutabilitybetween domestically produced goods and goods imported from China.This is costly in terms of efficiency and also for users of importedintermediate goods, who cannot take full advantage of cheaper inputs toimprove their competitiveness in world markets. Giving more weight toconsumers and users of imported intermediate goods in the trade policyformation process may yield better outcomes.

One area where some LAC countries seem to have been under-performing is on bilateral exports to the twoAsian economies. Negotiatingfree trade agreements (as some countries are already doing) and exportpromotion activities focused on these two markets may help reverse thistrend.37 Also, special attention should be given to integration into globalproduction networks that involve Chinese and Indian firms.

In terms of FDI promotion via specialized agencies, it seems that thereis no need for a change of course as LAC has benefited from growing FDI toChina and India. LAC has been quite successful in attracting FDI and shouldcontinue to improve the overall investment climate and the role of specializedpromotion agencies in order to maintain their lead.38 It is unfortunate that acouple of countries in the region have been recently backtracking from thegeneralized open environment towards FDI in the region.

In services, there may be a need for enhancing the relativecompetitiveness of LAC vis à vis India in business, professional andtechnical services (as well as legal and industrial engineering services).The literature suggests that this could be achieved by developing internetpenetration through investment in telecommunication infrastructure andreforms that expand internet access, but also correctly aligned exchangerates that correct, in particular, for over-valued exchange rates (see Freundand Weinhold, 2002).

been almost exclusively on the Western Hemisphere and Europe to some extent. Addressing theAsia deficit would help them take advantage of the growing opportunity that China and India rep-resent.

38 For a recent study on the role of FDI promotion agencies in attracting FDI, see Harding,Javorcik and Sawada (2006).


Also, in order to exploit the evidence of synergies in innovationpatterns between LAC and India, governments may want to considerscaling up scientific exchange programs and cooperation in R&Dprograms. The same may eventually also be useful in some areas withChina.

As some industries are negatively affected by the growth of Chinaand India, and these tend to be labor-intensive industries, adjustmentassistance for workers may need to be considered. For those countriesadjusting towards skilled-intensive and scientific-knowledge-intensiveindustries, short-term adjustment policies should focus on helpingunskilled labor in the transition, while focusing on skill improvements andinnovation policies in the long term. For the few countries adjustingtowards unskilled-intensive industries, the short-term adjustment policiesshould probably focus on the higher end of the skill spectrum, while alsotrying to improve the overall endowment of skilled labor and scientificknowledge in the long term.

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aykut, Dilek and Andrea Goldstein, (2006). “Developing CountryMultinationals: South-South Investment Comes of Age”. Paperpresented at the conference Industrial Development for the 21stCentury: Sustainable Development Perspectives, New York

Baxter, M., King, R.G., (1999). “Measuring Business Cycles:Approximate Band-Pass Filters for Economic Time Series.” TheReview of Economics and Statistics 81, 575-593

Baroncelli, Eugenia, Ekaterina Krivonos, and Marcelo Olarreaga, (2007).“Trademark Protection or Protectionism?” Review of InternationalEconomics 15(1): 126-145.

Calderón, César, (2007). “Trade, Specialization and CycleSynchronization: Explaining Output Co-movement between LatinAmerica, China, and India.” In Latin America’s response to Chinaand India, chapter 6.

Carr, David L., James R. Markusen, and Keith E. Maskus. (2001).“Estimating the Knowledge-Capital Model of the MultinationalEnterprise.” American Economic Review 91: 693-708.

190


Casacuberta, Carlos, and Néstor Gandelman, (2007). “Factor Adjustmentand Imports from China and India: Evidence from UruguayanManufacturing.” In Latin America’s response to China and India,chapter 10.

Castro, Lucio, Daniel Saslavsky, and Marcelo Olarreaga, (2007). “TheImpact of Trade with China and India on Argentina’sManufacturing Employment.” In LatinAmerica’s response to Chinaand India, chapter 11.

Cravino, Javier, Daniel Lederman, and Marcelo Olarreaga, (2007).“Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America during the Emergenceof China and India: Stylized Facts.” In Latin America’s response toChina and India, chapter 9.

Cravino, Javier, Daniel Lederman, and Marcelo Olarreaga, (2006).“Substitution between Foreign Capital in China, India, and the Restof the World: MuchAdo about Nothing?” Background paper for theOffice of the Chief Economist for Latin American and theCaribbean Regional Study: Latin America and the Caribbean’sResponse to the Growth of China and India, World Bank,Washington DC.

De Ferranti, D., G. Perry, D. Lederman and W. Maloney, (2002). FromNatural Resources to the Knowledge Economy, World Bank,Washington, DC.

Dominguez, Jorge et al., (2006). “China’s Relations with Latin America:Shared Gains, Asymmetric Hopes”, Working Paper, June, Inter-American Dialogue, Washington, DC.

Facchini, Giovanni, Marcelo Olarreaga, Peri Silva, and Gerald Willmann,(2007). “Substitutability and Protectionism: Latin America’s TradePolicy and Imports from China and India.” Policy ResearchWorking Paper #4188, World Bank.

Feenstra, Robert C., and Hiau Looi Kee, (2007). “Trade Liberalization andExport Variety: A Comparison of Mexico and China.” In LatinAmerica’s response to China and India, chapter 4.

Feenstra, R. C. and H. L. Kee, (2006). “Export Variety and CountryProductivity: Estimating the Monopolistic Competition Model withEndogenous Productivity,” World Bank Policy Research Group andUniversity of California, Davis.

191


Freund, Caroline, (2006). “Effects on Services Trade with the UnitedStates.” In Latin America’s response to China and India, chapter 5.

Freund, Caroline, and Caglar Ozden, (2007). “The Effect of China’sExports on Latin American Trade with the World.” In LatinAmerica’s response to China and India, chapter 3.

Freund, Caroline, and Diana Weinhold, (2002). “The Internet andInternational Trade in Services.” American Economic Review 92:236-40.

Hanson, Gordon, and Raymond Robertson, (2007). “China and the RecentEvolution of Latin America’s Manufacturing Exports.” In LatinAmerica’s response to China and India, chapter 2.

Harding, Torfinn, Beata Javorcik and Naotaka Sawada, (2006).“Investment Promotion: Why, What and How Lessons for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean.” Background paper for the Office ofthe Chief Economist for Latin American and the CaribbeanRegional Study: Enhancing firm capabilities, World Bank,Washington DC.

Hoekman, Bernard, and L. Alan Winters, (2006). “Trade and employment:stylized facts and research findings.” Policy Research WorkingPaper #3676, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Lane, Philip R., and Sergio L. Schmukler, (2006). “The InternationalFinancial Integration of China and India.” Mimeo, World Bank,Washington DC.

Lederman, Daniel, Lucy Payton, and Marcelo Olarreaga, (2006). “Exportpromotion Agencies: What works and What doesn’t.” Backgroundpaper for the Office of the Chief Economist for Latin America andthe Caribbean Regional Study: Enhancing Firm Capabilities,WorldBank, Washington DC.

Lederman, Daniel, Marcelo Olarreaga, and Eliana Rubiano, (2007). “LatinAmerica’s Trade Specialization and China and India’s Growth.” InLatin America’s response to China and India, chapter 12.

Lederman, Daniel, Marcelo Olarreaga, and Isidro Soloaga, (2007). “TheGrowth of China and India in World Markets: Opportunity orThreat for Latin American Exporters?” In Latin America’s responseto China and India, chapter 7.

192


Ozden, Caglar, (2006). “Caribbean Basin Initiative Beneficiary Countriesand the Apparel Sector: Same Preferences, Different Responses.”Background paper for the Office of the Chief Economist for LatinAmerican and the Caribbean Regional Study: Latin America andthe Caribbean’s Response to the Growth of China and India,WorldBank, Washington DC.

Perry, Guillermo, and Marcelo Olarreaga, (2007). “Trade Liberalization,Inequality and Poverty Reduction in Latin America” in FrancoisBourguignon and Boris Pleskovic, eds. Beyond Transition, WorldBank Publictions, forthcoming.

Santos Silva, J.M.C., and Silvana Tenreyro. (2006). “The Log of Gravity.”The Review of Economics and Statistics 88(4): 641-658.

Suescún, Rodrigo, (2007). “Macroeconomic interactions between LatinAmerica and China-India in an intertemporal model of the worldeconomy.” In LatinAmerica’s response to China and India, chapter 8.

193

195

REVISTA DE ECONOMÍAY ESTADÍSTICA

Instituto de Economía y Finanzas

Facultad de Ciencias EconómicasUniversidad Nacional de Córdoba

INSTRUCCIONES PARA LOS AUTORES

I. NORMAS GENERALES

Se reciben para su posible publicación en la Revista de Economía yEstadística trabajos en idioma español o inglés, inéditos y que no esténsiendo sometidos simultáneamente para su publicación en otros medios.Todo trabajo recibido estará sujeto a la aprobación de un Comité deÁrbitros, especialistas de reconocido prestigio. El procedimiento que seutiliza es el doble ciego (autores y árbitros anónimos).

Los originales deberán presentarse en versión electrónica (en Word yExcel) y ser enviados a los editores de la Revista a la siguiente direcciónelectrónica: [email protected]. Es responsabilidad del autorasegurarse que el archivo sea completamente legible en cualquier compu-tadora personal (no solamente en aquella sobre la cual el artículo fue com-puesto). No serán aceptados archivos ilegibles.

Los Editores no aceptan la responsabilidad por el daño o la pérdida de artí-culos presentados. Sobre la aceptación de un artículo, se pedirá al autor/estransferir los derechos de autor del artículo al editor. Esta transferenciaasegurará la diseminación más amplia posible de información.

II. TIPOS DE CONTRIBUCIONES

Artículos

Instrucciones para los autores

Artículos breves

Crítica bibliográfica

‘Observatorio de Política’

III. NORMAS EDITORIALES

El autor enviará el trabajo de acuerdo con las siguientes normas editoriales:

Extensión: los artículos deberán estar escritos a doble espacio, con márge-nes de 2,5 cm.; la extensión promedio será de veinticinco (25) páginas,numeradas consecutivamente (la página del título es la página 1) y en nin-gún caso podrán superarse las cuarenta (40) páginas.

La primer página del artículo deberá contener la siguiente información:

Título: debe ser corto, explicativo y contener la esencia del trabajo.

Autor (es): indicar los nombres y apellidos completos sin títulos profesio-nales, seguido de la dirección postal (institucional o particular segúncorresponda) y dirección de correo electrónico.

Resumen: los trabajos deberán ir acompañados por un resumen en españoly en inglés. El resumen debe escribirse en un solo párrafo de no más de100 palabras. Contendrá una descripción del problema, los objetivos, lametodología y las principales observaciones y conclusiones.

Palabras claves: se debe incluir la clasificación JEL (JOURNAL OFECONOMIC LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM) disponibleen Internet y hasta cinco palabras claves que definan el artículo.

Referencias: todas las referencias bibliográficas citadas en el texto debe-rán ser presentadas alfabéticamente, y estar escritas según las normas de laInternational Organization for Standardization. ISO 690 - documentosimpresos y materiales especiales e ISO 690-2 Documentos electrónicos ysus partes. Se puede consultar en Internet ambos documentos. ISO 690;ISO 690-2.

Tablas (cuadros) y Figuras (gráficos): tanto las tablas como las figurasse numerarán con números arábigos y cada una llevará una leyenda y lafuente si fuera el caso. Si en una figura se incluyen fotografías, deberánpresentarse en forma de copias en blanco y negro, brillantes y de muybuena calidad. Ejemplos

196


Figura 1

Precios de las acciones y riesgo/país

Fuente: JPMorgan

Tabla 1

Cambios de tipo de tenencia de la vivienda

Fuente: encuesta movilidad espacial en Bogotá, Centro de Estudios sobreel Desarrollo Económico (CEDE), 1993.

Las tablas, referencias y leyendas para figuras deberán ser escritas enpáginas separadas.

Fórmulas: deberán ser numeradas consecutivamente como (1), (2), etc.sobre el lado derecho de la página. Si la derivación de fórmulas ha sidoabreviada, se recomienda presentar por separado, cuando sea pertinente,la derivación completa (que no será publicada).

Notas al pie de página: deberán ser en un mínimo y numeras consecuti-vamente en todas partes del texto con números en superíndice. Deberánser escritas a doble espacio y no incluir fórmulas.

Nombre de organizaciones y/o instituciones: deberá indicarse la deno-minación completa, con su correspondiente sigla entre paréntesis, de todaorganización o institución mencionada en el trabajo.

Anexo: con la base de datos, cuando corresponda, es conveniente elenvío en un archivo adjunto, de los datos utilizados para las estimacionesy/o construcción de tablas y gráficos.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Papers submitted for publication in Revista de Economía y Estadísticamust be written in Spanish or English and should not simultaneously besubmitted for publication in other journals. Received papers will be con-sidered by a Board of Associate Editors, composed by well known andprestigious specialists. Articles will be subject to the double blind proce-dure (anonymous authors and referees).

Electronic versions of originals (word or excel) must be sent to the Editors

197


to the following e-mail address: [email protected]. It is theauthors´ responsibility to ensure that the file is completely legible in anypersonal computer (not only in the one in which the article was written).Not legible files will not be accepted.

The Editors will not take any responsibility for any damage or loss of sub-mitted articles. On papers acceptance, authors will be asked to transfertheir property rights to the Editors in order that the amplest disseminationof information can be guaranteed.

II. TYPES OF CONTRIBUTIONS

ArticlesShort ArticlesBibliographical ReviewsContributions to Policy Watch

III. MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION

Papers’ length. Submitted articles should typically be less than 25 double-spaced pages with 2.5 cmmargins on all sides, and should in no event exceed40 pages. Pages should be consecutively numbered (the title page being num-ber 1).

Title page. The title page will include:

The article title, which should be short, self explaining and bearing thepaper’s essence.

The authors’ name and permanent affiliations, followed by their currentpostal address, e-mail address and telephone or fax number.

The title page will also include single paragraph abstracts, in Spanish and inEnglish, of not more than 100 words each and a list of two to five keywords.

Footnotes. Footnotes will be kept at a minimum and numbered consecu-tively and designated by superscripts in the text. All footnotes should betyped double-spaced and they will not include formula.

References. All bibliographical references quoted in the text should fol-low the format prescribed by the International Organization forStandardization-ISO 690 (printed documents and special materials) andISO 690-2 (electronic documents and their parts), available in internet for

198


consultation. The list of references will be presented in alphabetic order.

Formula. They should be numbered consecutively throughout the text[e.g. (1), (2), etc] on the right of the page. It is recommended, in case ofabbreviated formula display, to separately submit their complete deriva-tion (which will be not published).

Tables and Figures. Tables as well as figures should be identified withArabic numbers and will have a legend and the source (whenever itapplies). Figures carrying photographs will be presented in brilliant, goodquality white and black copies. Tables, references and figure legendsshould be written in separate pages.

Organizations and Institutions. Organizations and Institutions quoted ormentioned in the paper will be indicated with their complete denominationand the corresponding initials between brackets.

Annex. Authors are advised to send, enclosed to the paper, the file with thedatabase used for estimations and the construction of tables and graphics.

199

Esta edición se terminó de imprimir en la

Asociación Cooperadora de la

Facultad de Ciencias Económicas de la

Universidad Nacional de Córdoba

en el mes de octubre de 2007

Latin America’s response to China and India: overview of research findings and policy implications

Documents

Transcript of Latin America’s response to China and India: overview of research findings and policy implications