Transcript Document

Golden Growth
Restoring the Lustre of the
European Economic Model
The European Economic Model
Trade
Finance
Enterprise
Innovation
Labor
Government
2
The achievements
Trade
Finance
Convergence
Machine
Enterprise
Brand
Europe
Innovation
Labor
Lifestyle
Superpower
Government
3
Europe—“Convergence Machine”
4
The convergence machine
Figure 1: In Europe, a rapid convergence in living standards—not much elsewhere
(annual growth of consumption per capita between 1970 and 2009, by level of consumption in 1970)
Europe
East Asia
Latin America
8
Corr. = -0.80***
n = 26
6
Corr. = -0.21
n = 15
4
Corr. = -0.25
n = 22
2
0
-2
0
3
6
9
12
15
0
3
6
9
12
15
0
3
6
9
12
15
Initial level of consumption per capita, 1970
PPP, thousands of 2005 international dollars
Note: n = number of countries. *** statistical significance at the 1 percent.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Penn World Table 7.0 (Heston, Summers, and Aten 2011); see Chapter 1.
5
Trade (goods)
Figure 2: Almost half of the global goods trade involves Europe
(merchandise trade in 2008, US$ billion)
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on WTO (2009); see Chapter 2.
6
Trade (services)
Figure 2.19: India and the United States have more sophisticated services exports than the
European Union
(Service EXPY, 1990–2007 (left), and shares in service EXPY, 2007 (right))
Source: Lundstrom Gable and Mishra (2011); see Chapter 2.
7
New members’ trade has become
more diversified
Figure 2.3: The European Union’s new members are more important partners for the EU15, the
EU15 less for the new
(shares of regional trade for EU15 and EU10, 1996–2008)
Note: The EU10 includes new member states joined the EU in 2004.
Source World Bank staff calculations, based on UN Comtrade; see Chapter 2.
8
Shares of new members’ imports from the
EU15 have declined more
Figure 2.3: More exports to than imports from the EU15
(shares of trade with EU15 for Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovak Republic, 1995–2010)
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
70
60
50
40
30
1995
2000
2005
2010
1995
All products:
2000
2005
Exports
2010
1995
2000
2005
2010
Imports
Source World Bank staff calculations, based on UN Comtrade; see Chapter 2.
9
Factory Europe has become brainer
Figure 2.9: Advanced and emerging Europe are trading more sophisticated intermediate goods
(EXPY for intermediate goods, thousands of US$, 1996–2008)
Exports
Imports
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
14.5
14.0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Trade in intermediate goods of:
EU10 with
EU15
World
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
World with
EU15
Note: Trade in intermediates is defined by the BEC nomenclature.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on UN Comtrade, and WDI; see Chapter 2.
10
Intermediates trade of new members
is more sophisticated
Figure 2.9: Advanced and emerging Europe are trading more sophisticated intermediate goods
(EXPY for intermediate goods trade with the rest of the world, thousands of US$, 1996–2008)
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Poland
17
16
15
14
13
1996
2000
2004
2008
1996
2000
Trade in intermediate goods:
2004
2008
Exports
1996
2000
2004
2008
Imports
Note: Trade in intermediates is defined by the BEC nomenclature. EXPY for trade with the EU15 follows the similar pattern, except that the level of
import EXPY is found to be higher.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on UN Comtrade, and WDI; see Chapter 2.
11
Financial integration
Figure 3.2: Capital flows in emerging Europe are particularly large
(percentage of GDP; period average of group median values)
Note: “EU coh.” refers to the EU cohesion countries, “EU cand.” refers to EU candidate countries, “E. prtn.” refers to EU eastern partnership
countries, “LAC” refers to the Latin America and the Caribbean region. CA stands for current account and FX is foreign exchange.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on IMF WEO; see Chapter 3.
12
Financial flows have helped in
emerging Europe
Figure 4: In Europe, foreign capital has boosted growth in emerging economies
(current account deficits and annual per capita growth, 1997–2008, by groups of countries, percent)
Note: Average growth rates calculated using 3 four-year periods in 1997-2008.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on IMF WEO; see Chapter 3.
13
More equity flows to the east, more
debt in the south
Figure 3.14: Greater debt exposure in Southern Europe, more equity exposure in the east
(aggregate external net equity and net debt exposures, percentage of GDP, 2002–09)
-10
EU candidates
Asia (2009)
-20 EU cohesion
EU12
-30
LAC (2009)
-40
-50
-60
-100
Poland
Czech Republic
Eastern partnership
Slovak Republic
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
Net debt position, 2002-09
Note: Arrows begin in 2002 and end in 2009. The arrows for each region are median values. The dot is the median value for the referenced group.
Ireland is excluded from net debt position as its data are distorted because international mutual funds hosted by Ireland are recorded as positive
net debt, even though these resources are not related to the domestic economy.
Source: Updated and extended version of dataset constructed by Lane and Milesi-Ferretti (2007); see Chapter 3.
14
Needed: real integration
Box figure 1: More monetary and financial than real integration in Europe during the last decade
(arrows begin in 1997 and end in 2008; the origin indicates complete nominal and real integration)
6
Eastern partnership
5
4
EU candidates
3
Poland
2
Czech Republic
EU12
1
EU15
Slovak Republic
0
0
1
2
3
Real integration (0 = full integration)
4
Note: The figure shows the extent of economic integration. The vertical axis combines in one index of dissimilarity three indicators of nominal
integration—volatility of exchange rates, convergence in inflation rates, and convergence in interest rates. The horizontal axis does the same with
three indicators of real integration—extent of synchronization in business cycles measured by indexes of industrial production, trade integration,
and per capita income.
Source: Sugawara and Zalduendo (2010).
15
European workers are less mobile
Figure 15: Europeans are less mobile, even within their own countries
(labor mobility, share of working age population that has moved, 2000-05)
Source: Bonin and others (2008); and OECD (2005 and 2007); see Chapter 6.
16
European Convergence
See Spotlight One.
“Europe”—Global Brand
18
The making of “Brand Europe”
Table 1: Relentless growth in the United States, revival in Asia, and a postwar miracle in Europe
(average annual compound growth rates, GDP per capita, 1820–2008, US$ 1990 Geary-Khamis PPP
estimates)
Note: Regional aggregates are population weighted; see Spotlight One for details.
Source: Maddison (1996); and Conference Board (2011).
19
The making of “Brand Europe”
Figure 5: European enterprises have delivered jobs, productivity, and exports
(performance of European subregions and benchmark countries, 1995–2009)
EFTA
1.3
EU15
1.3
EU12
1.4
1.0
49.4
0.4
Poland
3.0
0.5
Czech Republic
57.5
3.0
0.1
39.7
3.0
Slovak Republic
0.7
EU candidates
67.2
2.8
0.6
Eastern partnership
50.2
70.5
3.6
31.2
-0.1
6.6
United States
1.2
Japan
1.6
-0.1
11.2
1.2
China
13.4
1.0
7.8
East Asia
1.7
Latin America
.5
1
1.5
2
Employment growth, percent
26.7
2.0
2.4
0
38.7
2.5
64.0
0.4
0
23.2
2
4
6
Productivity growth, percent
8
0
20
40
60
80
Exports, percentage of GDP, 2009
Note: Growth rates in employment and productivity are compound annual growth rates. Average values by group are shown. China and Japan, and
Poland, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic are also included in the calculation of East Asia and EU12 regional averages, respectively.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on WDI and ILO (2010); see Chapter 4.
20
Two productivity gaps
North vs. South, and EU vs. US
Figure 5.1: Mind the gap: convergence followed by slowdown in Europe’s productivity relative to
the United States
(GDP per hours worked in Geary/Khamis $, United States =100)
100
80
EU Continental
EU North
60
EU South
Slovak Republic
40
EU12
Poland
20
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Czech Republic
2000
2010
Note: EU15 North = Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; EU15 Continental = Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and the
Netherlands; EU15 South = Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Conference Board (2011); see Chapter 5.
21
Productivity levels differ in Europe—
as expected
Figure 6a: Much of Europe is becoming more productive, but the south has fallen behind
(labor productivity levels in 2002, thousands of 2005 US$)
Note: For Belgium, Greece, and Norway, productivity levels refer to 2003. The three lines show average values for countries covered by each line.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Eurostat; see Chapter 4.
22
Productivity growth—not exactly
what was expected
Figure 6b: Much of Europe is becoming more productive, but the south has fallen behind
(labor productivity growth, 2002–08, annual percentage increase)
Note: The period considered varies: Belgium and Norway (2003–08), Greece (2003–07), and the Czech Republic, France, Latvia, Romania, and the
United Kingdom (2002–07). The three lines show average values for countries covered by each line. Expected growth for EU15 South is obtained
by computing gaps in productivity levels between EU15 South and each of the other two groups and then applying these shares to the difference
in growth between the first (that is., EFTA, EU15 North, and EU15 Continental) and the third (EU12) groups.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Eurostat; see Chapter 4.
23
Entrepreneurial structures must be
suitable for a big market
Figure 7: Smaller firms contribute half of value added in the EU15 South, but just a third elsewhere
(contributions to value added by size of enterprises, 2009)
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the total value added expressed in billions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars. The EU15 comprises Denmark,
Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (North); Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands (Continental); and Greece, Italy,
Portugal, and Spain (South). The EU12 comprises Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (North); the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak
Republic, and Slovenia (Continental); and Bulgaria and Romania (South).
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Eurostat; see Chapter 4.
24
FDI has turned eastward, away from
the south
Figure 8: Western European investors have been looking east, not south
(foreign direct investment inflows in Europe, percent, 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2008, percent)
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the amount of inflows expressed in billions of U.S. dollars.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on UNCTAD (2010); see Chapter 4.
25
Doing business is now most difficult
in the EU15 South
Figure 9: Southern and Eastern Europe must make it easier to do business
(principal components index of the ease of doing business in 2011, scaled from 0 [poor] to 100 [excellent])
90.7
90
87.2
82.8
79.5
76.0
74.5
74.4
69.4
64.4
68.0
68.2
70.3
Continental
POL
CZE
67.3
66.5
SVK
South
60
30
0
USA
JPN
EFTA
EU15
North
Continental
South
EU12
North
Note: Averages are computed using principal component analysis. EFTA here comprises Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. The EU15 comprises
Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (North); Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands
(Continental); and Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain (South). The EU12 comprises Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (North); the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia (Continental); and Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Romania (South).
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Doing Business; see Chapter 4.
26
Another productivity gap has been
growing—between the EU15 and the US
Figure 10: Productivity growth in Europe’s larger economies has slowed down since the mid-1990s
(EU15 labor productivity, indexed to the United States and Japan)
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on the OECD Productivity Database; see Chapter 5.
27
Europe specializes in old sectors, the
US in new
Figure 11: The United States specializes in younger, more R&D-intensive products
(relative technological advantage and R&D efforts by young and old innovation leaders in the United
States, Europe and the rest of the world)
Note: R&D intensity is measured as the ratio of R&D spending to total sales, for firms established after 1975 (young leading innovators or “Yollies”) or
before 1975 (“Ollies”). The relative technological advantage is calculated as the share of each region or country (say Europe) in the R&D of a
particular sector (say the Internet) relative to the share of Europe in world R&D; values greater than 1 indicate the region is technology specialized
in the sector.
Source: Bruegel and World Bank staff calculations, based on the European Commission’s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies R&D
Scoreboard; see Chapter 5.
28
Some economies are doing well, but
they are small
Figure 5.3: Europe’s leaders invest as much in innovation as the United States and Japan
(business and public R&D expenditure, percentage of GDP)
Note: Data refer to different years by country.
Source: European Commission (2011) and UNESCO; see Chapter 5.
29
And the US lead in top tertiary
education is growing
Figure 5.16: Europe is falling behind the United States in top university rankings
(world’s top 100 universities)
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on data from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Thomson Reuters/Times; see Chapter 5.
30
Europe—Lifestyle Superpower
31
The lifestyle superpower
Figure 12: Outspending the rest of the world
(general government spending on defense [United States] and social protection [Europe], 2004–09,
share of total world spending)
Note: For social protection spending, due to the data availability, averages over 2004–09 by country are used. n is the number of countries included in
the calculations. Data cover general government but, if unavailable, refer to central government only.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2011), IMF GFS, WDI, World Bank ECA Social
Protection Database, and Weigand and Grosh (2008).
32
Fewer workers in Europe
Figure 14: Europe’s labor force will shrink, while North America’s will grow by a quarter
(projected cumulative change in working-age population, 2010–50, percent)
30
North America
20
10
0
-10
Western Europe
Emerging Europe
North-East Asia
Slovak Republic
-20
-30
-40
2010
Czech Republic
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Poland
2050
Note: North America is the US and Canada; North-East Asia includes China, Hong Kong SAR, China, Japan, Macao SAR, China, Republic of Korea,
and Taiwan, China. Poland, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic are also included in Emerging Europe.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base; see Chapter 6.
33
Europeans are living longer, and
retiring earlier
Figure 13: Europe’s pension systems have to support people for many more years
(changes in life expectancy at 60 and effective retirement age, 1965–2007)
Source: OECD (2011) and updated data from OECD (2006).
34
European governments spend about
10 percent of GDP more
Figure 16: Governments in Europe are big
(the world resized by government spending in dollars, 2009)
Source: World Bank staff using IMF WEO.
35
Social protection spending is the
(only) reason
Figure 17: Social protection explains the difference in government size between Europe and its peers
(government spending, percentage of GDP, 2007–08)
Note: “Social protection” includes benefits related to sickness and disability, old age, survivors, family and children, unemployment, and housing. Western
Europe comprises Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (North); Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (Center); Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain (South).
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on IMF GFS and IMF WEO; see Chapter 7.
36
The east is smaller than the west, but
not always
Figure 17: Social protection explains the difference in government size between Europe and its peers
(government spending, percentage of GDP, 2007–08)
50
21.1
40
16.2
3.9
10
0
15.6
19.9
10.4
5.2
18.5
12.4
30
20
19.9
5.8
4.5
15.9
18.3
Poland
Czech
Republic
6.7
3.3
6.4
6.8
5.2
7.7
4.6
7.0
6.2
7.3
15.2
16.7
15.8
18.3
16.6
Slovak
Republic
Sweden
Austria
Italy
United
Kingdom
Social protection
Education
Health
4.0
12.7
5.1
6.2
7.4
13.6
14.5
Germany
Ireland
Non-social spending
Note: “Social protection” includes benefits related to sickness and disability, old age, survivors, family and children, unemployment, and housing.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on IMF GFS and IMF WEO; see Chapter 7.
37
Others also subsidize the elderly, but
not for nearly as long
Figure 18: Small differences in annual pensions per beneficiary, big in overall public pension
spending
(public pension spending in 2007)
Note: Median values by group are shown. Western Europe comprises Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (North); Austria, Belgium,
France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (Center); Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain
(South). Anglo-Saxon comprises Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.
Source: World Bank staff calculations, based on Eurostat and the OECD Pensions Statistics; see Chapter 7.
38
Big adjustments ahead, because of current
imbalances and future health costs
Figure 19: Western Europe has to reduce fiscal deficits by 6 percent of GDP, emerging Europe by
less
(illustrative fiscal adjustment needs, 2010–30, percentage of GDP)
Required adjustment
Cyclically-adjusted primary balance, 2010-20
Changes in pensions and healthcare, 2010-30
12
10
3.7
4.1
8
0.7
6
4
2
0
2.1
5.9
3.6
7.0
3.6
2.8
2.5
Overall
0.7
North
Center
Western Europe
South
2.0
0.9
3.2
2.8
Overall
EU12
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.0
EU
candidates
Eastern
partnership
7.9
7.4
4.8
Poland
Czech
Slovak
Republic Republic
Emerging Europe
Note: The fiscal impacts of aging on pensions and health care systems are missing for EU candidate and eastern partnership countries. For this
exercise, the sum of adjustment in health care spending is assumed to be the same as for the new member states. The adjustment in pension
related spending is assumed to be the same as that for southern Europe. For the country composition in each group, see note for figure 17.
Sources: Calculations by staff of the Institute for Structural Research in Poland and the World Bank, based on IMF WEO; see Chapter 7.
39
Imperatives
40
Towards a greener economic model
See Spotlight Two.
Keeping what has been achieved
• Restarting the Convergence Machine: Services
• Facilitate the trade in business services
• Strengthen regulatory coordination for finance
• Rebuilding Brand Europe: Productivity
• Restart the convergence machine
• Improve enterprise where productivity growth has slowed
• Download “killer apps” of innovation from the United States
• Remaining the Lifestyle Superpower: Demography
•
•
•
•
Restart the Convergence Machine
Rebuild Brand Europe
Make labor markets more competitive
Make government more efficient, or make it smaller
42
Imperatives, strengths and weaknesses
Government
Labor
Demographic
Trends
Innovation
Productivity
Growth
Enterprise
Finance
Modern
Services
Trade
43
It’s been done before (in Europe)
Table 8.1: Benchmark countries for selected policies
Selected countries
Policy area
Europe
World
Sweden
Korea, Rep.
(EU) Poland
(Non-EU) Croatia
1
Restructuring private debt
2
Managing financial foreign direct investment
3
Crisis-proofing financial integration
Czech Republic
Canada
4
Increasing value-added
Slovak Republic
Singapore
5
Job creation
Ireland
New Zealand
6
Export generation
Germany
Korea, Rep.
7
R&D policy
Switzerland
United States
8
Tertiary education
United Kingdom
United States
9
Management quality
Sweden
United States
10
Internal mobility
Ireland
United States
11
Labor legislation
Denmark
United States
12
Immigration policies
Sweden; United Kingdom
Canada; United States
13
Social security
Iceland
Japan
14
Social service delivery
Finland
Singapore
15
Reducing public debt
Turkey
New Zealand
16
Green growth policies
Germany
California (US)
Source: Iwulska (2011), available at www.worldbank.org/goldengrowth.
44
Available at
www.worldbank.org/goldengrowth
45
References
Bonin, H., W. Eichhorst, C. Florman, M. Hansen, L. Skiöld, J. Stuhler, K. Tatsiramos, H. Thomasen, and K. Zimmermann. 2008. “Geographic Mobility in the European
Union: Optimising Its Economic and Social Benefits.” IZA Research Report 19, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn.
Conference Board, The. 2011. “Total Economy Database.” January 2011, The Conference Board, New York, NY. Available at www.conferenceboard.org/data/economydatabase.
European Commission. 2011. Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) 2010: The Innovation Union’s Performance Scoreboard for Research and Innovation. Brussels:
European Commission.
Heston, A., R. Summers, and B. Aten. 2011. “Penn World Table Version 7.0.” May, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices, University
of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, PA.
ILO (International Labour Office). 2010. Key indicators of the Labour Market, Sixth Edition. Geneva: ILO.
Iwulska, A. 2011. “Country Benchmarks.” Prepared for this report. Available at www.worldbank.org/goldengrowth.
Lane, P., and G. Milesi-Ferretti. 2007. “The External Wealth of Nations Mark II: Revised and Extended Estimates of Foreign Assets and Liabilities, 1970–2004.” Journal
of International Economics 73 (2): 223–250.
Lundstrom Gable, S., and S. Mishra. 2011. “Service Export Sophistication and Europe’s New Growth Model.” Policy Research Working Paper 5793, World Bank,
Washington, DC. Background paper for this report.
Maddison, A. 1996. “Macroeconomic Accounts for European Countries.” In Quantitative Aspects of Post-War European Economic Growth, ed. B. van Ark, and N.
Crafts: 27–83. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. OECD Employment Outlook 2005. Paris: OECD.
———. 2006. Live Longer, Work Longer. Paris: OECD.
———. 2007. OECD Economic Surveys: European Union 2007. Paris: OECD.
———. 2011. Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 2011. SIPRI Yearbook 2011: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Stojkov, A., and J. Zalduendo. 2011. “Europe as a Convergence Engine: Heterogeneity and Investment Opportunities in Emerging Europe.” Policy Research Working
Paper 5906, World Bank, Washington, DC. Background paper for this report.
Sugawara, N., and J. Zalduendo. 2010. “How Much Economic Integration Is There in the Extended EU Family?” ECAnomics Note 10/1, Office of the Chief Economist,
Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank, Washington, DC. Background paper for this report.
UNCTAD (Untied Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2010. World Investment Report 2010: Investing in a Low-Carbon Economy. New York, NY: UN.
Weigand, C., and M. Grosh. 2008. “Levels and Patterns of Safety Net Spending in Developing and Transition Countries.” Social Protection Discussion Paper 0817,
Human Development Network, World Bank, Washington, DC.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2009. International Trade Statistics 2009. Geneva: WTO.
46