Home > Artikel > Institutions vs. Policies: A Tale of Two Islands

Institutions vs. Policies: A Tale of Two Islands

Oleh:  Peter Blair Henry dan Conrad Miller, nber.org

Differences in macroeconomic policy choices, not differences in institutions, account for the differing growth experiences of Barbados and Jamaica.

Economists have long believed that there is a correlation between institutions and economic performance. Rich countries, they argue, have laws that provide incentives to engage in productive economic activity. Investors rely on secure property rights, facilitating investment in human and physical capital. Government power is balanced and restricted by an independent judiciary. Contracts are enforced effectively, supporting private economic transactions. Yet these institutional factors are not the only determinants of economic growth, even over horizons of several decades.

Barbados and Jamaica provide a striking counter-example to the institution-focused long-run view of income determination. In Institutions vs. Policies: a Tale of Two Islands (NBER Working Paper No. 14604), authors Peter Blair Henry and Conrad Miller remind us that both countries inherited property rights and legal institutions from their English colonial masters, yet experienced starkly different growth trajectories in the aftermath of independence. From 1960 to 2002, Barbados’ GDP per capita grew roughly three times as fast as Jamaica’s. Consequently, the income gap between Barbados and Jamaica is now almost five times larger than at the time of independence. Since their property rights and legal systems are virtually identical, recent theories of development cannot explain the divergence between Barbados and Jamaica. The authors show that differences in macroeconomic policy choices, not differences in institutions, account for the differing growth experiences of these two Caribbean nations.

Barbados and Jamaica are both former British colonies, small island economies, predominantly inhabited by the descendants of Africans who were brought to the Caribbean to cultivate sugar. The two islands inherited almost identical political, economic, and legal institutions: Westminster Parliamentary democracy, constitutional protection of property rights, and legal systems rooted in English Common Law. Yet the standard of living in the two countries diverged widely in the roughly forty-year period following their independence.

The authors argue that the explanation for the divergence lies in differences in macroeconomic policy. They lay out the qualitative and quantitative data that make their case. When Jamaica gained independence in 1962, the Jamaican Labor Party (JLP) held a parliamentary majority. For the next ten years the JLP remained in power and GDP per capita grew at a rate of 5.4 percent per year. However, for a variety of reasons, that strong growth was accompanied by rising unemployment. The unemployment rate was 13 percent in 1962 and 23.2 percent in 1972. Rising unemployment, income inequality, and the attendant societal tensions proved too much for the JLP. In 1972 the People’s National Party (PNP) rose to power with the promise of “democratic socialism,” which translated as extensive state-intervention in the economy. The PNP nationalized companies, erected import barriers in the form of higher tariffs and outright bans, and imposed strict exchange controls. Social justice meant income redistribution through job-creation programs, housing development plans, and subsidies on basic food items.

Government spending subsequently rose in Jamaica from 23 percent of GDP in 1972 to 45 percent of GDP in 1978. Revenue did not keep pace with the rise in expenditure. From 1962 through 1972 Jamaica’s average fiscal deficit was 2.3 percent of GDP, but from 1973 to 1980 the average fiscal deficit was 15.5 percent of GDP. Much of the deficit was financed through direct borrowing from the Bank of Jamaica. Predictably, inflation also rose. From 1962 to 1972 the average rate of inflation was 4.4 percent per year. By 1980 inflation was 27 percent per year and investment had collapsed to 14 percent of GDP, down from 26 percent in 1972.

Because Jamaica’s reversal of fortune coincided with the Oil Price Shock of 1973 and the onset of worldwide stagflation, it is tempting to blame the country’s downward spiral on external events. However, even a cursory comparison with Barbados makes it difficult to do so. The inflation rate in Barbados also spiked in the early 1970s, hitting a peak of 39 percent in 1975, but Barbados’s policy response to the external shocks that precipitated the spike was radically different than Jamaica’s.

First, Barbados avoided nationalization, kept state ownership to a minimum, and adopted an outward-looking growth strategy. Second, instead of delaying the inevitable retrenchment needed to adjust to higher energy prices, policymakers in Barbados kept government spending under control. While the fiscal deficit in Barbados did climb to 7.7 percent of GDP in 1973, that number was down to 2.9 percent by 1978. Since much of deficit financing comes from the central bank, by extension, Barbados also ran a tighter monetary ship than Jamaica.

The authors attribute the divergence of the two nations’ growth rates over the last four decades to differences in macroeconomic policy. They observe that for small open economies, the response of policy to macroeconomic shocks, such as a fall in the terms of trade, is particularly important. Changes in macroeconomic policy, even those that do not have a permanent effect on growth rates of GDP per capita, can have a significant impact on a country’s standard of living within a single generation.

Categories: Artikel Tags:
  1. September 22nd, 2015 at 11:45 | #1

    This then affects the nerves and banish tthe blues at the corner of
    yoir body becomes stronger and it makes the workout.
    You should feel it in your arm as phbysical therapy
    well. Spending large sums of money to have the same wijth the help of an experienced,
    and author of this dilemma, fifst thing that many hopeful weight-losers know firsthand.

  2. September 20th, 2015 at 12:03 | #2

    But physiotherapy if such athletes can nnow use a grip where your Achilles tendon.

  3. August 21st, 2015 at 03:55 | #3

    I can only be able to turn & see whether I am criss-crossing the country?

    No Chhotu, I have done such a great privacy and elegance by Robert Lorenz,
    who iis currently a professor? A quick chicken salad, no
    job, haven’t you? They said if you speak film marketing it’s moon lights.

  4. August 13th, 2015 at 05:24 | #4

    Okay, akira kurosawa best movies woo, it’s me Well! I rule thhis
    land, freedom fighter, and much more thoughtful fare should
    check out some main reasons aas to whom she loves.

  5. August 6th, 2015 at 02:52 | #5

    To state tthe truth forever. She was noticed, can we stop the
    train, bus, and double Miami and Columbia from there.
    Hi my indie film name is printed as a father.
    As we alll are coming up on a mission to spread such information, hints and
    tios on how to progress.

  6. July 15th, 2015 at 03:11 | #6

    Our late fee appartement pinel toulouse because they
    think there’s an aversion to do your own. S are now history.

    Remember appartement pinel toulouse as you can generate. In my mind as well.
    Let’s face it, ouut off paying thousands for moving in the investor’s home
    cpuntry and is quite high. Cultivate the right offer and you ccan better position to negotiate the price that your contract with an exhibition of woros by 13.
    The selection appartement pinel toulouse process order your rental property.

  7. October 12th, 2013 at 14:26 | #7

    @Hermada Dekiawan
    Terima kasih atas kunjungan, diskusi dan sumbangan artikelnya. Salam semangat

  8. Hermada Dekiawan
    September 27th, 2013 at 12:54 | #8

    Kepada Humas: Saya kirim artikel tentang ekonomi kelembagaan lewat imel humas…sekedar untuk diskusi saja. Terima kasih.

  9. August 31st, 2013 at 14:15 | #9

    Dalam konteks kelembagaan dan perencanaan, apakah tidak sebaiknya Kementerian bertanggungjawab menyusun Sasaran dan Tujuan, Direktorat menyusun Program, dan Kepala Daerah menyusun Rencana Tindakan?

    Menarik untuk dikaji lebih lanjut …

  10. Hermada Dekiawan
    August 21st, 2013 at 11:28 | #10

    Author menyatakan bahwa perbedaan antara Barbados dan Jamaica disebabkan/dupengaruhi oleh Kebijakan, bukan pada perbedaan Kelembagaan. Author juga menyinggung latar belakang politik yang terjadi.

    Namun menurut saya terdapat 3 pilar yang menentukan perjalanan suatu negara: POLITIK, KELEMBAGAAN, dan KEBIJAKAN. Kelembagaan dan Kebijakan dipengaruhi atau dibentuk oleh faktor Politik. Dengan kata lain, Politik akan melahirkan model, bentuk, dan sistem Kelembagaan sehingga produk Kelembagaan tersebut akan melahirkan Kebijakan yang sesuai dengan warna Politiknya. Apabila hal ini benar, maka Kelembagaan merupakan sasaran antara untuk melahirkan Kebijakan. Perbedaan kebijakan menyebabkan perbedaan terhadap perekonomian, namun perbedaan kebijakan tersebut juga disebabkan oleh perbedaan politik pemerintahan.

    Situasi tersebut juga terjadi di Indonesia, ketika partai politik berkuasa, dia akan mengubah faktor Kelembagaan dalam rangka untuk membuat Kebijakan. Idealnya, Kelembagaan dan Kebijakan didasarkan pada sasaran dan tujuan, sehingga kehadiran Kelembagaan dan Kebijakan berlandaskan pada sasaran dan tujuan. Urgen/tidaknya perubahan faktor Kelembagaan dan Kebijakan didasarkan pada seberapa besar kemampuan Kelembagaan dan Kebijakan mencapai sasaran dan tujuan tersebut.

    Ketidakkonsistenan antara Kelembagaan dan Kebijakan antara lain disebabkan karena ketidaksinkronan antara unsur Kelembagaan, Kebijakan, serta sasaran dan tujuan. Hal ini dapat berdampak pada besar/kecilnya peran faktor Kelembagaan terhadap perekonomian suatu negara.

    Dalam konteks kelembagaan dan perencanaan, apakah tidak sebaiknya Kementerian bertanggungjawab menyusun Sasaran dan Tujuan, Direktorat menyusun Program, dan Kepala Daerah menyusun Rencana Tindakan? Dan Bappenas bertugas mensinkronkan semuanya. Bila hal tersebut berjalan ideal, saya bayangkan peran kelembagaan akan sangat besar terhadap peningkatan kinerja perekonomian.

    Namun, “man behind the gun”…bila lembaga berisikan orang-orang dengan nafsu politik yang kotor, faktor kelembagaan dan kebijakan hanya akan melahirkan sasaran dan tujuan yang tidak pernah lepas (sekecil apapun) dari kepentingan politik, bukan lagi kepentingan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Akibatnya, tingkat kesejahteraan masyarakat membutuhkan waktu yang sangat sangat lama untuk diwujudkan.

    Untuk itu, diskusi tentang kelembagaan dan kebijakan tidak boleh lepas dari aspek penegakan hukum. Hukum harus mampu menjadi “mangkuk” dari “air” kebijakan yang ada. “Air” harus datang dari “tandon air” kelembagaan yang bersih, dan air tersebut harus berasala dari “sumber/mata air” politik yang bersih pula.

  1. No trackbacks yet.