IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Does Geography Explain Differences in Economic Growth in Peru?

  • Máximo Torero
  • Javier Escobal

In Peru, a country with an astonishing variety of different ecological areas, including 84 different climate zones and landscapes, with rainforests, high mountain ranges and dry deserts, the geographical context may not be all that matters, but it could be very significant in explaining regional variations in income and welfare. The major question this paper tries to answer is: what role do geographic variables, both natural and manmade, play in explaining per capita expenditure differentials across regions within Peru? How have these influences changed over time, through what channels have they been transmitted, and has access to private and public assets compensated for the effects of an adverse geography? We have shown that what seem to be sizable geographic differences in living standards in Peru can be almost fully explained when one takes into account the spatial concentration of households with readily observable non-geographic characteristics, in particular public and private assets. In other words, the same observationally equivalent household has a similar expenditure level in one place as another with different geographic characteristics such as altitude or temperature. This does not mean, however that geography is not important but that its influence on expenditure level and growth differential comes about through a spatially uneven provision of public infrastructure. Furthermore, when we measured the expected gain (or loss) in consumption from living in one geographic region (i. e. , coast) as opposed to living in another (i. e. , highlands), we found that most of the difference in log per-capita expenditure between the highland and the coast can be accounted for by the differences in infrastructure endowments and private assets. This could be an indication that the availability of infrastructure could be limited by the geography and therefore the more adverse geographic regions are the ones with less access to public infrastructure. It is important to note that there appear to be non-geographic, spatially correlated, omitted variables that need to be taken into account in our expenditure growth model. Therefore policy programs that use regional targeting do have a rationale even if geographic variables do not explain the bulk of the difference in regional growth, once we have taken into account differentials in access to private and public assets.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.iadb.org/research/pub_hits.cfm?pub_id=R-404&pub_file_name=pubR-404.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department in its series Research Department Publications with number 3103.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Jul 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:idb:wpaper:3103
Contact details of provider: Postal: 1300 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20577
Phone: 202-623-1000
Web page: http://www.iadb.org/res
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Nass, Clifford & Garfinkle, David, 1992. "Localized autocorrelation diagnostic statistic (LADS) for spatial models : Conceptualization, utilization, and computation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 333-346, September.
  2. John Luke Gallup & Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew D. Mellinger, 1998. "Geography and Economic Development," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1856, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  3. Davis, Donald R. & Weinstein, David E., 1999. "Economic geography and regional production structure: An empirical investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 379-407, February.
  4. Knight, John & Song, Lina, 1993. "The Spatial Contribution to Income Inequality in Rural China," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 195-213, June.
  5. Javier Escobal & Jaime Saavedra-Chanduví & Máximo Torero, 1999. "Los activos de los pobres en el Perú," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 7601, Inter-American Development Bank.
  6. Guy Dumais & Glenn Ellison & Edward L Glaeser, 1998. "Geographic Concentration as a Dynamic Process," Working Papers 98-3, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  7. Ravallion, Martin & Wodon, Quentin, 1997. "Poor areas, or only poor people?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1798, The World Bank.
  8. John Luke Gallup & Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew D. Mellinger, 1998. "Geography and Economic Development," NBER Working Papers 6849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Jyotsna Jalan & Martin Ravallion, 1998. "Geographic Poverty Traps?," Boston University - Institute for Economic Development 86, Boston University, Institute for Economic Development.
  10. Anselin, Luc & Varga, Attila & Acs, Zoltan, 1997. "Local Geographic Spillovers between University Research and High Technology Innovations," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 422-448, November.
  11. Hentschel, Jesko & Lanjouw, Jean Olson & Lanjouw, Peter & Poggi, Javier, 1998. "Combining census and survey data to study spatial dimensions of poverty," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1928, The World Bank.
  12. Moreno, Ramon & Trehan, Bharat, 1997. " Location and the Growth of Nations," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 399-418, December.
  13. Ravallion, Martin & Jalan, Jyotsna, 1996. "Growth divergence due to spatial externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 227-232, November.
  14. Almas Heshmati & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 1997. "Estimation Of Technical Efficiency In Swedish Crop Farms: A Pseudo Panel Data Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 22-37.
  15. Sukkoo Kim, 1997. "Regions, Resources, and Economic Geography: Sources of U.S. Regional Comparative Advantage, 1880-1987," NBER Working Papers 6322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. L Hordijk & P Nijkamp, 1977. "Dynamic models of spatial autocorrelation," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 9(5), pages 505-519, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:idb:wpaper:3103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Monica Bazan)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.