|
|
|
|
Balassa-Samuelson effect
|
| |
|
| |
The Balassa-Samuelson effect (also known as Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson effect (Kravis and Lipsey 1983), the Ricardo-Viner-Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson-Penn-Bhagwati effect (Samuelson 1994, p. 201), productivity biased purchasing power parity (PPP) (Officer 1976) and the rule of five eights (David 1972)) is either of two related things:
- The observation that consumer price levels in wealthier countries are systematically higher than in poorer ones (the "Penn effect").
- An economic model predicting the above, based on the assumption that productivity or productivity growth-rates vary more by country in the traded goods' sectors than in other sectors (the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis).
This article deals with point (2): Balassa and Samuelson's causal model. For a fuller description of the stylized fact it attempts to explain see: Penn effect.
The theoryThe Balassa-Samuelson effect (BS-effect) depends on inter-country differences in the relative productivity of the tradable and non-tradable sectors.
The empirical "Penn Effect" effectThe exchange of tradable goods and services should lead prices to converge, but convergence is only partial, because some products are not tradable, and some products are generally produced locally (e.g. bread).
The Penn effect is that the RER (Real Exchange Rate) deviations usually occur in the same direction: where incomes are high, price levels, as for example measured by the Consumer Price Index are relatively high compared to an international average, and where they are low, they tend to be below the average.
The effect in more detailA typical discussion of this argument (e.g. by Paul Krugman) would include the following features:
- Workers in some countries have higher productivity than in others. This is the ultimate source of the income differential. (Also expressed as productivity growth.)
- Certain labour-intensive jobs are less responsive to productivity innovations than others. For instance, a highly skilled Zurich burger flipper is no more productive than his Moscow counterpart (in burger/hour) but these jobs are services which must be performed locally.
- The fixed-productivity sectors are also the ones producing non-transportable goods (for instance haircuts) - this must be the case or the labour intensive work would have been off-shored.
- To equalize local wage levels with the (highly productive) Zurich engineers, McDonalds Zurich employees must be paid more than McDonalds Moscow employees, even though the burger production rate per employee is an international constant.
- The CPI is made up of:
- local goods (which are expensive relative to tradables in rich countries)
- Tradables, which have the same price everywhere
- The (real) exchange rate is pegged (by the law of one price) so that tradable goods follow PPP. The assumption that PPP holds only for tradable goods is testable.
- Since money exchange rates will vary fully with tradable goods productivity, but average productivity varies to a lesser extent, the (real goods) productivity differential is less than the productivity differential in money terms.
- Productivity becomes income, so the real income varies less than the money income does.
- This is equivalent to saying that the money exchange rate exaggerates the real income, or that the price level is higher in more productive, richer, economies.
Equivalent 'Balassa-Samuelson effect' within a countryThe average asking price for a house in a prosperous city can be ten times that of an identical house in a depressed area of the same country. Therefore, the RER-deviation exists independent of what happens to the nominal exchange rate (which is always 1 for areas sharing the same currency). Looking at the price level distribution within a country gives a clearer picture of the effect, because this removes three complicating factors:
- The econometrics of purchasing power parity (PPP) tests are complicated by nominal exchange rate noise. (This noise would be an econometric problem, even assuming that the exchange rate volatility is a pure error term).
- There may be some real economy border effects between countries which limit the flow of tradables or people.
- Monetary effects, and exchange rate movements can affect the real economy and complicate the picture, a problem eliminated if comparing regions that use the same currency unit.
A pint of pub beer is famously more expensive in the south of England than the North, but supermarket beer prices are very similar. This may be treated as anecdotal evidence in favour of the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, since supermarket beer is an easily transportable, traded good. (Although pub beer is transportable, the pub itself is not.) The BS-hypothesis explanation for the varying price differentials is that publican's 'productivity' in serving customers is more uniform (in pints per hour) than is the 'productivity' (in foreign earnings per year) of people working in the export sector in either half of the country. (Reputedly Financial services in the South of England, heavy industry in the North.) The implication that one region is less 'productive' than another is politically controversial.
Alternative, and additional causes of the Penn effectMost professional economists accept that the Balassa-Samuelson effect model has some merit. However other sources of the Penn effect RER/GDP relationship have been proposed:
The distribution sectorIn a 2001 International Monetary Fund working paper Macdonald & Ricci accept that relative productivity changes produce PPP-deviations, but argue that this is not confined to tradables versus non-tradable sectors. Quoting the abstract: "an increase in the productivity and competitiveness of the distribution sector with respect to foreign countries leads to an appreciation of the real exchange rate, similarly to what a relative increase in the domestic productivity of tradables does".
The Dutch Disease Capital inflows (say to the Netherlands) may stimulate currency appreciation through demand for money. As the RER appreciates, the competitiveness of the traded-goods sectors falls (in terms of the international price of traded goods).
In this model, there has been no change in real economy productivities, but money price productivity in traded goods has been exogenously lowered through currency appreciation. Since capital inflow is associated with high-income states (e.g Monaco) this could explain part of the RER/Income correlation.
Yves Bourdet and Hans Falck have studied the effect of Cape Verde remittances on the traded-goods sector. They find that, as local incomes have risen with a doubling of remittances from abroad, the Cape Verde RER has appreciated 14% (during the 1990s). The export sector of the Cape Verde economy suffered a similar fall in productivity during the same period, which was caused entirely by capital flows and not by the BS-effect..
A demand side explanationThe Penn effect PPP-deviation can be derived from the demand side of the economy, rather than the Balassa-Samuelson supply side model, in a similar way to the Dutch Disease explanation above.
When any non-tradable comes up for sale, its price will be determined by the relative preference between it and money by the average market consumer. By definition, high income consumers have more money, and are indifferent at a higher sale prices between buying an item and not doing so, relative to consumers in a low income area. In tradable goods, supply could shift from poor regions to rich to take advantage of this, forcing price convergence. However, non-tradable supply cannot do this, by definition. Therefore, price differences are caused (in this model) by nothing but relative differences in the abundance of money.
In this demand-side model, the initial sources of income difference are treated as given. (Income is either exogenous or evolves based on the ability to sell non-tradables at higher prices where incomes are higher.) This model leads to random walk RER behaviour, as the exogenous rich trickle their wealth down to nearby workers without requiring them to improve productivity (the rich simply bid up local service prices). Charging what the market will bear creates the PPP-deviation in a similar way to the Balassa-Samuelson effect, but doesn't explicitly rely on productivity differentials or the changes in them. Lipsey and Swedenborg (1996) show a strong correlation between the barriers to Free trade and the domestic price level. If wealthy countries feel more able to protect their native producers than developing nations (e.g. with tarrifs on agricultural imports) we should expect to see a correlation between rising GDP and rising prices (for goods in protected industries - especially food).
This explanation is similar to the BS-effect, since an industry needing protection must be measurably less productive in the world market of the commodity it produces. However, this reasoning is slightly different from the pure BS-hypothesis, because the goods being produced are 'traded-goods', even though protectionist measures mean that they are more expensive on the domestic market than the international market, so they will not be "traded" internationally
Trade theory implicationsThe supply-side economists (and others) have argued that raising International competitiveness through policies that promote traded goods sectors' productivity (at the expense of other sectors) will increase a nation's GDP, and increase its standard of living, when compared with treating the sectors equally. The Balassa-Samuelson effect might be one reason to oppose this trade theory, because it predicts that: a GDP gain in traded goods does not lead to as much of an improvement in the living standard as an equal GDP increase in the non-traded sector. (This is due to the effect's prediction that the CPI will increase by more in the former case.)
HistoryThe Balassa-Samuelson effect model was developed in 1964 by both Balassa Béla & Paul Samuelson, working independently.
It is surprising that both of these economists should have completed their models separately & simultaneously (submitting them to different economic journals) because the outlines of the explanation had been described twenty-five years earlier by Roy Forbes Harrod in "International Economics".
Partly because empirical findings have been mixed, and partly to differentiate the model from its conclusion, modern papers tend to refer to the "Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis", rather than the "Balassa-Samuelson effect". (See for instance: "", referred to above.)
See also
External links (this is a good source of further links to the academic Balassa-Samuelson effect discussion.)
- , but says that even countries undergoing very rapid traded-goods productivity growth only experience inflationary pressure in the 1-2% range, and that sources of inflation other than Balassa-Samuelson have proven more significant for past Euro converge candidates like Greece.
-
- .
"results do not show supportive evidence for the Balassa-Samuelson effect in the long run."
-
- 's Product Price Differences across Countries (2004) traces the history of the qualitative description given by the Balassa-Samuelson effect back to David Ricardo.
- - Cincibuch & Podpiera (2004) studied the RER appreciation to explain why it exceeds the Balassa-Samuelson prediction in the case of bilateral German-Central European country trade as the traded goods' productivity gap has declined. They argue that in practise, border barriers mean that tradables appreciate with productivity, and say:
"Real appreciation is also observed in tradables and often accounts for the bulk in the overall appreciation".
- by professor Ronald MacDonald of Strathclyde University and C. Wojcik of the Warsaw School of Economics.
|
| |
|
|