East Asia and LatAm

Image taken from Web Resources Depot.

New graphic tools tell the oft-repeated story behind these two regions in a visually compelling format.

Lately I have been playing around with the online graphing tools of the Legatum Institute; in particular, I have been using the results of the 2009 Prosperity Index which the Institute publishes to compare East Asia and Latin America. This multi-dimensional index is an aggregator of sorts in that it combines various measures of prosperity and well-being and allows users to plot different countries on a “spider web” chart.

It is a well-known fact that East Asian and Latin American countries share many socio-cultural traits as well as development strategies. This is borne out by the Institute’s results for these regions. As shown here, LatAm seems to converge into one distinct pattern, while East Asia does the same here. Note that for purposes of demonstration, I have lumped the Philippines (a Latin country transplanted in Asia) and Chile (the reverse case) with their affinitive counterparts.

The patterns show different models of development. LatAm nations score high on Personal Freedom and Democratic Institutions, but relatively low when it comes to Economic Fundamentals, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, and Social Capital. Despite this, the most well-off nations of Argentina, Uruguay and Costa Rica seem to do well in terms of some social indicators Education, Health, and Safety and Security. There is a general lack of good performance in Governance save for the richer nations.

The opposite seems to be happening with East Asia. Here Personal Freedom seems to have been less prioritized in favor of Economic Fundamentals, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Health, Education, and Safety and Security. As countries in the region get richer, a gradual improvement in Personal Freedom and Democratic Institutions takes place as evidenced by Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong. Governance tends to improve as well (with China in the embryonic stage of this development path).

Does this imply that democratic institutions are not good for development or that authoritarian governments promote growth? Not necessarily as this Economics By Invitation feature by The Economist showed. While as Alberto Alesina states, there may be no evidence that democracies promote faster growth, and that as Lant Pritchett suggests authoritarian regimes tend to have a spotty record, as Daron Acemoglu who co-wrote a book on this (shown below) as well as Ricardo Hausmann, Arvind Subramaniam, and Yang Yao suggest, getting the right incentives, institutions and governance arrangements do matter.

Fallacies

Which among the following pairs of countries would you consider to have a larger share of their exports in high-tech manufactures:

a. Korea or Japan 

b. Philippines or Singapore 

c. China or the United States 

d. Mexico or Germany 

The answers are found below: a. Korea b. Philippines c. China d. Mexico 

Surprised? Certainly these facts run counter to the commonly held beliefs about rich and poor countries. The most intriguing insight in all this is that the Philippines, the poorest of the four emerging countries just cited, long considered a laggard in its region as far as exports and investments are concerned, has emerged as a world leader in this regard, edging out Singapore, the former front-runner since 1996. See for yourself here. 

Other interesting observations are: (1) China has been ahead of the US since 2005, (2) Korea has led Japan since 1997, and (3) Mexico has edged out Germany since 1994. Safe to say, the strong performance of these emerging economies over their richer peers cannot be considered a fluke or the result of luck. In economic terms, a "structural shift" has occurred in these economies which have traditionally been exporters of cheap, basic commodities. 

What accounts for this increasing specialization in high-tech manufactures by emerging economies? More importantly, what does it say about their future prospects for growth? Is it a healthy sign or is too much specialization counter-productive? 

Let us first define what high technology means in this context. According to the World Bank definition, these manufactures include "products with high R&D intensity, such as in aerospace, computers, pharmaceuticals, scientific instruments, and electrical machinery" or in other words, products with a high innovation component. 

In the Philippines, electronics is the biggest contributor to exports accounting for about 60%. They consist of a wide variety of products with different applications from consumer, auto, office, computer related, to telecommunication, medical and industrial uses. Data from the National Statistics Office for 2008 and 2009 show the value of electronics exports exceeding $20 billion per year, while imports are roughly 68-70% of their totals. This runs counter to the common perception that these domestic industries belong to the low value adding category. 

According to Ricardo Hausmann from the Center for International Development at Harvard University, a professor of the Kennedy School of Government, the complexity of products made by a nation is a reflection of the capabilities that exist within it. Nations that produce highly elaborate products have exhibited the ability to grow and develop due to the fact that very few countries are able to replicate the same conditions required by such activities (here he is explaining his theory of development based on this notion). 

It is more than a question of incomes or wealth. Sri Lankans have an average income slightly above Filipinos, yet their major exports are in textiles and garments. The lack of infrastructure, rule of law and good governance does not seem to deter the presence of high-technology industries in the Philippines. The abundance of engineers and highly skilled, flexible workers appears to be the main driving force.