Publication:
Examining Beneficiation

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKlinger, Bailey
dc.contributor.authorHausmann, Ricardo
dc.contributor.authorLawrence, Robert
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-25T19:05:18Z
dc.date.available2016-04-25T19:05:18Z
dc.date.created2008-05
dc.date.embargoEndinfo:eu-repo/date/embargoEnd/2024-01-31es_CO
dc.descriptionEl documento plantea la reflexión de la necesidad de mudar prácticas de mercado de exportación de las materias primas a materias procesadas, partiendo de la base de que es común que los países en vías de desarrollo privilegien la exportación de materias primas provenientes de sus recursos naturales, sin embargo una mirada a productos procesados puede abrir puertas en sectores como el tecnológico y la generación de nuevas cadenas de valores_CO
dc.description.abstractBeneficiation, moving downstream, and promoting greater value added in natural resources are very common policy initiatives to stimulate new export sectors in developing countries, largely based on the premise that this is a natural and logical path for structural transformation. But upon closer examination, we find that very few countries that export raw materials also export their processed forms, or transition to greater processing. The quantitative analysis finds that broad factor intensities do a much better job of identifying patterns of production and structural transformation than forward linkages, which have an insignificant impact despite the fact that our data is biased against finding significant effects of factor intensities and towards finding significant effects of forward linkages. Moreover, the explanatory power of forward linkages is even smaller in sectors with high transport costs, and in sectors classified as primary products or raw materials, which are the most common targets of such policies. Finally, the results are the same even when only considering developed countries, meaning that colonial legacy inhibiting transitions to natural resource processing are not to blame. These results suggest that policies to promote greater downstream processing as an export promotion policy are misguided. Structural transformation favors sectors with similar technological requirements, factor intensities, and other requisite capabilities, not products connected in production chains. There is no reason for countries like South Africa to focus attention on beneficiation at the expense of policies that would allow other export sectors to emerge. This makes no sense conceptually, and is completely inconsistent with international experience. Quite simply, beneficiation is a bad policy paradigm.es_CO
dc.description.sponsorshipHardvard Universityes_CO
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfes_CO
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11146/210
dc.language.isoenges_CO
dc.publisher.editorHardvard Universityes_CO
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantic/closedAccesses_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAFLEG (Africa Law Enforcement and Governance Workshop). 2003. Keynote Address, Akosombo, Ghana. September 2003.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBruton, H. 1998. “A reconsideration of import substitution.” Journal of Economic Literature 36(2): 903-36.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationChenery, H. & T. Wantanabe. 1958. “International comparisons of the structure of production.” Econometrica 26(4): 487-521.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDiaz, B., L. Moniche & A. Morillas. 2006. “A fuzzy clustering approach to the key sectors of the Spanish economy.” Economic Systems Research 18(3): 299-318.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFiler, Colin, with N. Sekhran, 1998. Loggers, Donors, and resource owners, IIED and National Research Institute, London and Port Moresby.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFinancial Times. 2005. “Diamonds: In search of carrots that may persuade miners to process locally.” June 28, 2005.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFinancial Times. 2005. “Diamond bill threatens to undermine De Beers’ global supremacy.” September 9, 2005.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGhosh, A. 1958. “Input-output approach in an allocation system.” Economica: 58-64.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHu, W. & W. Yabuuchi. 2003. “Local content requirements and urban unemployment.” International Review of Economics and Finance 12: 481-94.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHirschman, A. 1968. “The political economy of import-substituting industrialization in Latin America.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 82(1): 1-32.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKelegama, S. & F. Foley. 1999. “Impediments to promoting backward linkages from the garment industry in Sri Lanka.” World Development 27(8): 1445-60.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKrugman, P. 1991. Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKrugman, P. 1998. “What’s new about the new economic geography?” Oxford review of Economic Policy 14(1): 7-17.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLall, S. 2000. “The technological structure and performance of developing country manufactured exports, 1985-1998” Queen Elizabeth House Working Paper #44, University of Oxford.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLeamer, Edward E. 1984. Sources of Comparative Advantage: Theory and Evidence. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMadani, D. 1999. “A review of the role and impact of export processing zones.” World bank policy research working paper #2238. Washington, DC.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNew York Times Magazine. 2006. Special Advertising Supplement.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationOosterhaven, J. 1996. “Leontief versus Ghoshian price and quantity models.” Southern economic journal 62: 750-59.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationOttaviano, G. & D. Puga. 1998. “Agglomeration in the global economy: a survey of the ‘new economic geography’.” The World Economy 21(6): 707-37.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationParliament of Australia. 2006. “Australia’s Uranium: Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world.” Report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, December 2006. Canberra, Australia.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPorter, M. 1990. “The competitive advantage of nations.” Harvard Business Review March-April: 73-93.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPuga, D. & A. Venables. 1999. “Agglomeration and economic development: import substitution vs. trade liberalization.” The Economic Journal 109: 292-311.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRasmussen, P. 1956. Studies in Intersectoral Relations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRepublic of Zambia. 2005. “Fifth national development plan, 2006-2010”. Ministry of finance and national planning.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSanthanam, K. & R. Patil. 1972. “A study of the production structure of the Indian economy: an international comparison.” Econometrica 40(1): 159-76.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSimpson, D. & J. Tsukui. 1965. “The fundamental structure of input-output tables, an international comparison.” Review of Economics and Statistics 47: 434-46.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTemurshoev, U. “Key sectors in the Kyrgyzstan economy.” CERGE-EI Discussion Paper No. 2004-135.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUS Embassy. 2006. “Country Commercial Guide: Botswana”. Gabarone, Botswana.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVenables, A. 1996. “Equilibrium locations of vertically linked industries.” International Economic Review 37(2): 341-59.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVuetilovoni. 2005. Speech of the Minister for Commerce, Investment and Business Development, November 2005.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWorld Bank. 2001. “Ghana International Competitiveness: Opportunities and Challenges Facing Non-Traditional Exports.” Africa Region, document 222421-GH.. Washington, DC.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWTO (World Trade Organization). 1998. “Solomon Islands Trade Policy Review.” September 1998.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWTO (World Trade Organization). 2003. “South African customs union Trade Policy Review.” April 2003.es_CO
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYi, K. 2003. “Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade?” Journal of Political Economy 111(1): 52-102es_CO
dc.subjectPolítica científicaes_CO
dc.subjectSectores industrialeses_CO
dc.subjectSubsectores industrialeses_CO
dc.subjectEconomia de mercadoes_CO
dc.subject.otherScience policyes_CO
dc.subject.otherMarket economyes_CO
dc.titleExamining Beneficiationes_CO
dc.title.alternativeCID Working Paper No. 162es_CO
dc.typeDocumento de Trabajoes_CO
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/workingPaperes_CO
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
201. EXAMING BENEFICIATION. CID WORKING PAPER SERIES.pdf
Size:
1.59 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
EXAMING BENEFICIATION. CID WORKING PAPER SERIES
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.87 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación