Transformação estrutural na América Latina

• Main Author: Silva, Leonardo Fonseca da
• Other Authors: Escolas::EPGE
• Language: Portuguese
• Published: 2009
• Subjects: Economia; Desenvolvimento econômico
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10438/2718

Submitted by Daniella Santos ([e-mail]) on 2009-08-07T12:46:34Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao_Leonardo_Fonseca_Silva.pdf: 351226 bytes, checksum: 366361c93bbe658f0dcb1a1a59f27abe (MD5) === Approved for entry into archive by Antoanne Pontes([e-mail]) on 2009-08-07T17:42:03Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao_Leonardo_Fonseca_Silva.pdf: 351226 bytes, checksum: 366361c93bbe658f0dcb1a1a59f27abe (MD5) === Made available in DSpace on 2009-08-07T17:42:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao_Leonardo_Fonseca_Silva.pdf: 351226 bytes, checksum: 366361c93bbe658f0dcb1a1a59f27abe (MD5) === I investigate the role of sectoral di¤erences in labor productivity and the process of structural transformation (reallocation of labor across sectors) in accounting for the time path of aggregate productivity across six Latin American countries (Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela) during the period from 1950 to 2003. Although they have started the process of structural transformation in di¤erent times, all of them went through a common process. I consider a simple three-sector-model of structural transformation and calibrate it to the experience of the six latin american economies. I use the model to measure sectoral labor productivity di¤erences between these countries and the United States. I have found that the services sector can explain the recent decrease of labor productivity in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, after these countries had gone through a catch up in relative productivity (considering the United States as a benchmark) during the period from 1950 to 1980. Among Latin American economies, only the Chilean one has been catching up in relative productivity from 1980 to the present. There are some cases like Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela that the ine¢ ciency of all sectors was responsible for the failure in reducing the gap of productivity in relation to the United States during the last years of the sample.