Productivity Growth in Productivity Growth in Agriculture in Latin Agriculture in Latin America and the America and the CaribbeanCaribbean
Presented by Presented by
Carlos LudenaCarlos Ludena
OutlineOutline
I.I. Importance of Agricultural ProductivityImportance of Agricultural ProductivityII.II. Methods to Measure Total factor Methods to Measure Total factor
ProductivityProductivityIII.III. Productivity in Agriculture - ResultsProductivity in Agriculture - ResultsIV.IV. Agricultural Productivity in Latin AmericaAgricultural Productivity in Latin AmericaV.V. Impacts of External Shocks and Impacts of External Shocks and
Economic ReformsEconomic ReformsVI.VI. Going forward – future analysisGoing forward – future analysis
I. Agricultural I. Agricultural ProductivityProductivity
- Importance to the wider - Importance to the wider economyeconomy
Productivity in Productivity in AgricultureAgriculture Agricultural productivity is an key factor for Agricultural productivity is an key factor for
agricultural development. agricultural development. Agricultural development is an important Agricultural development is an important
precondition towards industrializationprecondition towards industrialization Preceded and promoted industrialization in now Preceded and promoted industrialization in now
developed economies. developed economies. Agricultural productivity growth is higher Agricultural productivity growth is higher
relative to manufacturing (Martin and Mitra, relative to manufacturing (Martin and Mitra, 1999)1999) 0.5 - 1.5 percent per year higher0.5 - 1.5 percent per year higher
Agricultural Productivity Agricultural Productivity and economic growthand economic growth Agricultural productivity improves broader economic Agricultural productivity improves broader economic
growth by: growth by: Generation of additional demand for goods and Generation of additional demand for goods and
services produced outside agriculture as income from services produced outside agriculture as income from agriculture increases. agriculture increases.
Savings through increased farm incomes which can Savings through increased farm incomes which can then be invested both in agriculture and other sectors. then be invested both in agriculture and other sectors.
Release of labor to the industrial sector.Release of labor to the industrial sector. Provision of cheap food for urban areas, enabling Provision of cheap food for urban areas, enabling
them to maintain wage rates at competitive levels them to maintain wage rates at competitive levels Provision of raw material to support manufacturing. Provision of raw material to support manufacturing.
II. Approaches to II. Approaches to Measure TFPMeasure TFP
- Distance functions and - Distance functions and the Malmquist Indexthe Malmquist Index
Total Factor Productivity Total Factor Productivity (TFP)(TFP) Can take into account all relevant factors Can take into account all relevant factors
and offer a more detailed view relative to and offer a more detailed view relative to partial factor productivity (PFP)partial factor productivity (PFP)
Used in the analysis of agricultural Used in the analysis of agricultural productivityproductivity
TFP Measurement TFP Measurement ApproachesApproaches Frontier or Non-FrontierFrontier or Non-Frontier Frontier approaches explicitly incorporate Frontier approaches explicitly incorporate
inefficiencyinefficiency and account for and account for changeschanges in in efficiency over time.efficiency over time.
Non-frontier approaches generally assume Non-frontier approaches generally assume that observed output is frontier outputthat observed output is frontier output Competitive optimizers behavior. Firms are Competitive optimizers behavior. Firms are
technically efficienttechnically efficient TFP is changes in production technology onlyTFP is changes in production technology only
TFP Measurement TFP Measurement ApproachesApproaches EconometricEconometric Estimation of cost and production functions Estimation of cost and production functions
(non-frontier)(non-frontier) Estimation of production frontierEstimation of production frontier
DeterministicDeterministic Index Numbers (Laspayres, Paasche, Index Numbers (Laspayres, Paasche,
TTöörnqvist)rnqvist) Mathematical Programing (Malmquist Index)Mathematical Programing (Malmquist Index)
TFP Measurement TFP Measurement ApproachesApproaches
Non FrontierNon Frontier FrontierFrontier
EconometricEconometric Econometric estimation Econometric estimation of production (and of production (and cost) functionscost) functions
Econometric Econometric estimation of estimation of production frontiersproduction frontiers
DeterministicDeterministic Function-based index Function-based index number formulae number formulae (Diewert)(Diewert)PaaschePaascheLaspeyersLaspeyersTTöörnqvistrnqvistFischerFischer
Mathematical Mathematical Programming ModelsProgramming ModelsData Envelopment Data Envelopment AnalysisAnalysisMalmquist IndexMalmquist Index
Deterministic MethodsDeterministic Methods
Do not involve explicit specification of a Do not involve explicit specification of a production function (no estimation of production function (no estimation of parameters)parameters)
A A deterministicdeterministic or exact relationship or exact relationship between inputs and outputs.between inputs and outputs.
Sensitive to measurement errorsSensitive to measurement errors
Output Possibility Set Output Possibility Set and Distance Functions and Distance Functions
B
g
A
O O2
C
P(x)
y1
y2
P(x) = {y R+M | (y, x) S}
D0 (x, y) = (sup{θ: (x, θy) S})-1
D0 (x, y) = OC/OA
1, :C 0 ttt yxD
1, :A 0 ttt yxD
θ = Efficiency coefficient
Distance Functions and Distance Functions and Productivity IndicesProductivity Indices
g
Bt
O
At
St
y1
y2
St+1
At+1
Bt+1
t
tttt
OB
OAyxD ,0
1
11110 ,
t
tttt
OB
OAyxD
1
10 ,
t
tttt
OB
OAyxD
t
tttt
OB
OAyxD 111
0 ,
Malmquist IndexMalmquist Index
Malmquist Index (Caves et al., 1982)Malmquist Index (Caves et al., 1982)
ttt
tttt
yxD
yxDM
,
,
0
110
Maximal proportional change in output to make (xt,yt) feasible in relation to technology at t+1.
Technology in period t is reference technology.
ttt
tttt
yxD
yxDM
,
,1
0
11101
Technology in period t+1 is reference technology.
TFP, Malmquist Index and TFP, Malmquist Index and Distance FunctionsDistance Functions Fare et al. (1994, Fare et al. (1994, AERAER): Geometric mean ): Geometric mean
of two Malmquist Indexes (t and t+1) of two Malmquist Indexes (t and t+1) Shepard’s Distance Function: Shepard’s Distance Function: Maximum proportional change in outputs Maximum proportional change in outputs
required to make the set of input and outputs required to make the set of input and outputs feasible in relation to the technology at time feasible in relation to the technology at time tt
Computed as the solution to a linear Computed as the solution to a linear programming problem, with the model programming problem, with the model exhibiting constant returns to scale:exhibiting constant returns to scale:
*
,
1**0 max,
*
k
z
kk
kkD
yx
N
k
kkj
kj
k yyz1
** Jj ,,1
N
k
kh
kh
k xxz1
*Hh ,,1
0kz Nk ,,1
Where:k is the set of countries (k* is a particular country whose efficiency is being measured)j is the set of outputs, h is the set of inputs, zk is the weight of the kth country data; and is the efficiency index.
Subject to
Malmquist IndexMalmquist Index
Output-based Malmquist productivity Output-based Malmquist productivity change indexchange index
21
10
1110
0
11011
0 ,
,
,
,,,,
ttt
ttt
ttt
ttttttt
yxD
yxD
yxD
yxDyxyxM
growthty Productivi 1)(0 M
typroductiviin change No 1)(0 M
Malmquist IndexMalmquist Index
Allows for inefficient performanceAllows for inefficient performance Does not assume an underlying form for Does not assume an underlying form for
technologytechnology Constructs a “world” frontier and compares Constructs a “world” frontier and compares
each country to this frontier.each country to this frontier. Two components: Efficiency change and Two components: Efficiency change and
technical changetechnical change The product of these two components yields a The product of these two components yields a
frontier version of productivity change frontier version of productivity change
Technical Change and Technical Change and Efficiency ChangeEfficiency Change
g
O
At
St
y1
y2
St+1
At+1
Technical Change
“Innovation”
Efficiency Change
“Catching-up”
Bt
Bt+1
Efficiency and Technical Efficiency and Technical ChangeChange
ttt
ttt
yxD
yxDEFF
,
,
0
110
21
10
0111
0
110
,
,
,
,
ttt
ttt
ttt
ttt
yxD
yxD
yxD
yxDTECH
E
g
K
O
F
C
P(x)y1
y2
i
G
h DLH
j
Distance Functions with Distance Functions with multiple outputsmultiple outputs
Directional Distance Directional Distance FunctionFunction Nin et al. (2003): Input allocationNin et al. (2003): Input allocation
Specific input constraints for allocated inputsSpecific input constraints for allocated inputs Modified the directional distance function measure Modified the directional distance function measure
(Chung et al., 1997)(Chung et al., 1997) Defined as the contraction of inputs and the Defined as the contraction of inputs and the
expansion of outputs (expansion of outputs (--ggxxggyy)) One output: One output: gg = ( = (yyii, , 00)) The distance function The distance function DD((xx, , yy; ; gg = ( = (yyii, , 00)))) is the is the
optimal objective value for the following optimal objective value for the following problem:problem:
is the level of the allocatable input h used to produce output j of firm k,
*
,0 max,;,
*
ki
zi
ki
kygD
0yx
N
k
kj
kj
k yyz1
*Jjji ,,2,1 and
*
1
* 1 ki
N
k
ki
ki
k yyz
N
k
khj
khj
k xxz1
* Ah
N
k
kh
kh
k xxz1
*Ah
0kz Nk ,,1
khjx
ji
A is the set of allocatable inputs,
index the other outputs (for which efficiency is not being measured).
Subject to:
i is the particular output for which efficiency is being measured for firm k*, and
Directional Malmquist Directional Malmquist IndexIndex Directional Malmquist Index for a specific Directional Malmquist Index for a specific
Product/Sector (Nin-Pratt et al., 2003)Product/Sector (Nin-Pratt et al., 2003)
5.0
11110
10
11110
0
,;,,1
,;,,1
,;,,1
,;,,1
)1,(
00
00
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
yyyxD
yyyxD
yyyxD
yyyxD
ttDM
Directional Malmquist Directional Malmquist IndexIndex Efficiency and Technological Change Efficiency and Technological Change
Components:Components:
0
0
,;,,1
,;,,11111
0
0
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
yyyxD
yyyxDDEFF
21
11110
111110
0
10
,;,,1
,;,,1
,;,,1
,;,,1
0
0
0
0ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
yyyxD
yyyxD
yyyxD
yyyxDDTECH
LimitationsLimitations
Malmquist index may not be well definedMalmquist index may not be well defined Reallocation factor bias in the measureReallocation factor bias in the measure
Movement of unallocated inputs from one activity to Movement of unallocated inputs from one activity to the other rather than technical growth. the other rather than technical growth.
Data Data Which factors are relevantWhich factors are relevant Which peers (countries) to includeWhich peers (countries) to include Zero output in some cases (i.e. pork production)Zero output in some cases (i.e. pork production)
Other problems (not exclusive of Malmquist Other problems (not exclusive of Malmquist Index)Index) Which measures/indicators are appropriate?Which measures/indicators are appropriate?
III. Productivity III. Productivity in Agriculturein Agriculture
- Worldwide results and - Worldwide results and focus on Latin Americafocus on Latin America
Ludena et al., 2007. Productivity growth and convergence in crop, ruminant, and non ruminant production: measurement and forecasts. Agricultural Economics 37 (1): 1–17
Empirical Application for Empirical Application for Latin AmericaLatin America FAOSTAT: 116 countries, 1961-2001FAOSTAT: 116 countries, 1961-2001 Outputs – Crops, Ruminants and Non Outputs – Crops, Ruminants and Non
RuminantsRuminants InputsInputs
Land (Pastures, Arable and Permanent Crops) Land (Pastures, Arable and Permanent Crops) Machinery (tractors, milking machines)Machinery (tractors, milking machines) Animal StockAnimal Stock Animal FeedAnimal Feed FertilizersFertilizers Labor (in agriculture)Labor (in agriculture)
Input-Output AllocationInput-Output AllocationInputInput OutputOutput
Arable land and permanent cropsArable land and permanent crops CropsCrops
Land in pastureLand in pasture RuminantsRuminants
Tractors and harvestersTractors and harvesters CropsCrops
Milking MachinesMilking Machines RuminantsRuminants
Ruminant StockRuminant Stock RuminantsRuminants
Non-Ruminant StockNon-Ruminant Stock Non-ruminantsNon-ruminants
FeedFeed LivestockLivestock
Fertilizer Fertilizer CropsCrops
LaborLabor AllAll
TFP in Agriculture (1961-TFP in Agriculture (1961-2001)2001)
RegionAgriculture Crops Ruminants
Non-Ruminants
World 0.94 0.72 0.62 2.10
Latin America & Carib. 0.77 0.76 0.08 2.01
Industrialized Countries 1.19 1.47 0.71 1.23
Economies in Transition 0.89 1.13 0.28 1.20
China 1.67 0.74 2.82 3.33
East and South East Asia 0.18 0.02 -0.22 1.25
South Asia 0.27 0.17 0.35 1.89
N. Africa and Middle East 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 0.64
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.21 0.15 0.36 0.50
Annual Productivity Growth (%) in Agriculture and Subsectors
0.94
0.77
1.19
0.89
1.67
0.18
0.27
0.03
0.21
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
World
Latin America & Carib.
Industrialized Countries
Economies in Transition
China
East and South East Asia
South Asia
N. Africa and Middle East
Sub-Saharan Africa
Agriculture
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
World
Latin America & Carib.
Industrialized Countries
Economies in Transition
China
East and South East Asia
South Asia
N. Africa and Middle East
Sub-Saharan Africa
CropsRuminantsNon-Ruminants
0.72
0.76
1.47
1.13
0.74
0.02
0.17
-0.03
0.15
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
World
Latin America & Carib.
Industrialized Countries
Economies in Transition
China
East and South East Asia
South Asia
N. Africa and Middle East
Sub-Saharan Africa
Crops
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
World
Latin America & Carib.
Industrialized Countries
Economies in Transition
China
East and South East Asia
South Asia
N. Africa and Middle East
Sub-Saharan Africa
Ruminants
Non-Ruminants
IV. Productivity IV. Productivity Growth in Latin Growth in Latin AmericaAmerica
TFP in Agriculture in Latin TFP in Agriculture in Latin America and the CaribbeanAmerica and the Caribbean
Annual Productivity Growth (%) in Agriculture and Subsectors (1961-2001)
AgricultureAgriculture CropsCrops RuminantsRuminantsNon Non
RuminantsRuminants
1961-001961-00 0.80.8 0.80.8 0.10.1 2.02.0
1961-701961-70 0.10.1 0.40.4 -0.9-0.9 0.30.3
1971-801971-80 0.70.7 0.50.5 0.00.0 2.72.7
1981-901981-90 0.70.7 0.50.5 0.50.5 1.61.6
1991-001991-00 1.71.7 1.61.6 0.70.7 3.53.5
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
AgricultureCropsLivestock
Cumulative Productivity Index for Latin Cumulative Productivity Index for Latin America and the Caribbean (1961 = 100)America and the Caribbean (1961 = 100)
Source: Ludena et al. 2007.
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
TFP EFF TCH TFP EFF TCH TFP EFF TCH TFP EFF TCH
Agriculture Crops Ruminants Non Ruminants
TFP in Agriculture in Latin America TFP in Agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean (1961-2000)and the Caribbean (1961-2000)
Annual TFP Growth (1961-200)Annual TFP Growth (1961-200)Countries with Land Abundance (Ha./PEA > Countries with Land Abundance (Ha./PEA > 12) 12)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Nicaragua
Paraguay
Uruguay
Venezuela
Annual TFP Growth (1961-200) Annual TFP Growth (1961-200) Countries with Land Constraint (Ha./PEA < Countries with Land Constraint (Ha./PEA < 12) 12)
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Costa Rica
Cuba
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Panama
Peru
Rep. Dom.
AVERAGE GROWTH (%)1961-0061-70 71-80 81-90 91-00
Argentina 3.40 4.63 3.72 1.78 3.47Belize 3.00 0.59 3.35 1.14 7.03Bolivia 0.37 -2.15 0.16 1.08 2.44Brazil 0.68 -1.73 -1.38 2.34 3.60Chile 1.99 2.07 0.31 2.55 3.06Colombia 1.22 -0.47 2.64 1.57 1.16Costarica 2.64 3.95 0.03 3.61 2.99Cuba 0.99 2.48 2.13 -0.89 0.29Dominican 0.64 2.05 0.37 -0.49 0.62Ecuador 0.23 0.58 -1.07 0.52 0.90Elsalvador -0.14 1.32 0.10 -1.13 -0.85Guatemala 1.24 1.43 1.63 0.69 1.24Haiti 0.60 2.45 3.00 -0.24 -2.70Honduras -1.20 -2.76 -0.14 -0.81 -1.08Jamaica 0.59 1.40 -0.34 -0.84 2.16Mexico 1.55 0.36 2.73 1.02 2.12Nicaragua 0.96 3.72 -0.22 -2.58 3.03Panama -1.22 -1.76 -1.57 -0.36 -1.19Paraguay 1.54 0.03 3.37 1.54 1.24Peru 1.46 1.10 -0.46 1.86 3.37PuertoRico 5.19 4.80 6.06 5.77 4.15Suriname -0.07 -1.52 4.51 1.95 -4.96Uruguay 1.63 1.74 2.64 0.89 1.26Venezuela 2.08 2.79 2.35 1.04 2.16
0.8
1.3
1.8
2.3
2.8
3.3
3.8
4.3
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
Latin America & Carib.
USA
Cumulative Productivity Index for USA Cumulative Productivity Index for USA (1961 = 100)(1961 = 100)
Cumulative Index Relative to the Cumulative Index Relative to the USUS
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia
Costarica Cuba Ecuador Elsalvador Guatemala
Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua
Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela
V. External Shocks V. External Shocks and Economic and Economic ReformsReforms: Impacts : Impacts on Agricultural on Agricultural ProductivityProductivity
- The cases of Brazil and Cuba- The cases of Brazil and Cuba
Brazil and its agricultural Brazil and its agricultural policy – 1943-1980spolicy – 1943-1980s The corner stone of Brazil’s agricultural policy since The corner stone of Brazil’s agricultural policy since
1943 until the mid 1980s was the Minimum Price 1943 until the mid 1980s was the Minimum Price Program (PPM).Program (PPM).
Objective of the PPM: Reduce price risks and Objective of the PPM: Reduce price risks and variability, hence promote more investment and variability, hence promote more investment and agricultural production.agricultural production.
However, the PPM changed into a consumer subsidy However, the PPM changed into a consumer subsidy program – “cheap food policy”.program – “cheap food policy”.
Price control on more than 40 agricultural products, by Price control on more than 40 agricultural products, by fixing prices, controlling marketing margins and fixing prices, controlling marketing margins and allowing subsidized imports to compete with domestic allowing subsidized imports to compete with domestic production.production.
Brazil: Annual Productivity Brazil: Annual Productivity Growth in Agriculture (%)Growth in Agriculture (%)
PeriodPeriod AgricultureAgriculture CropsCrops RuminantsRuminantsNon Non
RuminantsRuminants
1961-851961-85 -0.63-0.63 -0.88-0.88 -1.03-1.03 1.011.01
1986-001986-00 3.263.26 3.633.63 5.025.02 10.1010.10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
TFP Agriculture
TFP Crops
TFP Ruminants
TFP Non-Ruminants
REFORMS
Brazil and the effect of Brazil and the effect of economic reformseconomic reforms
Brazil and its agricultural Brazil and its agricultural policy – 1985-2000policy – 1985-2000 In 1985 agricultural policies changed.In 1985 agricultural policies changed. Trade liberalization and reduction of Trade liberalization and reduction of
government intervention.government intervention. Deregulation and elimination of direct Deregulation and elimination of direct
price controls in agricultural products.price controls in agricultural products. This changes reduced costs and This changes reduced costs and
increased agricultural productivity.increased agricultural productivity.
Brazil and its agricultural Brazil and its agricultural policy – 1985-2000policy – 1985-2000 Agricultural productivity grew at an Agricultural productivity grew at an
annual rate of 3.26%.annual rate of 3.26%. Livestock sector grew the most:Livestock sector grew the most: Productivity growth in pigs and poultry grew Productivity growth in pigs and poultry grew
at 10% per year.at 10% per year. Productivity in bovine meat and milk Productivity in bovine meat and milk
production grew at 5% per year.production grew at 5% per year.
Brazil and its agricultural Brazil and its agricultural policy – 1985-2000policy – 1985-2000 More productivity in pigs and poultry due More productivity in pigs and poultry due
to reduced costs.to reduced costs. Incentives to move to corn and soybean Incentives to move to corn and soybean
production areas.production areas. This has reduced feed costs, which are This has reduced feed costs, which are
>50% of all costs in pigs and poultry >50% of all costs in pigs and poultry production.production.
Cuba and the effect of Cuba and the effect of external shocks – 1960-1988external shocks – 1960-1988 Cuba since the 1960s followed the Soviet Cuba since the 1960s followed the Soviet
model of monoculture, with high mechanization model of monoculture, with high mechanization and use of fertilizers.and use of fertilizers.
Government managed farms comprised 70% of Government managed farms comprised 70% of all agricultural land.all agricultural land.
Use of tractors and fertilizers at rates similar to Use of tractors and fertilizers at rates similar to the United States.the United States.
Trade of sugar with the Soviet Union at Trade of sugar with the Soviet Union at preferential terms in exchange for oil, preferential terms in exchange for oil, chemicals and machinery. chemicals and machinery.
Cuba Cuba and the effect of and the effect of external shocks – 1960-1988external shocks – 1960-1988
During the period it grew at 0.6% per During the period it grew at 0.6% per year.year.
Excess use of capital intensive inputs Excess use of capital intensive inputs (fertilizers and tractor) per unit of output.(fertilizers and tractor) per unit of output.
Only non ruminant production (pigs and Only non ruminant production (pigs and poultry) grew close to 2% per year.poultry) grew close to 2% per year.
In 1989, the Soviet Union dissolved and In 1989, the Soviet Union dissolved and at the same time, 6 billion dollars in at the same time, 6 billion dollars in subsidies for Cuba.subsidies for Cuba.
GDP decreased by 25% between 1989 GDP decreased by 25% between 1989 and 1991and 1991
Oil imports fell by 50%, availability of Oil imports fell by 50%, availability of fertilizers and pesticides decreased by fertilizers and pesticides decreased by 70%, and other imports fell by 30%. 70%, and other imports fell by 30%.
Cuba and the collapse of Cuba and the collapse of the Soviet Unionthe Soviet Union
Cuba: Annual Productivity Cuba: Annual Productivity Growth in Agriculture (%)Growth in Agriculture (%)
PeriodPeriod AgricultureAgriculture CropsCrops RuminantsRuminantsNonNon
RuminantsRuminants
1961-19881961-1988 0.380.38 -4.87-4.87 -0.98-0.98 1.921.92
1989-19921989-1992 -20.85-20.85 -16.87-16.87 -22.41-22.41 -23.26-23.26
1993-20001993-2000 6.856.85 2.902.90 5.325.32 9.769.76
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
TFP Agriculture
TFP Crops
TFP Ruminants
TFP Non-Ruminants
REFORMS
SOVIET UNION COLLAPSE
Cuba and the collapse of Cuba and the collapse of the Soviet Unionthe Soviet Union
Cuba and the “Special Cuba and the “Special Period”Period” Agricultural Productivity decreases by Agricultural Productivity decreases by
52% between 1989 and 1992.52% between 1989 and 1992. Bovine cattle production is the most Bovine cattle production is the most
affected, decreasing 70%.affected, decreasing 70%. Crops and non-ruminant productivity Crops and non-ruminant productivity
declines by 28% and 22%, respectively.declines by 28% and 22%, respectively.
Cuba and agricultural Cuba and agricultural reforms – 1993-2000reforms – 1993-2000 The government gives land to farmers and The government gives land to farmers and
cooperatives and creates the cooperatives and creates the Unidad Básica de Unidad Básica de Producción CooperativaProducción Cooperativa (UBPC) as the (UBPC) as the fundamental production unit.fundamental production unit.
The government allows excess production to be The government allows excess production to be sold.sold.
By the year 2000, the UBPC encompass 42% of By the year 2000, the UBPC encompass 42% of land.land.
Government participation of land holdings Government participation of land holdings decreased from 75% to 33%.decreased from 75% to 33%.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
TFP Agriculture
TFP Crops
TFP Ruminants
TFP Non-Ruminants
REFORMS
SOVIET UNION COLLAPSE
Cuba and agricultural Cuba and agricultural reformsreforms
Cuba and agricultural Cuba and agricultural reforms – 1993-2000reforms – 1993-2000 After the reforms, agricultural productivity grew at After the reforms, agricultural productivity grew at
annual rate of 7%.annual rate of 7%. Most of the growth in livestock sector, 10% in pigs and Most of the growth in livestock sector, 10% in pigs and
poultry and 5% in ruminants.poultry and 5% in ruminants. Non-ruminant production reached pre-1988 levels, Non-ruminant production reached pre-1988 levels,
mostly due to pig production.mostly due to pig production. Alternative feed sources, increased feed efficiency, urban Alternative feed sources, increased feed efficiency, urban
agriculture.agriculture. Government’s contract system for farmers, feed assigned Government’s contract system for farmers, feed assigned
based on total meat production.based on total meat production.
Limited poultry production due to feed import Limited poultry production due to feed import limitations.limitations.
Cuba and agricultural Cuba and agricultural reforms – 1993-2000reforms – 1993-2000 Meat production did not recovered completely.Meat production did not recovered completely. Meat sales was prohibited, with penalties of up Meat sales was prohibited, with penalties of up
to 20 years in prison for illegal animal to 20 years in prison for illegal animal slaughter.slaughter.
Availability of bovine cattle meat was limited.Availability of bovine cattle meat was limited. Use of animal traction to substitute tractor use. Use of animal traction to substitute tractor use. By 2000, there were 400,000 traction animals, By 2000, there were 400,000 traction animals,
more than double the levels in 1990.more than double the levels in 1990. Number of tractors decreased by 40% between Number of tractors decreased by 40% between
1990 and 2000.1990 and 2000.
ConclusionsConclusions
Agricultural productivity in Latin America Agricultural productivity in Latin America has grown, specially in the 1990s.has grown, specially in the 1990s.
The most dynamic sector is livestock, The most dynamic sector is livestock, where non ruminants (pigs and poultry) is where non ruminants (pigs and poultry) is the subsector with the largest growth.the subsector with the largest growth.
Production systems and technology for Production systems and technology for pigs and poultry are more transferable pigs and poultry are more transferable from developed countries.from developed countries.
Efficiency gains in feed explain a large Efficiency gains in feed explain a large share of productivity growth in this sector.share of productivity growth in this sector.
Plan aheadPlan ahead
Econometric analysis of causes of productivity Econometric analysis of causes of productivity growthgrowth
Data sources and variables:Data sources and variables: Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators
(IFPRI) (IFPRI) www.asti.cgiar.orgwww.asti.cgiar.org Price policy towards agriculture (The World Bank) Price policy towards agriculture (The World Bank)
www.worldbank.org/agdistortionswww.worldbank.org/agdistortions Trade opennessTrade openness Development of financial marketsDevelopment of financial markets Other variables used in development economics Other variables used in development economics
literatureliterature
ReferencesReferences
Färe et al., 1994. Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries. The American Economic Review, 84 (1): 66-83.
Nin et al., 2003. Bridging the Gap between Partial and Total Factor Productivity Measures using Directional Distance Functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 928-942.
Ludena et al., 2007. Productivity Growth and Convergence in Crop, Ruminant and Non-Ruminant Production: Measurement and Forecasts, Agricultural Economics, 37(1): 1-17.
Total Factor Productivity Total Factor Productivity Growth in Latin America Growth in Latin America and the Caribbeanand the Caribbean
Presented by Presented by
Carlos LudenaCarlos Ludena
max,
,;,kz
yxD ggyx
N
kyj
kj
kj
k gyyz1
* Jj ,,1
N
kxh
kh
kh
k gxxz1
* Hh ,,1
0kz Nk ,,1•k is the set of countries (k* is a particular country)•j is the set of outputs and h is the set of inputs, •zk is the weight of the kth country data, •gy and gx determine the direction in which D is defined, gyj and
gxh denote the jth and hth components of gy and gx,
respectively, and•β is a scalar.
Subject to:
At At+1
O
Pt Pt+1
y1
y2
Efficiency in Efficiency in yy1’s Direction of a 1’s Direction of a Production Point in Production Point in tt + 1 with + 1 with Technology in Technology in tt as reference as reference
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
Argentina Bolivia
Brazil Chile
Colombia Ecuador
Mexico Paraguay
Peru Uruguay
Venezuela
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
Argentina Costarica
Cuba Dominican
Elsalvador Guatemala
Haiti Honduras
Jamaica Mexico
Nicaragua Panama
Suriname
Brazil and its agricultural Brazil and its agricultural policy – 1943-1980spolicy – 1943-1980s Agricultural productivity declined for crops and Agricultural productivity declined for crops and
livestock.livestock. Between 1961 and 1985, productivity declined Between 1961 and 1985, productivity declined
on average by 0.63% per annum.on average by 0.63% per annum. Crops productivity decreased by 0.88% per Crops productivity decreased by 0.88% per
year, while ruminant production (bovine meat year, while ruminant production (bovine meat and milk production) declined 1.03% per year.and milk production) declined 1.03% per year.
Exception were pigs and poultry, which Exception were pigs and poultry, which increased productivity by 1% per year.increased productivity by 1% per year.