The Economics of Elysium
16 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, development economics, F.A. Hayek, growth disasters, growth miracles, income redistribution, law and economics, Marxist economics, movies, property rights, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: Cuba, Elysium
Human Capital, Development, and Growth | Lars Peter Hansen, Edward Glaeser, Claudia Goldin and Robert Lucas
16 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in development economics, economic growth, Gary Becker, growth disasters, growth miracles, history of economic thought, human capital, labour economics, law and economics, property rights Tags: Claudia Goldin, Edward Glaeser, Gary Becker, Robert Lucas
Managerial Econ: Markets vs. Mother Theresa: who has done more for the world’s poor?
05 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, development economics, growth disasters, growth miracles Tags: growth disasters, overseas aid, overseas development assistance, The Great Escape, The Great Fact
Deirdre McCloskey on the fatal conceit
30 Oct 2014 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, development economics, entrepreneurship, liberalism Tags: Deirdre McCloskey, The fatal conceit, The pretence to knowledge
HT: Cafe Hayek
The role of Bollywood in the fall of the Permit Raj and emergence of the Indian economic miracle
30 Oct 2014 Leave a comment
Deirdre McCloskey on the right way to get angry about poverty and inequality
19 Oct 2014 Leave a comment
Fraser Institute Economic Freedom in the World Index 2014 – top 10 countries
13 Oct 2014 Leave a comment
A tale of two cities – Hong Kong’s and Singapore’s different paths to prosperity
13 Oct 2014 Leave a comment
in development economics, entrepreneurship, industrial organisation Tags: Alywn Young, development economics, Hong Kong, industry policy, industry targeting, rent seeking, Singapore, tale of two cities, tyranny of numbers
Hong Kong and Singapore had different paths to prosperity. Alywn Young found that Hong Kong had made real productivity gains, but Singapore grew by a massive dose of savings and investment, including foreign investment.
For most of the post-war era, the Hong Kong government adopted a policy of minimal intervention. the government of Singapore has pursued maximalist policies involving widespread state participation in economic activity and aggressive industry targeting policies.
The share of investment in Singapore’s GDP rose from 9% in 1960 to 43% in 1984, while Hong Kong’s remained steady at about 20%. Productivity growth in the aggregate non-agricultural economy was a miserable -0.3% in Singapore and 2.3% in Hong Kong.
What does this mean in practical terms? Real consumption, real consumer spending, per capita in Hong Kong is 20% or more higher than in Singapore!
Hong Kong actually enjoyed their prosperity. Robert Barro explains this in a comment on Young’s paper:
In 1985, when Singapore’s per capita real GDP was 102% of Hong Kong’s, the consumption was only 70% of Hong Kong’s. To put it another way, Hong Kong’s per capita real consumption grew by 5.9% per year from 1960 to 1985, about the same as for GDP, whereas Singapore’s grew by only 2.8% per year, much less than GDP.
In terms of output per capita and output per worker, the growth of Hong Kong and Singapore are equally impressive. Hong Kong does much better in terms of productivity growth.
Hong Kong did not require as rapid capital accumulation as Singapore. Since capital accumulation is financed either by domestic saving or foreign saving, people in Hong Kong can afford to save less or borrow less from foreign economies. Saving less now means more consumption now.
In the case of Hong Kong, their living standards are far superior to Singapore’s. The government of Singapore wasted a good 20 to 30% of national income on industry targeting and compulsory savings.
Hong Kong experienced rapid total productivity growth, while Singapore experienced no improvement whatsoever in total productivity during its East Asian Tiger years. Young (1992, 1994, 1995) demonstrated that from 1967 onward total factor productivity growth in Singapore was next to nil, and for significant parts of the period most likely negative. Only productivity allows a nation to support and enjoy high wages.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments