Neither easy nor impossible: Local development economics and policy
AbstractThis assai leads the reader on an analytical path to development, with institutions as its central focus. While its main emphasis is on the problematic nature of development in lagging or backward regions, contributions from the literature on developing countries have also been taken into account, and European countries, Italy and the South of Italy (the Mezzogiorno) also feature in the debate. There is no doubt that lagging regions in advanced countries are very different from backward regions in poor countries. I think that there are two basic assumptions that hold for both. First, the most important constraints on development are internal; second, in order to combat underdevelopment strong actions that break with tradition are needed. These two assumptions are often ignored by development literature. These studies may be well written, fun to read and able to communicate faithfully their authors views on social and economic life, but their perspective is necessarily different from that of people who are actively involved in social and economic development efforts or tackling underdevelopment. The assai offers some interpretative starting points. The path distances itself from five concepts that are widely held but superficial. The first is that economic development in a backward or lagging area depends on growth in advanced areas, given that capital will flow where there is an abundant supply of labour and because technical progress is easier for latecomers than for innovators. The common view is that there is spontaneous economic convergence simply because capital has low returns in advanced areas and high returns in backward areas. In advanced areas, moreover, already on the threshold of improved technology, technical progress is more of a struggle, whereas in backward areas all that is needed is to imitate others. Since this idea has no real empirical basis, those who hold this view claim that the differences between regions persist because markets work badly, segmented as they are by rules and behaviour that allow unjustified returns. Without these artificial distortions, they argue, resources would be spontaneously used where they were most productive. In this view, the most relevant development policy (and for many, the only possible policy) is to reduce curbs to maximum competition in all sectors and in all walks of life. There are many reasons for thinking that this is irrelevant. Many crucial resources are in fact attracted to advanced areas, not because there is over-regulation. If anything, the opposite. Opening up markets that work well would therefore seem to be a result of development rather than a way to achieve it. In order to achieve development what is needed is more intentional public intervention: more State, not less. The path undertaken to reach this conclusion is arduous, however. Not many people today share the view that the State can play a relevant role. The path requires a critical reappraisal of four other common views. The second widespread view that we need to demolish, then, is the idea that -. even if we accept that economic development in a backward area is impeded by the fact that resources are attracted to advanced areas - there will always be immobile resources that can spontaneously trigger development and sustain it. This view is supported by the limits on mobility of resources. Taking into account that important resources such as the environmental, historical, cultural heritage of a region are substantially immobile, those who hold this view believe that these resources cannot be lost as a result of the capacity for attraction of an advanced area. They believe that these immobile resources sooner or later will stimulate those who know how to exploit them effectively and profitably. The reason why this view is unhelpful is that existing immobile resources can and often do remain inaccessible. Potentially profitable resources never actually become useful for development because the conditions for exploiting them have not been achieved, or nobody has ever thought of using them. A case study illustrating how this can happen is presented in the Appendix of Chapter Three. Proceeding along our path, a third commonly held view must be set aside. Even if they accept that the process of valorising immobile resources is not always so easy, economists often say that this is not a problem if in the backward area the cost of labour is very low. The objection is that the difficulty of valorising immobile resources is made up for by a particularly advantageous condition of low labour costs. If there were no institutions keeping wages artificially high, unemployment or under-employment would be solved by salaries so low that the labour cost per production unit would be advantageous even in situations of low productivity. This, people claim, would help overcome other curbs on development. This approach is on the surface quite correct, but it neglects to take into account one feature. Low labour costs could well get an area out of underdevelopment, but there are no guarantees that if will keep that area out. It is thus necessary to deal with the fourth widely help view. Admitting, at this point, that underdevelopment in a backward area cannot be overcome spontaneously, even where there are low labour costs, and accepting that development needs an action that breaks with tradition, then, it is claimed, bottom-up collective action on the part of civil society can provide precisely this break. Those who hold this view believe that in order to trigger and sustain a development process collective goods such as, for example, material and immaterial infrastructures, insurance, training, and promotional services, are essential. They do not feel, however, that corresponding public action is needed. They are convinced that, collectively, civil society can achieve the goods and services needed. This idea ignores the serious difficulties that bottom-up collective action meets with if it is not supported by public action, as Chapter Three illustrates. This brings us to the fifth and final point of view that we need to deal with. Admitting that bottom-up collective action is unsuccessful, a break with tradition can be guaranteed simply by decentralising institutions, providing local authorities with the sufficient skills and resources to take care of their own needs. We argue that decentralizing on its own is not a solution. Development policies require State intervention to be organized in a complex institutional framework, as Chapter Five shows.
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 University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 32743.
Date of creation: 10 Aug 2011
Date of revision:
local development; institutions;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- O18 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
- O43 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Institutions and Growth
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-08-22 (All new papers)
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.:
- Robert Feenstra, 2003.
"Integration Of Trade And Disintegration Of Production In The Global Economy,"
986, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Robert C. Feenstra, 1998. "Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 31-50, Fall.
- Robert C. Feenstra, . "Integration Of Trade And Disintegration Of Production In The Global Economy," Department of Economics 98-06, California Davis - Department of Economics.
- Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977.
"Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
- Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1975. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 64, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Henry Overman & Diego Puga, 1999.
"Unemployment Clusters Across European Regions and Countries,"
CEP Discussion Papers
dp0434, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Henry G. Overman & Diego Puga, 2002. "Unemployment clusters across Europe's regions and countries," Economic Policy, CEPR & CES & MSH, vol. 17(34), pages 115-148, 04.
- Henry G. Overman & Diego Puga, 1999. "Unemployment clusters across European regions and countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20211, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Overman, Henry G. & Puga, Diego, 1999. "Unemployment Clusters Across European Regions and Countries," CEPR Discussion Papers 2255, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Diego Puga, 1999. "Unemployment clusters across Europe's regions and countries," Working Papers dpuga-99-03, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
- J.V. Henderson, 1972.
"The Sizes and Types of Cities,"
75, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Anthony J. Venables, 1993.
"Equilibrium Locations of Vertically Linked Industries,"
CEP Discussion Papers
dp0137, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Venables, Anthony J, 1996. "Equilibrium Locations of Vertically Linked Industries," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(2), pages 341-59, May.
- Venables, Anthony J., 1993. "Equilibrium Locations of Vertically Linked Industries," CEPR Discussion Papers 802, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Henry G. Overman & Stephen Redding & Anthony J. Venables, 2001.
"The economic geography of trade, production, and income: a survey of empirics,"
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics
3712, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Overman, Henry G. & Redding, Stephen J & Venables, Anthony J., 2001. "The Economic Geography of Trade Production and Income: A Survey of Empirics," CEPR Discussion Papers 2978, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Henry Overman & Stephen Redding & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Economic Geography of Trade, Production, and Income: A Survey of Empirics," CEP Discussion Papers dp0508, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2001. "The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs, and income similarity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-27, February.
- Paul Krugman, 1992. "A Dynamic Spatial Model," NBER Working Papers 4219, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Thierry Mayer & Keith Head, 2003.
"The Empirics of Agglomeration and Trade,"
2003-15, CEPII research center.
- Schmutzler, Armin, 1999. " The New Economic Geography," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 355-79, September.
- Brakman, Steven & Garretsen, Harry & Schramm, Marc, 2002.
"New economic geography in Germany : testing the Helpman-Hanson model,"
HWWA Discussion Papers
172, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
- Brakman, Steven & Garretsen, Harry & Schramm, Marc, 2001. "New economic geography in Germany: testing the Helpman-Hanson model," Research Report 01D46, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
- Psacharopoulos, George & Patrinos, Harry Anthony, 2002.
"Returns to investment in education : a further update,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
2881, The World Bank.
- George Psacharopoulos & Harry Anthony Patrinos, 2004. "Returns to investment in education: a further update," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 111-134.
- Petersson, Lennart, 2000. "The Theory of New Economic Geography and Industrial Location in SADC," Working Papers 2000:6, Lund University, Department of Economics.
- Wilson, John S. & Mann, Catherine L. & Otsuki, Tsunehiro, 2004. "Assessing the potential benefit of trade facilitation : A global perspective," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3224, The World Bank.
- Krugman, Paul, 1994. "Complex Landscapes in Economic Geography," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 412-16, May.
- Marius Brülhart, 1998. "Economic Geography, Industry Location and Trade: The Evidence," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 775-801, 08.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.