What Explains Mexico’s Chonic Economic Underperformance

Jose Luis Guasch World Bank

Woodrow Wilson Center and ITAM ForumWashington DC, April 2008

Mexico’s Economic PerformanceMexico’s Economic Performance

Portugal

Korea

Greece

Ireland

Mexico

Turkey

OECD

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Index

Per capita GDP, 1980=100Constant prices and constant PPPs

0

25

50

75

100

Mex

ico

OEC

D

Per capita GDP, volumeOECD=100, 2005

Source: OECD (2007), OECD Economic Surveys: Mexico, OECD.

Graph 1: Per Capita GDP 1980-2004

What Explains it?

Politics Capture of rents by the few Powerful entrenched interest groups-

forming strong alliances with labor and policy makers

Inability to strike deals to move forward on significant reforms

3. Effective governance and leadership in building consensus behind policies designed to produce intertemporal improvements in the lives of citizens by choosing the right models and strategies for growth.

4. Competent management of the macroeconomic environment in such a way as to promote domestic and foreign investment, including control of inflation and avoidance of policies that lead to damaging periods of very high inflation followed by growth-slowing policies needed to bring inflation down.

Factors for Sustainable Growth-(Spence 2008)

Capture and Failure to Build Consensus

Leaders must bring along those in the country necessary to achieve the task: business leaders, party leaders, interest groups, opinion leaders

Must avoid capture from interest groups Political capital and unhealthy alliances Ability for political bargaining to strike

feasible reform programs

Examples

Fiscal reforms Energy reforms Telecomunications Financial sector Labor market reforms Transport/Logistics: Regulatory agencies,

Multimodal law Innovation Enforcement: Amparos

Elements of a Successful

Competitiveness/Export Strategy I. Passive policies: cleaning the wrinkles-Investment Climate II. Access to markets *III Productive/Exportable Offer

– Quality

– Productivity

– Knowledge/Innovation/Human Capital *IV. Infrastructure (hardware) and associated services (software): logistic

cost, energy, telecom *V. Social/Productive Inclusion-Articulation of Supply: SMEs *VI. Access to Credit and Financial Instruments *VII. Dynamic competitive markets *VIII. Institutions, Programs and Instruments

Low Competition

Notwithstanding improvements of products and services competition regimes-linked to reforms of legal and regulatory frameworks by the CFC and other sectoral regulatory agencies-competition remains very low in several key sectors such as financial, telecommunications, energy production and distribution and transport infrastructure.

There, de jure or de facto public or private monopolies, and/or high market concentration, as well as the perverse effect of abuse of amparo procedures, result in high input prices and induce barriers to entry that compound other obstacles to enterprise creation for would-be more innovative firms

Private Sector Credit in Mexico, one of the lowest-now higher but still below 30% of GDP

Crédito al Sector Privado, Porcentaje del PIB

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2002

Chile China Korea, Rep. Mexico Thailand

Fuente: Banco Mundial, WB Development Indicators

Critical Facts on Innovation

While the 2002 S&T Law set a 1% target for R&D/GDP ratio for 2006, as of 2007 the level remains at 0.49% lowest in OECD and below Brazil (1.0) and Chile (0.71)

The government contribution to business R&D investment while it has increased from 1.2% in 2002 to 5.7% in 2006, is significantly low

Low Public Investment in S&T and R&D ActivitiesLow Public Investment in S&T and R&D Activities

Graph 4. Federal Expenditures on S&T Activities Period 1980-2007

FES&T/GDP

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Source: Conacyt

R & D in LAC: way below average adjusting for GDP per capita and below

successful countries

Fuented: Lederman y Maloney (2002)

Costa Rica

India

Finlandia

Argentina

Israel

China

Mexico0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Log GDP per Capita

Pre

dic

ted

& O

bse

rved

R&

D/G

DP

Corea

2

21

&

CAP

GDP

CAP

GDP

GDP

DR

Source: The ISO Survey.

Numbers on top indicate ISO 9000 Certifications

Deteriorating and Insufficient Infrastructure Contributes to Uncompetitive Industries, 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Losses to markets.Proportion of goods not

reaching markets (primarysector)

Logistics cost as aproportion of value of

products

Inventory levels

Pro

duct

ivity

gai

n (p

erce

nt)

OECD

LAC

Sources: Guasch and Kogan (2004)

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Mar-92

Mar-93

Mar-94

Mar-95

Mar-96

Mar-97

Mar-98

Mar-99

Mar-00

Mar-01

Mar-02

Mar-03

Imports in China growing at twice the world rate:

Opportunity for Mexico?

Source: OECD Main Economic Indicators and DECPG staff

CHINA(12.4% p.a.)

WORLD(5.7% p.a.)

Lost Opportunity for Mexico in China and India ? Why?

Market Share of Latin America Exports to China and India

Factors for Sustained Growth (Spence 2008)

1. Reliance on the market system for resource allocation (price signals, incentives, decentralization, and enough clarity of definition of property ownership to facilitate transactions and investment).

2. A commitment to and intense focus on sustained growth and a government that acts in a manner that is representative of the interests of the citizens of the country. Persistence and determination are key ingredients as the process takes decades and involves inevitable bumps along the way. It is a multi-decade endeavor, somewhat akin to a long voyage (unique to each country in some respects), inevitably undertaken with incomplete and sometimes inaccurate charts and requiring midcourse adjustments, especially as the structure of the economy and the appropriate supporting policies shift significantly over time.

Factors for Sustainable Growth (cont.)

5. High levels of saving and investment, especiallypublic and private sector investment (in physicaland social infrastructure, education, and health).

6. Resource mobility, particularly labor mobility,combined with rapid creation of new productiveemployment and rapid movement of peoplefrom rural to urban centers. The result is rapiddiversification and structural transformation of theeconomy.

Factors for Sustainable Growth (cont.)

7. Leveraging the global economy to accelerate growth. This is the most important point of commonality and has two components: inbound

transfer of knowledge and technology, and drawing on global demand to complement domestic components. The former rapidly increases the potential output of the economy, the latter permits much more rapid growth with exports as the driving force.

Source:

— Recuperarse si es posible: pero, vision conjunta:

Tiempo en que paises duplicaron su

ingreso per capita:Pre-industrial: 350 añosInglaterra (1780-1830) 175 añosInglaterra en el siglo 19 65 añosPaíses con crecimiento aceleradodesde la Segunda Guerra Mundial

(Japón, China, Tailandia, 10 años o menos

Botswana, Estonia, Eslovenia,Irlanda, Chile….)Fuente: Banco Mundial, Doingbusiness 2005

Under-performance of the Mexican Innovation SystemUnder-performance of the Mexican Innovation System

Lack of Sufficient Public and Private Resources and Incentives Devoted to Innovation Capacity Building

Low Level Equilibrium between Supply and Demand of R&D

Weakness in Incentives Aimed at Fostering Interactions between Agents that Hinder Technology Diffusion

A Persistent Deficit in High Skilled Capital

Inadequate Framework Conditions

Factors Influencing Innovation

Source: OECD 2008.

Human Capital DeficienciesHuman Capital Deficiencies

Source: OECD, Labour Market Statistics Database, September 2007.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

KOR

CAN

USA

GRC

HUN

OECD

ESP

IRL

MEX

PRT

25-34 years old35-54 years old55-64 years old

Working Age Population with at Least an Upper-Secondary Qualification, 2003

Human Capital DeficienciesHuman Capital Deficiencies

Graduation Rate at Doctoral Level (2004) as a Percentage of the Relevant Age Cohort

54.7 47.7 41.7 47.5 55.5 24.3 45.7 42.7 38.1 42.9 38.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

All doctorates Doctorates in science and engineering

Percentage of doctorates awarded to women

%

Source: OECD (2007), OECD Science, Technology and Industry: Scoreboard 2007, OECD, Paris

Increased Business Investment in Innovative ActivitiesIncreased Business Investment in Innovative Activities

Source: Conacyt

36.8

53.7

46.9

42.7

30.7

34.0

30.329.8

25.528.2

19.7

22.420.825.2

10.4

25.928.4

25.0

39.1

41.7

45.0

38.7

36.433.035.5

27.7

23.2

28.7

30.3

39.739.7

27.228.3

31.6

39.937.9

45.846.7

26.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Industry Government Higher Education

RR&D by Financing Sector, 1993-2005 (% of Total R&D)

R&D by Performing Sector, 1993-2005

(% of Total R&D)

Increased Business Investment in Innovative ActivitiesIncreased Business Investment in Innovative Activities

Source: Conacyt

36.8

53.7

46.9

42.7

30.7

34.0

30.329.8

25.528.2

19.7

22.420.825.2

10.4

25.928.4

25.0

39.141.7

45.0

38.736.433.0

35.5

27.7

23.2

28.7

30.3

39.739.7

27.228.3

31.6

39.937.9

45.846.7

26.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Industry Government Higher Education

Mexico’s Business Innovation Performance into Mexico’s Business Innovation Performance into PerspectivePerspective

1. Share of Private Sector Spending Remains Very Low by OECD Standards

2. Absolute Level of Business R&D Remains Small for a Country with Mexico’s Industrial Structure and Level of Development

3. Business R&D Expenditures: Strongly Concentrated in a Small Number of Large Enterprises

Innovation Patterns: More Oriented to Adaptation of Foreign Technologies than to the Creation of Domestic Technologies.

4. Collaboration with the Private Sector Still Plays a Marginal Role in Business Innovative Activities and Remains Limited in Scope

5. Output Performance of Increased Innovation-related Expenditures Remains Rather Poor in Terms of its Impact on Productivity.

Increased Business Investment in Innovative ActivitiesIncreased Business Investment in Innovative Activities

Government Industry Others

1995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005

Japan 22.8 16.8 67.1 76.1 9.9 6.8

Korea 19.0 23.0 76.3 75.0 4.7 1.3

China - 24.7 - 69.1 - -

Germany 37.9 28.4 60.0 67.6 0.3 0.3

US 35.4 30.4 60.2 64.0 4.4 5.7

Canada 35.9 32.9 45.7 47.9 6.9 10.5

Spain 43.6 43.3 44.5 46.3 5.2 5.0

Chile 58.4 44.5 26.5 45.7 9.0 2.1

Mexico 66.2 49.2 17.6 41.5 16.2 9.3

Brazil 59.1 58.3 38.2 39.4 2.3 2.2

Argentina 46.6 64.3 27.7 31.4 22.4 3.2

Source: OECD

R&D by Funding Source and by Country (% of Total R&D)

Total Budget of the Sectoral Funds Contributed by CONACYT and its Partners 2002 – 2007 (Million dollars)

Conacyt Partner Total amount

Total Sectoral Funds 308.9 230.0 538.8

SEP- CONACyT 163.1 80.5 243.6

SEMARNAT 18.7 19.6 38.3

ECONOMY 40.8 29.3 70.0

HEALTH 26.9 32.8 59.7

SAGARPA 20.0 25.3 45.3

Other Sectoral Funds 39.4 42.4 81.8

Source: CONACYT and FCCT (2006).

Business R&D and Innovation Support ProgrammesBusiness R&D and Innovation Support Programmes

Interactions for Developing Innovation Projects

2001 2006

products processes products processes

Only in-house 79.4 72.6 83.7 83.1

Collaboration with PRC 2.3 0.8 4.9 2.7

Collaboration with HEI 0.5 2.4 1.8 2.6

Collaboration with other firms 15.0 20.4 8.2 9.0

Others 3.0 3.7 1.4 2.6

Source: CONACYT, Innovation Surveys of 2001 and 2006.

Main Causes of Weak InteractionMain Causes of Weak Interaction

Cuellos de botella a la competitividad en México:Productividad, reflejada por los siguientes factores:

Entorno competitivo, tributario Oferta productiva ( calidad, innovación e integración

de cadenas productivas, capital humano) Costos logísticos (transporte y servicios asociados) Costos de actividad económica (doing business) Costos en mercados de factores (financieros y

laborales) Infrastructura productiva (telecomunicaciones y

energía) Sector privado quizá demasiado mirando hacia

adentro (“inward-looking”) y hacia USA

INFRASTRUCTURA PRODUCTIVA: ENERGIA Y TELECOMUNICACIONES

Y TRANSPORTE

Inquietudes: Mexico no es competitivo en esas areas– Energía: Necesidad de aumentar oferta energética, mayor

eficiencia y mejor estructura de precios y mejor focalizacion de subsidios

– Telecomunicaciones: Necesidad de incrementar cobertura y reducir precios, mayor competencia y profundizar el marco de las TIC, y mayor inversion

– Transporte: Necesidad de reducire costos logisticos, mejorar acceso y connectividad y servicios asociados

– Amparos: Necesidad de controlarlos-reducir su uso, incrementar el costo”de su abuso, reducir tiempos, establecer “stare decisis

Propuesta

Transparencia y comunicacion de indicadores de desempeno de los monopolios publicos y privados

Incrementar autonomia, jurisdiccion, poder y nivel de sanciones de organos reguladores y CFC

Regulacion asimetrica y contabilidad regulatoria Facilitar la competencia y compensacion por

desempeno en monopolios publicos Focalizacion de subsidios, tarifas basadas en costo

de capital y desempeno eficiente Reforma de amparos

MEJORAR LA OFERTA PRODUCTIVA Y EXPORTABLE

Mejorar Capital Humano-Educacion y capacitacion

Calidad: Infraestructura de la calidad Innovación y desarrollo tecnologico, y redes del

conocimiento Integración de Cadenas Productivas (PYMES) Abrir nuevos mercados (mas allá de NAFTA)

Hoy: Rezago en educación secundaria: alcanzar el 90%

Tas

a de

Mat

rícu

als

a N

ivel

Sec

unda

rio, 1

998

Log del PIB per capita, 19985 6 7 8 9 10 11

20

40

60

80

100

Nicaragua

Guyana

Ecu.

El Salvador

Paraguay

Jamaica

Dominica

Peru

Colombia

Venezuela

Mexico

Costa Rica

Brasil

ChileArgentina

China

Indon.

PhilippiThailand

MalaysiaKorea

Hong Kong

NZCAN

AU

Suecia

Finlandia

USA

Tambien en educación terciaria: alcanzar el 35%

Ta

sa B

ruta

de

Mat

rícu

las

Ed

Ter

cia

ria, 1

998

Log del PIB per capita, 19985 6 7 8 9 10 11

0

20

40

60

80

Haiti

Nicar. HondurasGuyana

Bolivia

Ecuador

Jamaica

Dominica Col.

Belize

Ven.

Mexico

CR

Brasil

Trinidad

ChileBarbados

Argentina

Bahamas

China

Indonesia

PhilippiThailand

Malaysia

Korea

Hong Kong

Singapore

NZCanada

Australia

Suecia

Finland

USA

…And Low Quality of Education

.

Canada

USA

MexicoChileArgentina

Brazil

Peru300

400

500

600

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

Cumulative education expenditure to age 15 (PPP$)

Aver

age

PISA

lite

racy

sco

re

Poland

Indonesia

Hungary

Korea

Rezago en la calidad de la Educacion

Economia del Conocimiento: Vision

Inversiones en I&D entre 1% y 1.5% PIB Sector privado invierte mas del 50% Sistema Nacional de Innovacion en

marcha Gobierno digital: mayoria de tramites y

licitaciones en linea Pymes integradas en la cadena

productiva

Fuente: Lederman y Maloney (2002)

India

Argentina

China

Costa Rica

Israel

Finland

Korea

México0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

LogPIB per Cápita

I&D

PIB

Pro

ye

cta

da

&

Ob

se

rva

da

Muy atrasado en innovacion e inversion en I&D: 0.65% (PIB) vs 2-3% in Asia Oriental

©Knowledge for Development, WBI©Knowledge for Development, WBI

Area Clave en Mexico: Deficiencia en calidad e innovacion: Dependencia en Recursos Naturales y Bajo Valor Agregado: Inversion en I&D: escasa

En Mexico, inversión en Investigación y Desarrollo debería ser de 2 a 15 veces más alta que en el presenteBaja eficiencia en conversión de gasto de Investigación y Desarrollo en patentesSistemas nacional de innovación mejorando: CONACYT Sector privado no muy comprometido

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Log G DP pe r Capita

Pre

dic

ted

& O

bse

rved

R&

D/G

DP

IndiaArgentina

China

IsraelFinland

Korea

M exico0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BRA CHI COL MEX ESP COR EU

GobPrivadoEd. Sup.Otro

Paises Exitosos en I & D (No AL)) Inversión de Gobierno y de el Sector Privado

Resultados

70% de la produccion industrial es de bajo valor aggregado

Solo el 8% de la produccion es de alto valor con alta intensidad en I&D

Desvinculacion de las Pymes

Papel clave de CONACYT con su nueva vision, pero incremento de presupuesto y mucho mayor enfoque productivo, articuladores o brokers de tecnologia, consorcios (grandes y PyMES) y vinculacion universidad-empresa, evaluaciones de impacto

Mexico puede y debe competir con calidad e innovacion: oferta productiva

Necesidad de infraestructura fisica y servicios asociados: impacto en

crecimiento Gran activo de Mexico no totalmente explotado: ubicacion

geografica In Mexico costos logistics anade el 20% al costo del producto

en los paises de la OECD es 9%.: reducen competividad rentabilidad de la inversion y disuaden comercio exterior

Niveles de inventarios en Mexico mas del doble de los de los paises de la OECD

Vision integrada de transporte: capacidad y acceso portuario, carreteras y ferrocarriles, multimodalidad, red de terminales logisticas

Reducir barreras a la entrada, deregular y mejorar la regulacion y facilitar desarrollo de mercados y servicios asociados

Impacto de una reducción de costos logisticos al 12%

Sector Incremento de demanda

Incremento de Empleo

Agro-Industria

9% 5%

Madera y muebles

10% 12%

Textiles 6% 7%

Cuero/zapat 12% 10%

Mineria 7% 2%

Propuesta

Inversion entre 3-4% del PIB Invertir mejor y mejor regulacion Prioritizacion y connectividad Redes de centros de distribucion y

logisticos Accesos y corredores Facilitacion comercial

Transport Infrastructure Platform

Hardware– Export corridors– Network of service sites– Port and Accesses– Logistic terminals-network

Software– Single window– Dedicated lines– Customs– Warehousing– Cool Chain– Multimodality Law– Transport services– Regulatory Framework– Access rights

MEXICO:VISION AL FUTURO-2012

Ingreso per capita supera los US$15,000 Pobreza absoluta practicamente erradicada Plena integracion economica global (China socio

comercial) Reversion de flujos migratorios y la diaspora mexicana

como uno de los motores de crecimiento Convergencia economica de los Estados Mexicanos Avances substanciales hacia una economia basada en el

conocimiento

No solo los recursos naturales y la industria tradicional. Incrementar el valor agregado tanto en industrias tradiciones

como nuevas a través de inversión intangible (Investigación y desarrollo, diseño, marketing, marcas, reputación, otros conocimientos propios)

Aprovechar: Buena localizacion para expandir y dinamizar el mercado,

mas alla de NAFTA: opciones para incrementar las cadenas de valor

Una población joven, pero es necesario darle mayor educación y habilidades

Desarrollo del sector de servicios- ingenieria, consultoria, servivios financieros, ICT, investigacion, educacion y salud.

Un significativo potencial cultural e industrial (cine, literatura, turismo, marcas)

Apuntar Hacia Nuevas Oportunidades para México

VISION MEXICO: Requerimientos

Excelente capital humano Economia diversificada basada en el

Conocimiento Mercados de factores dinamicos y eficientes-

laboral y financiero Infraestructura de primera linea Excelente clima de negocios y de inversion Integracion y cobertura social Recursos y su mejor uso: Transparencia y

Efectividad en el Gasto y Reforma Tributaria

DONDE ESTA MEXICO HOY?Y COMO REALIZAR ESA

VISION

La competitividad en Mexico está mucho mas baja de lo que se

esperaría por su ingreso per capita

India

ParaguayChinaColombia

Ecuador

ThailandBrazil

Argentina VenezuelaChile

MexicoKorea, Rep.

Singapore

United States

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Growth Competitiveness Index Rank, 2005-2006

GN

I p

er

cap

ita

ra

nk,

20

04

Fuente: Foro Económico Mundial (2005); e Indicadores de Desarrollo del Banco Mundial.

Ranking en el Indice de Competitividad para el Crecimiento 2005-2006

Ran

kin

g d

el In

gre

so N

acio

nal

Bru

to p

er c

apit

a, 2

004

El problema de crecimiento en Mexico

(b) GDP Growth in Mexico and its Components 1960-2003

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1965-1979 1980-2003 1996-2003

GDP Capital Labor TFP

Contributions to real GDP Growth in Percent. Source: Faal (2005).

(a) Annual Growth Rate (%)

-2.0%

0.0% 2.0%

4.0%

6.0% 8.0%

10.0%

2001 2002 2003 2004

México Chile China

Baja inversionBaja crecimientode productividad

El crecimiento de la PTF total aumentó en decadas pasadas, pero parece estancado en los 90

Crecimiento de la PTF, 1960-1999

1.74

1.00

-1.62

0.47

0.02

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Mex

ico

Brazil

Chile

Costa

Ric

aVen

ezue

la

USA

Canad

a

Korea

Norway

Latin

Am

eric

a

OECDEas

t Asi

a

País / Región

%

1960-69

1970-79

1980-89

1990-94

1995-99

Que atrae inversion estranjera?

Avances importantes pero queda mucho por hacer

México: Necesidades proyectadas en la capacidad de generación

Fuente: Secretaría de Energía de México y World Energy Outlook, 2002

México: requiere un crecimiento rápido en la capacidad instalada

Fuente: Varios comisiones nacionales de energía.

Precio de electricidad (USD¢ / kWh)

México tiene costos de electricidad altos y en aumento

Y la calidad aunque ha mejorado, necesita mejorar mucho mas

Fuente: Revisión del Gasto Público en Infraestrucutra, Banco Mundial

Interrupciones Anuales por Conexión (minutos)

México está bajo en inversiones en Tecnología de Comunicaciones

Costa Rica

Colombia

Peru

ArgenitnaChina

Singapore

KoreaChileBrazilJapan

USA

Mexico

y = 9E-05x + 5.3607R2 = 0.1935

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0 25000.0 30000.0 35000.0 40000.0

GDP per capita PPP

ICT

exp

end

iture

(%

gd

p)

Source: World Bank, Central Data Base, 2005

Diferente Desempeño en Telecomunicaciones entre México y Brasil - Factor Clave de las Diferencias: Nivel de

Competencia en el Sector

Año

Número Total de

suscritos por 100 habitantes

Fallas por cada 100 lineas

Comercial Residencial

Cobro por conexión

(US$)

Pago por Subscripción

Mensual (US$)

Cobro por conexión

(US$)

Pago por Subscripción Mesual (US$)

México Brasil México Brasil México BrasilMéxic

oBrasil México Brasil

México

Brasil

1994 10 8 6 3 919 1746 24 8 530 1746 12 1

1996 10 11 4 4 409 1107 13 9 236 1107 9 3

1998 14 16 3 5 383 69 19 13 107 69 14 9

2000 27 32 .. 3 370 27 21 10 119 27 16 7

2002 41 42 2 4 362 14 20 8 117 14 16 5

2004 54 60 2 2 162 14 18 14 105 14 15 8

INTEGRACION FISICA DE LOS ESTADOS MEXICANOS Y REDUCCION DE COSTES LOGISTICOS: INVERSION EN INFRAESTRUCTURA

México ha perdido terreno en comparación con las economías de rápido crecimiento del Este Asiático

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

1980 1997Ind

ice

del

Sto

ck d

e In

frae

stru

ctu

ra

(ele

ctri

cid

ad,

cam

ino

s y

tele

com

un

icac

ion

es)

5 Países del Este Asiático México

Contribución de la brecha en infraestructura a la brecha de producción relativo a Asia del Este (1980-2003, porciento)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

Chile

Uruguay

Dom. Rep.

Panama

Colombia

Argentina

Brazil

Bolivia

Guatemala

México

Costa Rica

Honduras

Peru

El Salvador

Ecuador

Nicaragua

Jamaica

Venezuela

Infr contribution

Output gap

Infrastructure and GrowthGrowth Improvement in LAC Countries due to Higher Infrastructure Development(in percentages)

Improvement to levels of LAC Leader Improvement to levels of EAP Median

Country Stocks Quality Total Stocks Quality Total

Argentina 1.3% 0.4% 1.7% 2.2% 0.9% 3.2%

Bolivia 3.8% 0.5% 4.3% 4.8% 1.0% 5.8%

Brazil 1.5% 1.4% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 4.4%

Chile 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 2.3% 0.6% 2.8%

Colombia 1.9% 1.2% 3.1% 2.9% 1.7% 4.6%

Costa Rica ... ... ... 1.0% 0.5% 1.5%

Ecuador 2.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1.5% 4.5%

Mexico 1.4% 0.2% 1.7% 2.4% 0.8% 3.2%

Peru 3.0% 0.6% 3.5% 4.0% 1.1% 5.0%

Uruguay 0.7% 0.4% 1.1% 1.7% 0.9% 2.6%

Venezuela 1.1% 0.4% 1.4% 2.0% 0.9% 2.9%

Average 2.0% 0.6% 2.6% 2.9% 1.1% 4.0%