Tracking the Middle-income Trap: What Is It, Who Is in It, and Why?
AbstractThis paper provides a working definition of what the middle-income trap is. We start by defining four income groups of GDP per capita in 1990 PPP dollars: low-income below $2,000; lower-middle-income between $2,000 and $7,250; upper-middle-income between $7,250 and $11,750; and high-income above $11,750. We then classify 124 countries for which we have consistent data for 1950–2010. In 2010, there were 40 low-income countries in the world, 38 lower-middle-income, 14 upper-middle-income, and 32 high-income countries. Then we calculate the threshold number of years for a country to be in the middle-income trap: a country that becomes lower-middle-income (i.e., that reaches $2,000 per capita income) has to attain an average growth rate of per capita income of at least 4.7 percent per annum to avoid falling into the lower-middle-income trap (i.e., to reach $7,250, the upper-middle-income threshold); and a country that becomes upper-middle-income (i.e., that reaches $7,250 per capita income) has to attain an average growth rate of per capita income of at least 3.5 percent per annum to avoid falling into the upper-middle-income trap (i.e., to reach $11,750, the high-income level threshold). Avoiding the middle-income trap is, therefore, a question of how to grow fast enough so as to cross the lower-middle-income segment in at most 28 years, and the upper-middle-income segment in at most 14 years. Finally, the paper proposes and analyzes one possible reason why some countries get stuck in the middle-income trap: the role played by the changing structure of the economy (from low-productivity activities into high-productivity activities), the types of products exported (not all products have the same consequences for growth and development), and the diversification of the economy. We compare the exports of countries in the middle-income trap with those of countries that graduated from it, across eight dimensions that capture different aspects of a country’s capabilities to undergo structural transformation, and test whether they are different. Results indicate that, in general, they are different. We also compare Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines according to the number of products that each exports with revealed comparative advantage. We find that while Korea was able to gain comparative advantage in a significant number of sophisticated products and was well connected, Malaysia and the Philippines were able to gain comparative advantage in electronics only.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Levy Economics Institute in its series Economics Working Paper Archive with number wp_715.
Date of creation: Apr 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.levyinstitute.org
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
- O40 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - General
- O54 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Latin America; Caribbean
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-05-08 (All new papers)
- NEP-PBE-2012-05-08 (Public Economics)
- NEP-PKE-2012-05-08 (Post Keynesian Economics)
- NEP-SEA-2012-05-08 (South East Asia)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Frederick Van der Ploeg & Anthony J. Venables, 2009.
"Harnessing Windfall Revenues: Optimal Policies for Resource-Rich Developing Economies,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
2571, CESifo Group Munich.
- Frederick van der Ploeg & Anthony J. Venables, 2011. "Harnessing Windfall Revenues: Optimal Policies for Resource‐Rich Developing Economies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(551), pages 1-30, March.
- Rick Van der Ploeg & Tony Venables, 2011. "Harnessing windfall revenues: Optimal policies for resource-rich developing economies," Economics Series Working Papers 543, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953.
- Jesus Felipe & Utsav Kumar & Arnelyn Abdon, 2010. "How Rich Countries Became Rich and Why Poor Countries Remain Poor: It's the Economic Structure . . . Duh!," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_644, Levy Economics Institute.
- Stanislav Kolenikov & Gustavo Angeles, 2009. "Socioeconomic Status Measurement With Discrete Proxy Variables: Is Principal Component Analysis A Reliable Answer?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(1), pages 128-165, 03.
- Agenor, Pierre-Richard & Canuto, Otaviano, 2014. "Access to finance, product innovation and middle-income traps," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6767, The World Bank.
- Zuzana Brixiova & Thierry Kangoye, 2013. "Working Paper 175 - Youth Employment in Africa: New Evidence and Policies from Swaziland," Working Paper Series 472, African Development Bank.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marie-Celeste Edwards).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.