WANTED: Innovative and Productive
Entrepreneurs for a Sustainable Suriname
A CET Knowledge Product
Country Office Suriname
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Inter-American Development Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent. The unauthorized commercial use of Bank documents is prohibited and may be punishable under the Bank's policies and/or applicable laws. Copyright © Inter-American Development Bank. All rights reserved; may be freely reproduced for any non-commercial purpose.
Why are we here?
• Business leaders should be frontline advocates for policies that lead to optimal productivity and output.
• Effective advocacy requires a better understanding of key constraints.
• Therefore, the business community should coordinate their messages around empirical and solid findings to produce solutions that are home-grown, not imported.
A bit windy road, but hang in there. . .
• Context
• A Complication
• Decision: Two Worlds
• Response
Compared with other countries in the region, things are still better for Surinamers.
GDP (Current prices)
Suriname is among the fastest growing countries in LAC.
Main fiscal variables still look better compared with others.
Fiscal comparison end 2012.
2012
Fiscal Balance
Debt % GDP
Bahamas -5.9 56.5
Barbados -8.0 72.3
Guyana -4.4 61.3
Jamaica -5.6 142.8
Suriname -2.8 22.0
Trinidad and Tobago -4.3 36.4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
p
20
13
p
20
14
p
20
15
p
20
16
p
20
17
p
Pe
rce
nt
of
GD
P
Years
Total Public Debt: % of GDP - end of period
Domestic Public Debt: % of GDP - end of period
External Public Debt: % of GDP - end of period
Three year moving average Total Debt/GDP
Projections
And debt is will remain sustainable.
Inflation is now low and stable.
Imagine
Jere noh! Arki dja!
So, why are we here today?
Despite performing well, Suriname faces a significant challenge.
Kong mi broko na ptjieng monie.
• What do we mean by “Productivity?”
Nothing is more elegant than Mathematics!
8
Methodology
Aggregate productivity is difficult to estimate and the task is even more
challenging when we use Caribbean data for the reasons we already described
previously. More than fifty years of growth research gave us two main approaches
to estimating total factor productivity: growth accounting and frontier analysis.
Growth accounting is a common method researchers have applied to the
Caribbean. Here, we derive eight sets of results by varying the growth accounting
method. We then compare these results with those obtained when we estimate two
specifications using the frontier analysis method. With these results, we weave a
consistent story on the evolution of aggregate productivity in the Caribbean by
using these results before turning to the matter of the determinants of total factor
productivity growth in the Caribbean.
Measuring TFP Using Growth Accounting Methods
Solow (1957) provides us with a starting point to account for growth. This
method allows us to decompose for total factor productivity growth (as a share of
the production function) by accounting for the contribution of labour and capital
to output. Based on a neo-classical production function, labour (L) and physical
capital (K) produce output (Y) in each country, i = 1, . . ., N, at time, t,
(1) Yit = Ait F(Kit, Lit)
where Ait is aggregate productivity or total factor productivity (TFP). Following
tradition, we assume a Cobb-Douglas production function that has constant
returns to scale. The shares of capital and labour input are α and 1-α, respectively.
(2) Yit = Ait Kitα Lit
1- α
As we are interested in understanding the evolution of the growth rates of these
variables, we express the equation as follows:
9
(3) ln(Yit/Yit-1) =ln(Ait/Ait-1) + α ln(Kit/Kit-1) + (1-α)ln(Lit/Lit-1)
We simplify and use yit, ait, kit, and lit to denote output, aggregate productivity,
capital, and labour growth rates at time, t, respectively:
(4) yit = ait + α kit + (1-α)lit
We then rearrange the equation to derive ait:
(5) ait = yit - αkit - (1-α) lit
We calculate kit using the perpetual inventory method:
(6) Kit = (1 - δ) Kit-1 + Iit-1
where Iit is investment and δ is the rate of depreciation, which we assume to be an
annual average of 6 percent (CITE).
For our first set of estimations, we calculate α, which is gross investment as a
share of GDP in country, i. We report the results of these estimations, Results I, in
table X. We then modify this basic estimation equation in series of ways. Results
II reports aggregate productivity measures when we account for the impact of
natural disasters on the capital stock while following the perpetual inventory
method in the following way:
(7) Kit = (1 - δ) (Kit-1 – NDDit-1) + Iit-1
where NDDit denotes natural disaster damages to the capital stock at time, t.
Results III and IV show aggregate productivity measures when we assume α is
equal to 0.35, with and without taking natural disaster damages into consideration,
respectively. We analyse how aggregate productivity results change when we
9
(3) ln(Yit/Yit-1) =ln(Ait/Ait-1) + α ln(Kit/Kit-1) + (1-α)ln(Lit/Lit-1)
We simplify and use yit, ait, kit, and lit to denote output, aggregate productivity,
capital, and labour growth rates at time, t, respectively:
(4) yit = ait + α kit + (1-α)lit
We then rearrange the equation to derive ait:
(5) ait = yit - αkit - (1-α) lit
We calculate kit using the perpetual inventory method:
(6) Kit = (1 - δ) Kit-1 + Iit-1
where Iit is investment and δ is the rate of depreciation, which we assume to be an
annual average of 6 percent (CITE).
For our first set of estimations, we calculate α, which is gross investment as a
share of GDP in country, i. We report the results of these estimations, Results I, in
table X. We then modify this basic estimation equation in series of ways. Results
II reports aggregate productivity measures when we account for the impact of
natural disasters on the capital stock while following the perpetual inventory
method in the following way:
(7) Kit = (1 - δ) (Kit-1 – NDDit-1) + Iit-1
where NDDit denotes natural disaster damages to the capital stock at time, t.
Results III and IV show aggregate productivity measures when we assume α is
equal to 0.35, with and without taking natural disaster damages into consideration,
respectively. We analyse how aggregate productivity results change when we
A la Solow. . .
Or alternatively, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).
A la Caves, et. al.
Jokes aside, let’s talk about two examples
• How do we get more stuff (growth)?
– Example A: More material (capital)
– Example B: More labour
• Neither is sustainable – Example C: More productivity. . .
• How?
Aggregate productivity in Suriname is low and falling.
. . .also when compared with other small countries.
Decomposed productivity: spurts of technical change with large investments?
Labour productivity took a hit and is not recovering fast enough.
Suriname Another Caribbean country
We find that Suriname’s outstanding growth performance is below potential---and productivity is a big reason for this.
Suriname Small Countries Suriname (if higher
productivity)
Capital Deepening
4.90 3.67 5.4
Labour 0.01 0.01 0.01
TFP -0.9 3.17 1.59
OUTPUT GROWTH
4.01 6.85 7.00
“No spang.” Really?
More evidence.
Surinamese firms appear to be the least productive in the Caribbean.
. . .perhaps driven by the fact that firm level labour productivity growth has been large and negative.
While firms concur and identify “an inadequately educated workforce” as a main to doing business, only 2 percent of them offer on-the-job training.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Inadequately educated workforce
Customs & Trade Regulation
Access to Finance
Corruption
Courts
Practices Informal Sector
Licenses & Permits
Tax Rates
Access to Land
Crime, Theft & Disorder
Percent
Top 10 Business Enviornment Constraints for Firms in Suriname
LAC Average
Suriname (% of Firms)
Kong mi broko na ptjieng monie.
Why bother with competitiveness?
Given Suriname’s structural macroeconomic challenges, low productivity erodes partially its stability buffer (which is necessary given its inherent volatility).
. . . Particularly as demonstrated by the vulnerability of GDP to commodity price shocks.
Sang joe wan doe?
Decisions: Two Worlds
Do Nothing (and hope for the best)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
US$
mill
ion
s
Leap Forward
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
US$
mill
ion
s Baseline GDP More Productive GDP
We are full of questions. Where shall we look?
• Labour productivity: – Education – Role of government vs private sector
• Wage negotiations • HR • Crowding out
• Enterprise survey data – Technology, innnovation, training
• Institutions (economic freedom index?) (what about legal framework and legislature?)
• Reforms are needed!
How to leap forward? What do we have to do?
• Institutional reforms (especially given government’s role): streamline procedures and use IT.
• HR reform and remuneration structure
• PPP: skills training
• Open (export oriented) competition to break interest capture.
• Foster technology adoption and indigenous innovation.
We need to know what we do not know.
Some things we are already working on, but it is time to dig deeper:
• To get it right
• To speak with one voice
• To put the business community, households, and people at the centre of the economic growth model.
MORE DATA!
Your choice!
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
US$
mill
ion
s Baseline GDP More Productive GDP