19.04.2014 Views

Exceptional Argentina Di Tella, Glaeser and Llach - Thomas Piketty

Exceptional Argentina Di Tella, Glaeser and Llach - Thomas Piketty

Exceptional Argentina Di Tella, Glaeser and Llach - Thomas Piketty

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

−<strong>and</strong> thus typically more open− economies of Denmark <strong>and</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong>) 14 . But<br />

characterizing growth as "export led" still begs the question of what did the trick in the first<br />

place. Change could have started because of shifts in dem<strong>and</strong> −specifically, <strong>Argentina</strong>'s<br />

productive complementarities with Great Britain <strong>and</strong> other industrializing European<br />

countries− that increased the return to capital or labor in <strong>Argentina</strong>. Or it could have been<br />

mainly a supply shock: maybe labor <strong>and</strong> capital became more productive, <strong>and</strong> were thus<br />

attracted, because of some institutional innovation or technological shock.<br />

Terms of trade should be a first indication of what was dominating the picture. There isn't<br />

really an upward trend in the whole period 1870-1930, but rather a succession of ten or fifteen<br />

year cycles, upward till 1880, downward in 1880-1895, upward from 1895 to 1910,<br />

downward again until the early 20s, <strong>and</strong> some recovery in the late 1920s. This little piece of<br />

evidence is hard to reconcile with the idea that progress in <strong>Argentina</strong> −clearly, a price taker in<br />

world markets− could have been driven by a positive dem<strong>and</strong> shock.<br />

Figure 7. Terms of trade, 1865-1929<br />

130<br />

120<br />

110<br />

100<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

1865<br />

1868<br />

1871<br />

1874<br />

1877<br />

1880<br />

1883<br />

1886<br />

1889<br />

1892<br />

1895<br />

1898<br />

1901<br />

1904<br />

1907<br />

1910<br />

1913<br />

1916<br />

1919<br />

1922<br />

1925<br />

1928<br />

Source: 1865-1913, Blattman et. al (2004), 1913-1930, Gerchunoff <strong>and</strong> <strong>Llach</strong> (2006).<br />

Institutions could have played a more distinctive role. The beginnings of the Argentine boom<br />

broadly coincide with political stabilization, starting in 1861 with the first president of a<br />

unified <strong>Argentina</strong> <strong>and</strong> finally consolidated after the defeat of the rebellious Buenos Aires<br />

province in 1880. But the institutional argument cannot be taken too far. <strong>Argentina</strong> −or, at<br />

least, Buenos Aires− also enjoyed some business-friendly political stability with Rosas (1830s<br />

<strong>and</strong> 1840s), <strong>and</strong> progress doesn't seem to have been faster then than in the 1850s, when<br />

outright separation from the Confederación was no obstacle for the provincial boom in wool<br />

14 Maddison (2006). The sample includes all the countries that have both trade <strong>and</strong> GDP data for 1913.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!