Like I said in my weekend thematic summary I have been working on a country analysis/outlook for Chile. Now, why the heck am I writing about Chile now, you might ask. Clearly, some are already busy telling me to shut up all together, or to stop saying stuff about economies and regions of which, according to them, I know nothing about. I am afraid that those people won't be getting their way. I am far too nosy and curious to listen to such "suggestions".

In this first installment, I am looking at the more long term drivers of economic growth in Chile as well as I try to contextualize how demographics might assist us in our perspective on the economic facts. The background for my sudden interest in Chile (as well as in Thailand and Brazil) can be found here where Edward Hugh explains the concept of his and my own a baker's dozen. As per reference to the template I am working with, the note should also have included some tables of the most important annual economic and institutional data points. But Squarespace did not like the formatting and I could not be bothered to type it in manually.

---

There are many perspectives through which to look at economic development and growth. Geography, institutions or perhaps just plain good old physical capital accumulation are all important parameters. This small piece suggests a further metric and attempts to frame the argument with Chile as a case study.

Specfifically, this note explains the process known as the demographic dividend and conceptualizes it in a Chilean context. The analysis shows how Chile during the last two decades has benefited from the dividend proxied by the increasingly favorable trend in overall age structure of the society. By some measures Chile’s demographic dividend is thus ending during these very years. Yet, by adapting a slightly broader definition of the optimal working age and subsequent productivity profile, it appears that Chile still finds itself in the proverbial sweet spot and will continue to do so for the next decade. Coupled with the favorable windfall from copper exports and the subsequent transformation of this into an unprecedented net wealth position of Chile’s public accounts, the economy looks on a very solid footing to face whatever travails that might come next.

Chile's growth performance depicted by the chart is interesting in so far as it shows us the period that some scholars have dubbed Chile's Golden Age Gallego and Loayza (2002) due to the extended period of high growth rates.  Between 1984 and 1998 Chile's growth rate in output per capita averaged 5.15% a year with a volatility of 2.64% p.a. This compares with an average growth rate in output per capita between 1998 and 2008(f) of 2.61% and a subsequent volatility of 1.73%. The 1985-1998 figures are remarkable and thus deserve some explanation.

According to Gallego and Loayza (2002) Chile's impressive growth performance primarily comes down to improvements in total factor productivity induced by increased investment in human capital and the development of a sound and coherent institutional setup. As such, and not unlike other growth accounting exercises the authors initially find that TFP accounts for the biggest share of output growth alongside the usual suspects of capital accumulation and growth in the labour force, the latter which is (in)famously coined as synonomous with population growth in the neo-classical growth model

The empirical approach is rather straight forward in terms of methodology, and is closely related to the tenets of endogenous growth theory as well as of course Mankiw, Romer and Weil's (1992) seminal findings that investment in human capital be considered an important part of capital accumulation. Formally, the authors first estimate a cross-section regression framework (GMM) based on a, more or less, standard neo-classical growth model augmented with human capital (schooling rates and life expectancy). The authors also include; government consumption to GDP,  financial market development, terms of trade shocks, trade openess, and a black market premium. They find that this model account for 43% of the growth observed in Chile.

Unsatisfied with this result, the authors imbue the model with a number of variables whose origin in the growth theory framework are inspired by the tenets of endogenous growth theory. These variables include proxies for the political system, governance, public services and infrastructure, and with these, the new model moves reaches a coefficient of determination of 73%.

In line with endogenous growth theory the authors consequently find that this initial "residual" best be explained by improvements in the institutional edifice of Chile's economy. As a result and although the notorious convergence effect will tend to lead to lower overall growth rates in period t0 than in period t-1, the authors suggest that Chile focus further on institutional improvements to foster growth in the future.

Far be it from me to take issue with these results. However, in the following I propose another way to look at the past and future growth performance of Chile. It is important to understand that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but ultimately directs the attention to a different set of governing mechanisms when it comes to economic growth. 

A Demographic Dividend?

In one of their many papers on the subject David E. Bloom and David Canning (see Demographic Challenges, Fiscal Sustainability and Economic Growth, PGDA Working Paper no. 8) provide a useful historical sweep of the different approaches to demographic changes and their significance on the economic edifice. From the Malthusian epoch to a more optimist view on the benefits of vibrant population dynamics (see e.g. Simon Kuznets, Julian Simon, and Ester Boserup) and on to what Bloom and Canning coin as the “neutralists” (3) , the perspective on the importance of demographics has certainly changed a lot.

One crucial lesson to draw from the historical prism of demographic discourses is that the demographic transition is a far more complicated process than a mere transition in population growth rates as well as one of sectoral shifts in the economy. Lee (2003) consequently shows how the demographic transition also fundamentally changes the age structure of society whereas others such as Malmberg and Sommerstad (2000) and Hugh (2006) have suggested that the demographic transition be re-thought all together. Common for these contributions is the shifts in age structure, the complex mechanisms which govern these changes, and their subsequent effect and operationalization on the macroeconomic edifice.

Bloom, Canning and their fellow scholars on the PGDA at Harvard, (4)  have furthermore showed how age structure makes a much more solid demographic yard stick, for gauging economic trends, than merely looking at population growth and absolute size of the population. This, I think, is the ultimate lesson to derive from decades worth of thinking on demographic processes. I would essentially divide the lesson into two irrefutable points. One is that age structure matters much more than population growth and that a simple metric such as median age can give us a tremendous amount of information on an economy's given and future growth path. The second points is simply that the demographic transition is not, by a long shot, over.