Transcript Presentation (480 KB )

The Role of Trade in Structural Transformation
Marc Teignier
UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE
European Summer Symposium in International Macroeconomics
23 May 2012, Tarragona
1
Introduction
Introduction
Question
Contributions
Road Map
Motivation
High agricultural productivity growth is typically considered a
necessary condition for the start of industrialization and growth.
Schultz (1953); Gollin, Parente, Rogerson (2007).
Main Results
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
Goal of the paper:
Can international trade in agricultural good accelerate transition process
of countries with low agricultural productivity?
What is the quantitative effect of trade on the structural transformation
of net agricultural importers?
Main idea:
Under autarky, because of need to feed population:
Low agricultural productivity ⇒ Large agricultural sector, low aggregate
productivity.
Under international trade:
Low agricultural productivity ⇒ Food imports from abroad, faster
structural transformation.
2
Main Contributions
Introduction
Question
Contributions
Related literature:
Road Map
Motivation
Main Results
Structural transformation in closed economy:
Gollin, Parente, Rogerson (2007); Hayashi and Prescott (2008).
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Structural transformation in an open economy:
Matsuyama (1992, 2009); Stokey (2001); Yi and Zhang (2010).
Conclusion
Appendix
Main contributions of this paper:
Introduce trade into two-sector neo-classical growth model.
Show model is able to replicate structural transformation data:
Closed Economy model: United States 1890-2007.
Open Economy: United Kingdom 1800-1900, S. Korea 1963-2007.
Quantitatively evaluate role of trade in the transformation of:
United Kingdom,
South Korea.
Related Literature
3
Outline of the presentation
Introduction
Question
Contributions
Road Map
Motivation
Main Results
Model
1
Introduction
2
Structural transformation model
3
Model simulation, numerical results
4
Implications for low-development countries
5
Conclusion
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
4
Motivation: income and agriculture size
Introduction
Question
Contributions
Road Map
Structural transformation is a key element of the development process:
poor countries have much larger agricultural sectors than rich ones.
Motivation
100
Main Results
Model
Conclusion
Appendix
0
LDC
Implications
Agricultural employment share
20
40
60
80
Simulations
NPL
BFA
RWA
BDIBTN
NER
GIN
MWI MOZ
GNB
ETH
MLI
TZA
SYC
UGA
GMB
DJI
ERI
KEN
TCD LAO
PNG
MDG
SENAGO
CAF COM
SLB
GNQ
KHM SOMZMB
LBR
VNM
CHN
SLE
HTI
ZWE
ZAR AFG
STP
CMR
TGOSDN
IND
GHA
THA
BGD
BENMRT
CIV
IDN
ALB
YEM
GTM
BOL LKA
BWA
LSO PAK
COG
PHLFJI TUR
GAB
VUT
OMN
SWZ
TON
WSM
TKM
MAR
NGA TJK
EGY
HND
PRK
PRY
PER
SLV
UZB
BLZ
AZE
IRN DMA
FSM DZA
KGZ
KIR
MNG SYR
GRD
TUN
VCT
MDV
LCA
CPV
MDA NIC ECU
PLW ATG
POL
MEX
JAM COL PAN
GEO
SCG
CRI MYS
KAZ
GUYSUR DOM
BRA
CHLGRC
ROM
UKR
CUB
BLR
PRT
ARM
URY
LTU
LVA
EST
HUN MUS
RUS
SAU NZL
KOR
ZAF
IRQ
SVK
JOR
ARG
CYPIRL
TTO
VENHRV CZE
ISL
ESP
BGR
LBY
FIN
BIH
ITA
AUT
ARE
AUS
NOR
BRB
CHE
JPN
BHS
DNK
LBN
FRA
NLD
SWE
BMU
ISR
GER
CAN
PRI
USA LUX
SVN
BEL
GBR
QAT
MLT
KWT
BHR
BRN
SGP
ANT
6
7
8
9
10
Log GDP per capita - year 2000 (2002 International prices)
11
5
Evidence for US, UK, S. Korea
Introduction
Question
Contributions
Road Map
Motivation
Main Results
Model
Transformation expenciered at very different points in time:
United States: Transition during 19th and 20th century.
United Kingdom: Transition earlier than in the US.
South Korea: Transition 2nd half 20th century, much faster.
Simulations
Kenya
Japan
United States
80
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Agricultural Employment Share
20
40
60
Egypt
India
South Korea
France
United Kingdom
Australia
0
Appendix
1800
1850
1900
Year
1950
2000
6
Evidence for US, UK, S. Korea
Introduction
Question
Contributions
Controlling for income, size agricultural sector similar in US and
Korea; much smaller in UK.
Road Map
Main Results
80
Motivation
Model
1820US
Simulations
Appendix
1874US
1980SK
1820UK
1856UK
2000SK
1960US
1920UK
1960UK
0
Conclusion
Agricultural Employment Share
20
40
60
1960SK
LDC
Implications
6
7
8
9
Log GDP per capita (1990 International Dollars)
10
7
Main Results: United Kingdom
Introduction
Question
Trade very important for United Kingdom’s early transformation:
Contributions
Road Map
In 1800, 80% empl in agr under autarky instead of 35% under trade.
Motivation
Main Results
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Trade had very large effects on income growth and welfare:
Gain in welfare equivalent to 5.5% increase in consumption exp.
80
Model
Conclusion
South Korea.
Agricultural Employment Share
20
40
60
Appendix
United States
United Kingdom Autarky
United Kingdom
.
0
.
6
7
8
9
Log GDP per capita (1990 International Dollars)
.
10
8
Main Results: South Korea
Introduction
Question
Contributions
Road Map
In South Korea, positive but smaller effects of trade in transformation.
Initial agricultural employment 70% instead of 63%.
Motivation
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
If no agr protection, faster transition and lager effects trade:
Agricultural employment below 10% in 1979 instead of 2002.
Gain in welfare equivalent to 5.4% increase in consumption exp.
80
Main Results
Model
Appendix
Agricultural Employment Share
20
40
60
South Korea
.
United States
South Korea Autarky
South Korea Free Trade
United Kingdom
.
.
0
.
6
7
8
9
Log GDP per capita (1990 International Dollars)
10
9
Model Description
Introduction
Model
Description
Analysis
Simulations
Two Sectors:
Agricultural good (consumption).
Nonagricultural good (consumption and investment).
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Production functions:
Appendix
Agricultural sector inputs: land (fixed), capital, labor.
Nonagricultural sector inputs: capital, labor.
Exogenous technology growth; different rates across sectors.
Preferences:
Low income elasticity agricultural good.
Low price elasticity agricultural good.
Environment:
Perfect competition.
Perfect input mobility.
10
Technology Description
Introduction
Model
Description
Analysis
Simulations
Production functions:
Nonagricultural sector:
LDC
Implications
Yn = An (Kn )α (Nn )1−α
Conclusion
Appendix
Agricultural sector:
Ya = Aa (Ka )η (Na )β (L)1−η−β
Exogenous technological change:
A˙ n
A˙ a
≡ γ n,
≡ γa
An
Aa
Capital accumulation:
K˙ = (Yn − Cn ) − δ K
11
Preferences Description
Preferences:
Introduction
Z ∞
e−ρs N (s) u (ca , cn ) ds
µ 0 log ca − ca
if ca ≤ c∗a
u (ca , cn ) = log (cn ) +
∗
B + µ 1 log (ca − ca − A) if ca > c∗a
Model
U (t ) =
Description
t
Analysis
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
c∗a − ca to get differentiability at c∗a .
µ
B = µ 0 log c∗a − ca − µ 1 log µ 1 c∗a − ca to get continuity at c∗a .
A=
µ1
µ0
0
Utility at different levels of agricultural consumption
Agricultural good expenditure share
8
0.9
P arameterV alues :
0.8
ca = 100
0.7
c∗a = 150
Utility level
7.5
7
P arameterV alues :
6.5
6
0.6
ca = 100
0.5
c∗a = 150
0.4
5.5
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Agricultural Consumption
190
200
210
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Total consumption expenditure
12
Main mechanisms
Introduction
Model
Description
Analysis
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
Agents optimization:
Firms choose capital, labor, and land demand to maximize profits.
Households choose savings, consumption, allocation of labor and
capital to maximize intertemporal welfare.
Market clearing:
Under autarky, domestic supply = domestic demand.
Under trade, imports = exports (labor, capital not mobile).
Main mechanims leading to structural transformation:
Technological change + capital accumulation ⇒ income ↑ ⇒
agricultural consumption share ↓.
Structural transformation in a closed economy:
Agricultural consumption share ↓ ⇒ agricultural employment share ↓.
Structural transformation in an open economy:
If international price agricultural good < domestic price,
trade ⇒ agricultural imports ↑, agricultural employment ↓.
13
Equilibrium analysis
Introduction
If population growth not ”too high” relative to TFP growth,
Model
Description
Analysis
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
η
γ + γ a − (1 − η − β ) ν > 0,
1−α n
economy behaves asymptotically as if homothetic preferences:
u (ca , cn ) = µ 1 log (ca ) + log (cn ) .
Then, for any initial condition, economy converges asymptotically to the
homothetic preferences Balanced Growth Path.
Closed economy BGP:
Closed Economy
Positive and constant employment shares in both sectors.
Constant (not necessarily equal) growth rates of all other variables.
Small open economy:
Open Economy
Specialization in agriculture if agricultural price ”high enough”.
BGP growth rates depend on sectoral composition:
If growth rate agricultural price ”high enough”, agricultural specialization.
If not, non-agricultural specialization.
14
Simulations
Introduction
1
Parameter values specified.
2
Exogenous variables specified:
Model
Simulations
Calibration
United States
United Kingdom
United States: Aa , An , N.
United Kingdom: Aa , An , N, pa /pn .
South Korea: Aa , An , N, pa /pn , ta , σ a .
South Korea
Results
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
3
Initial capital stock taken from the data.
4
Simulation results compared with the data.
United States: 1890 - 2007.
United Kingdom: 1800 - 1900.
South Korea: 1963 - 2007.
5
Counterfactual experiments:
United States: different initial productivity.
United Kingdom: autarky.
South Korea: autarky, free trade (no agricultural policy).
15
Parameter Values
Introduction
Model
Description
Value
Source
α
Capital share nonagr sector
1/3
standard
η
Capital share agr sector
0.1
Korea Development Institute
β
Labor share agr sector
0.5
Korea Development Institute
δ
Capital depreciation rate
0.10
Christensen, Jorgenson (1995)
ρ
Intertemporal discount
0.06
To match SS capital US
µ0
Agr good initial weight
0.5
To match Korea cons data
µ1
Agr good weight
0.01
To match SS agr empl US
c∗a /ca
Agr cons threshold
1.5
To match Korea cons data
60%
To match US cons data
85%
To match Korea cons data
91%
To match UK cons data
Simulations
Calibration
United States
United Kingdom
South Korea
Results
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
ca
Agr subsistence level
(as % initial agr cons)
Levels Comparison
16
United States Baseline Simulation
Fraction of Employment in Agricultural Sector
Introduction
Model
0.45
Model
Kendrick Data
NIPA data
Simulations
Calibration
0.4
United States
United Kingdom
South Korea
0.35
Results
LDC
Implications
0.3
Conclusion
Appendix
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Exogenous Variables
17
United States Baseline Simulation
Introduction
Agricultural production per capita
Nonagricultural production per capita
Model
Simulations
Calibration
1000
220
900
200
800
180
700
United States
United Kingdom
South Korea
600
160
Results
500
140
LDC
Implications
120
Conclusion
100
Appendix
400
80
300
200
100
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
1900
Agricultural relative price
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Aggregate capital stock (in logs)
160
11
10
150
9
8
140
7
130
6
5
120
4
3
110
2
1
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
100
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
18
United Sates Simulations: changes in initial TFP
Introduction
Initial Agricultural Productivity
Model
A (0)=100 (Baseline)
a
Simulations
United States
United Kingdom
South Korea
Results
LDC
Implications
A (0)=50
0.6
Agricultural Emloyment Share
Calibration
Conclusion
a
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Appendix
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Initial Nonagricultural Productivity
An(0)=100 (Baseline)
An(0)=50
Agricultural Emloyment Share
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
19
United Kingdom Baseline Simulation
Introduction
Fraction of Employment in Agricultural Sector
0.4
Simulations
Calibration
Agricultural production per capita
160
Model
Model
Data
0.35
150
Model
Data
140
0.3
United States
United Kingdom
130
0.25
South Korea
Results
120
0.2
110
LDC
Implications
0.15
Conclusion
0.1
100
Appendix
90
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1820
Agricultural net imports per capita
150
Model
Data
140
1840
1860
1880
1900
Aggregate capital stock (in logs)
135
Model
Data
130
130
125
120
120
110
100
115
90
110
80
105
70
100
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1800
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
Exogenous Variables
20
Policy experiment: Autarky
Introduction
Relative price agricultural good
Agricultural Sector Employment Share
0.8
Model
Autarky Simulation
Baseline Simulation
5.5
0.7
Simulations
Calibration
5
0.6
4.5
United States
United Kingdom
South Korea
0.5
4
0.4
3.5
Results
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
3
0.3
2.5
0.2
2
Appendix
0.1
1850
1900
1950
2000
1850
Agricultural Good Consumption
1900
1950
2000
Nonagricultural Good Consumption (in logs)
200
190
160
180
150
170
140
160
150
130
140
120
130
120
110
110
100
100
1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Results Summary
21
South Korea Baseline Simulation
Fraction of Employment in Agricultural Sector
Introduction
Model
0.7
Model
Data
Simulations
Calibration
United States
0.6
United Kingdom
South Korea
Results
0.5
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
0.4
Appendix
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Exogenous Variables
22
South Korea Baseline Simulation
Introduction
Agricultural consumption per capita
Agricultural production per capita
Model
145
170
Simulations
Calibration
United States
140
160
135
150
130
140
125
United Kingdom
South Korea
Results
120
130
115
LDC
Implications
120
110
Conclusion
110
105
Appendix
100
100
1965
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Nonagricultural production per capita (in logs)
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Aggregate capital stock (in logs)
145
150
140
135
140
130
125
130
120
120
115
110
110
105
100
100
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
23
Policy experiment 1: Autarky
Introduction
Relative price agricultural good
Model
Autarky Simulation
Baseline Simulation
1.8
Simulations
Calibration
1.7
South Korea
Results
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Autarky Simulation
Baseline Simulation
0.6
1.6
United States
United Kingdom
Agricultural Sector Employment Share
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.4
0.4
1.3
1.2
0.3
1.1
0.2
1
0.9
0.1
Appendix
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Agricultural Good Consumption
Nonagricultural Good Consumption (in logs)
150
145
Autarky Simulation
Baseline Simulation
140
170
Autarky Simulation
Baseline Simulation
160
135
150
130
140
125
120
130
115
120
110
110
105
100
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
100
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
24
Policy experiment 2: No Agricultural Policy
Introduction
Agricultural Good Imports
Model
160
Simulations
140
Calibration
Agricultural Sector Employment Share
0.6
No Agr Policy Simulation
Baseline Simulation
120
United States
United Kingdom
South Korea
No Agr Policy Simulation
Baseline Simulation
0.5
0.4
100
80
0.3
60
0.2
Results
LDC
Implications
40
Conclusion
20
0.1
Appendix
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Agricultural Good Consumption
170
Nonagricultural Good Consumption (in logs)
No Agr Policy Simulation
Baseline Simulation
170
160
160
150
150
140
140
130
130
120
120
110
110
100
No Agr Policy Simulation
Baseline Simulation
100
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Results Summary
25
Results Summary
Introduction
Model
Simulations
Calibration
Real income growth:
United States
United Kingdom
South Korea
Results
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
United Kingdom
South Korea
Autarky
Baseline
No agr policy
1.28%
4.5%
1.44%
4.71%
5.47%
Appendix
Intertemporal Welfare gain with respect to Autarky:
(in terms of annual consumption expenditures)
United Kingdom
South Korea
Baseline
No agr policy
5.5%
0.4%
5.4%
26
Introduction
Model
Simulations
International evidence. Agricultural and
non-agricultural productivity
Poor countries are particularly unproductive in agriculture:
Empirical
Evidence
Conclusion
Appendix
Nonagricultural output per worker - ratio to US
.00625
.025
.1
.4
1.6
LDC
Implications
CHE
USA
NOR AUT
BEL
FRA
ITA
CANNLD
ISR DNK
GER
SWE
JPN
FIN
GRC
ESP
GBR AUS
NZL
MEX
IRL
DZA
PRT VEN
ZWE
IRN
CMR PNGNIC
ZAF HUN
ARG
NPL
NER
CRI
PRY
MYS
PER
GTM
KOR
ECUBRA
RWA
TUN
TUR
COL CHL
DOM
URY
GIN THAMAR
SLV
SEN
BDI HTI
HND
EGY
PHL
LKACIV IRQ
KEN IDN
BOL
BFA
IND PAK
MOZ
BGD
SYR
NGA
MDG
TCD
ZAR
SDN
MWIMLI
SOM
UGAGHA
ETH
TZA
.00625
.025
.1
.4
Agricultural output per worker - ratio to US
1.6
27
International evidence. Agricultural relative price
Introduction
Model
Empirical
Evidence
Conclusion
Appendix
8
The relative price of agricultural goods is higher in poor countries:
HTI
FAO Agricultural PPP / PWT Aggregate PPP
2
4
6
LDC
Implications
PNG
DZA
DOM
IRN
KOR
NPL
IDN
NIC
BGD
NER LKA
TUN
PHL
IND
RWA
SLV ECU
MYS
EGY
UGA
ZWE
PAK
GHA
MLISEN
CRI
GTM
KEN
URY
PRYBRA
TUR PER
CMR
MOZ
SDN
COL
THA
CHL
BOL
MWI
SYR
HND
ZAR
JPN
PRT
HUN
MEX
ZAF
VEN
GRC
ARG
IRL
FIN
ESP
ISR ITA
FRA NOR
AUT
GER
GBRSWE
NLD
BEL
DNK
CAN
USA
NZLAUS
0
Simulations
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
Output per worker - year 1985 (2002 international prices)
50000
28
Implications for Low-Development Countries
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Empirical
Evidence
Conclusion
Appendix
There seem to be important potential benefits from agricultural
imports for many poor countries:
Year: 1985
Agricultural Employment Share
Aggregate labor productivity
Agriculture labor productivity
Relative price agricultural good
Ratio 10th - 90th percentile
0.85/0.05
1/30
1/50
2
Agricultural trade flows very low in poor countries, but they are more
food importers than rich countries. (World Bank, year 2004-05)
Industrial
Middle-income
Low income
Net Food
Exporters
39%
34%
28%
Net food
Importers
61%
66%
72%
# Countries
33
105
58
International Evidence
29
Conclusion
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
Results summary:
Large effects of trade in United Kingdom.
Positive but smaller effects of trade in South Korea.
Trade effects in South Korea much larger if no agriculture protection.
Policy implications:
Important welfare gains from eliminating agricultural protection policies.
Future extensions:
Robustness analysis (functional forms, parameter values).
Study potential benefits of agricultural trade for low-development
countries.
Examine relation land quality and income for closed and open
economies.
30
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
APPENDIX
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
31
Appendix. Related Literature
Introduction
Why countries experience structural transformation:
Model
Differences in goods’ income elasticities: Kongsamut et al. (2001).
Differences in TFP growth across sectors: Ngai, Pissarides (2008).
Differences in sectoral factor intensities: Acemoglu, Guerrieri (2008).
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
Structural Transformation in a Closed Economy:
Empirical
Evidence
Shin (1990); Echevarria (1997); Laitner (2000); Lucas (2000, 2007); Caselli and Coleman (2001); Gollin, Parente and Rogerson (2002,
Agr Trade
2004, 2007); Hansen and Prescott (2002); Hayashi and Prescott (2008); Restuccia, Yang and Zhu (2008).
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Structural Transformation in an Open Economy:
Korea Data
Korea Results
Matsuyama (1992, 2009); Stokey (2001); Echevarria (2007); Stefanski (2010); Ungor (2010); Deardorf, Park (2010); Yi and Zhang (2010);
UK Data
UK Results
Betts and Verma (2011); Choi and Ma (2011); Tombe (2011).
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Agricultural vs Nonagricultural productivity:
Caselli (2005); Cordoba and Ripoll (2006); Vollrath (2008); Lagakos and Waugh (2009).
East Asian countries growth episodes:
Young (1992, 1995); Hsieh (2002); Connolly and Yi (2009).
Back
32
Appendix. Empirical evidence
Introduction
Model
Structural transformation experienced by countries at different points
in time.
Simulations
Conclusion
80
LDC
Implications
Appendix
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
0
Empirical
Evidence
Agricultural Employment Share
20
40
60
Literature
1800
1850
1900
Year
1950
2000
33
Appendix. Empirical evidence
Introduction
Structural transformation process closely related to income growth.
Model
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Agricultural Employment Share
20
40
60
Conclusion
0
LDC
Implications
80
Simulations
6
7
8
9
Log GDP per capita (1990 International Dollars)
10
34
Appendix. Empirical evidence
Introduction
Model
Also, at a given point in time, negative relation between income and
size agriculture across countries :
Simulations
Conclusion
100
LDC
Implications
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
NGA
LSO
IDN
BWA
TUR
PAK
COGGTM
LKA
BOL
HND
PHL
SWZ
MAR
EGY
VUT
TON
WSM FJI
MDV
PRK
MNG
KIR
SYR
0
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Agricultural employment share
20
40
60
80
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
NPLRWA
BFABDI
NER
GIN
MWI
MLI
UGA
TZA GNB
MOZ
TCD
GMB
DJI
CAF
PNG
KEN
MDG
LAO SEN COM
GNQSLB
SOM ZMB LBR
KHM
CHNSLE
CMR
SDN
HTIAFGZWE
ZAR
BGD
THA
TGO STP
BEN IND
MRT
CIV
GHA
BTN
Appendix
6
GAB
OMN
BLZ
PRY
ECU
SLV
PER
IRN
MYS
CPV VCTCOL
NIC
ATG
LCA
TUN
MEX
DZA
SAU
BRA
GRD
DMA
ROM
CRI
POL
DOM
JAM
PAN
GRC
KOR
SUR CUB
MUS PRT
IRQ
CYP
CHL
IRLESP
JOR URY
ZAF HUN
VEN
ARG
TTO
ISL
NZL
ITA
FIN
AUT
BRB JPN
NOR
FRA
ARE
DNK
AUS
CHE
BHS
MLT PRI ISR NLD
GER
SWE
CAN
BRN
BMU
BHR
GBR
KWTUSA QAT
SGP
ANT
7
8
9
10
Log GDP per capita - year 1985 (2002 International prices)
35
Appendix. Empirical evidence
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Relationship between income and agricultural sector size less strong
for open economies:
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
25% Least Open Economies
UK Data
UK Results
CAF
SOMZMB
SLE
SDN
HTI
CMR
IND
CHN
BGD
BOL
PAK
SCG
Korea Alt.
Preferences
ALB
GTM
TUR
EGY
PRY
PER
IRN
PRK
COL
BRA
DOM
CUB
URY
ZAF ARG
VEN
LBY
ITA
AUS
JPN
0
IRQ
6
SYC
Agricultural employment share
20
40
60
Korea Results
ZAR
GIN
7
8
9
10
Log GDP per capita - year 2000 (2002 International prices)
USA
11
SLB
AGO
KHM
GNQ
STP
THA
COG
LSO
TJK
MNG MDA
0
Korea Data
Agricultural employment share
20
40
60
80
US Data
R-squared=0.45
80
RWA
BDI BFA
NER
MOZ
ETH
TZA UGA
Closed Economy
Open Economy
25% Most Open Economies
R-squared=0.7
100
Agr Trade
6
VUT
FJI
SWZ
DMA
MDVGRD
PAN MYSATG
GUY
UKR
BLR
EST
HUN MUS
IRL
SVK
CZE
BGR
BHS NLDARE
LBN
PRIBEL
SVN
MLT
BRN
SGP
ANT BHR
7
8
9
10
Log GDP per capita - year 2000 (2002 International prices)
LUX
11
36
Appendix. Empirical evidence
Introduction
Model
Simulations
Back
Poor countries more likely to be food exporters than rich ones
(World Bank, year 2004-05):
LDC
Implications
Net Food
Exporters
39%
34%
28%
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Industrial
Middle-income
Low income
Net food
Importers
61%
66%
72%
# Countries
33
105
58
Open Economy
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
CIV
CRI
NZL
SWZ
MDA
GNB
ECU
KENGHA VNM
ARG
GTM THAURY
IRL
NIC HND
DNK
MUS
HUN CHL
AUS
UGA
MWI
NLD
BDI MDG
UKR
PRY
BRA
COL
BEL
LKA
CMR
ZWE IND BOL
TUR
KAZ
TCDTZA
ESP
ZAF
CANUSA
FRA
BGR
LTU
CHN
PAK SLVIDNPER PANPOL
CAF
MEX
GNQ
GER
AUT
SYR
FIN
CHE
ISRITA
JPN
DOMIRN BLR
NOR
SWE
KOR
ZMBRWA
GBR
CZE GRC
SDN
ROM
TGO
MAR
SVK
VEN
SGP
NAM
HRVQAT
NPL
LAO
KHM
MYS
SVN
JAM
KGZ
PHL
BGD
NER
NGA
PRT
MLI
UZB
RUS
TUN
SAU KWT TTO
OMN
EGY GAB
ARE HKG
GIN
LBY
BWA
EST
BFA
MOZ COG
AGO
TKM
BHR LVA
AZE
BEN
MNG
DZA
LBN
COM
AFG
SYC
ALB
GEOJOR
TJK STP
SEN
HTI
BIH
IRQ
YEM
ARM
ZAR
SLE
CPV
DJI
MRT
LSO
GMB
LBR
-.2
Korea Data
Food net exports over total income (1995-2005)
-.1
0
.1
.2
US Data
5
6
7
8
Log GDP per capita - year 2000
9
10
37
Appendix. Closed Economy Equilibrium
Introduction
Model
Simulations
Households’ optimization:
LDC
Implications
Z ∞
max
Conclusion
{cs ,ns ,ks ,}s=a,n 0
Appendix
e−(ρ−ν )t u (ca , cn ) dt
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
s.t.
k˙ = w + pl Le−νt + (r − δ − ν ) k − qca − cn
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Firms’ optimization:
Korea Alt.
Preferences
n
o
max An (kn )α (nn )1−α − rk − wnn
kn ,nn
n
o
1−η−β
max qAa (ka )η (na )β Le−νt
− rka − wna − pl Le−νt
ka ,na
38
Appendix. Closed economy equilibrium conditions
Introduction
Model
Simulations
Consumers’ optimization conditions:
LDC
Implications
c˙ n = cn (r − δ − ρ )
Conclusion
(
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
ca =
if ca + µ 0a cqn ≤ c∗a
ca + µ 0 cqn
cn
∗
ca − A + µ 1 q
else
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Firms’ optimization conditions:
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
r (t ) = qηAa (ka )η−1 (na )β Le−νt
1−η−β
= αAn (kn )α−1 (nn )1−α
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
w (t ) = qβ Aa (ka )η (na )β −1 Le−νt
1−η−β
= (1 − α ) An (kn )α (nn )−α
Market clearing:
ya = ca , yn = k˙ + (δ + ν ) k + cn
ka + kn = k, na + nn = 1
39
Appendix. Closed Economy Equilibrium
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
u (ca , cn ) = µ 1 log (ca ) + log (cn )
µ 0 log ca − ca
if ca ≤ c∗a
u (ca , cn ) = log (cn ) +
∗
B + µ 1 log (ca − ca − A) if ca > c∗a
(1)
(2)
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
If preferences as in equation (1), economy converges asymptotically
to BGP.
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
If preferences as in equation (2), equilibrium system converges to the
equilibrium system for preferences (1), as long as
η
γ + γ a − (1 − η − β ) ν > 0
1−α n
(3)
For any initial condition, economy converges asymptotically to BGP
of preferences (1).
40
Appendix. Closed economy BGP growth rates
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
(
lim
t→∞
Appendix
(
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
lim
t→∞
se (˙ t )
se ( t )
)
sk (˙ t )
sk (t )
)
= 0, where se ≡
Na
N
= 0, where sk ≡
Ka
K
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
(
)
(
)
k(˙t )
cn (˙ t )
1
lim
= lim
=
γ
t→∞ cn (t )
t→∞ k (t )
1−α n
(
)
q(˙t )
1−η
lim
=
γ + (1 − η − β ) ν − γ a
t→∞ q (t )
1−α n
)
(
ca (˙ t )
η
= γa +
γ − (1 − η − β ) ν
lim
t→∞ ca (t )
1−α n
41
Appendix. Autarky equilibrium analysis
Structural transformation under autarky:
Introduction
Model
Evolution of fraction of employment in agricultural sector:
Simulations
cn
na
β
yn
=µ
1 − na
1 − α 1 − c∗a −A
ca
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
If
Appendix
Literature
cn
yn
constant, as ca increases
c∗a − A
↓⇒ se ↓
ca
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Evolution of agricultural good relative price:
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
q=Φ
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
η +β −1 α−η
An
(na )1−η−β
Le−νt
k
α−η
Aa
β
β
1−α
η − na η − α
Structural transformation has negative effect on agricultural price:
na ↓⇒ q ↓
Other variables also affect agricultural price:
An
↑⇒ q ↑, k ↑⇒ q ↑, Le−νt ↓⇒ q ↑
Aa
Back
42
Appendix. Open Economy Equilibrium
Introduction
Model
Simulations
Market clearing conditions:
LDC
Implications
ya
Conclusion
yn
Appendix
= ca + xa
= k˙ + (δ + ν ) k + cn + xn
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
ka + kn
Closed Economy
Open Economy
na + nn
US Data
= k
= 1
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
Balanced trade:
qxa + xn = 0 ∀t
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Small open economy:
q exogenous, with
q˙
≡ γq
q
43
Appendix. Open Economy Equilibrium
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Specialization in the short run:
If q (t ) is ”high enough”, specialization in agricultural good:
)
(
αAn ((1 − sk ) k)α−1 ((1 − se ))1−α
q >
lim
se→1 ,sk→1
ηAa (sk k)η−1 (se )β N η +β −1
An
= Θ N 1−η−β kα−η
Aa
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Specialization in nonagricultural good not possible in the short run:
(
)
αAn ((1 − sk ) k)α−1 ((1 − se ))1−α
q lim
se→0 ,sk→0
ηAa (sk k)η−1 (se )β N η +β −1
An
= Ψ N 1−η−β kα−η lim s1−η−β
e
Aa
se →0
44
Appendix. Open Economy Equilibrium
Introduction
Model
Simulations
As before, if condition (3) is satisfied, convergence to BGP of (1).
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Specialization in the long run:
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
1−η
If γ q = (1 − η − β ) ν + 1−α
γ n − γ a , no specialization.
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
1−η
If γ q < (1 − η − β ) ν + 1−α
γn − γa
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
lim {na (t )} = lim
t→∞
t→∞
ka (t )
k (t )
ka (t )
k (t )
=0
1−η
If γ q > (1 − η − β ) ν + 1−α
γ n − γ a,
lim {na (t )} = lim
t→∞
t→∞
=1
45
Appendix. Open economy BGP growth rates
Introduction
If γ q ≤ (1 − η − β ) ν + (1 − η ) γ n − β γ a (and q not ”too high”):
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
k˙ (t )
lim
t→∞ k (t )
c˙ a (t )
lim
t→∞ ca (t )
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
=
=
lim
t→∞
c˙ n (t )
cn ( t )
=
1
γ
1−α n
1
γ − γq
1−α n
Open Economy
US Data
If γ q > (1 − η − β ) ν + (1 − η ) γ n − β γ a (or q ”high enough”):
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
k˙ (t )
lim
t→∞ k (t )
c˙ a (t )
lim
t→∞ ca (t )
=
=
c˙ n (t )
cn (t )
1
1
1−η −β
γ +
γ −
ν
1−η a 1−η q
1−η
1
η
1−η −β
γ +
γ −
ν
1−η a 1−η q
1−η
lim
t→∞
=
Back
46
Comparison subsistence levels
If good a is tradable and country i imports it from country j, then
E (t ) Pia (t ) = Pja (t ) 1 + τ ia (t ) 1 + dai (t )
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
where E is the exchange rate, τ the import tariff, and d the transport cost.
Conclusion
Using this, possible to compare ca for the three countries:
Appendix
Literature
Comparison United States, South Korea:
Empirical
Evidence
E (1990)Pus
a (1990)
Agr Trade
sk
ca
sk
Pus
(1+τ sk
a (1990) ca
a (1990))(1+da (1990))
=
us
us
us
us
Pa (1990) ca
Pa (1990) ca
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
sk
=
1.47
(1 + dask (1990))
⇒ If transportation cost equal to 47%, then the two subsistence levels
are equivalent.
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Comparison United States, United Kingdom:
E (1900)Pus
a (1900)
uk
ca
uk
Pus
(1+τ uk
a (1900) ca
a (1900))(1+da (1900))
=
us
us
us
us
Pa (1900) ca
Pa (1900) ca
sk
=
0.52
(1 + dauk (1900))
⇒ Even if no import tariffs and no transportation costs, value
subsistence level in UK lower than in US!
Back
47
Appendix. United States Exogenous Variables
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Description
Conclusion
Sample period
growth
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
ν
Population growth
γa
Agr TFP growth
γn
Nona TFP growth
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
Smoothed data
(0.018 - 0.009)
Smoothed data
(0.005 - 0.06)
Smoothed data
(0.002 - 0.015)
Future
growth
0.01
0.06
0.015
Data source
Kendrick (1961)
NIPA
Kendrick (1961)
NIPA
Kendrick (1961)
NIPA
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Description
K (0)
Initial capital stock
K
Yn
Value
= 2.03 in 1890
Data source
Kendrick (1961)
48
Appendix. United States Exogenous Variables
Introduction
Total Population
Model
450
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Measured Data
Simulations
400
LDC
Implications
350
Conclusion
300
Appendix
250
Literature
200
Empirical
Evidence
150
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
100
Open Economy
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
US Data
Agricultural TFP (in logs)
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
170
Nonagricultural TFP (in logs)
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Measured Data
160
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Measured Data
120
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
150
115
140
110
130
120
105
110
100
100
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
49
Appendix. United States Data
Introduction
US Net Agricultural Exports over Agricultural Production
Model
0.25
Simulations
LDC
Implications
0.2
Conclusion
Appendix
0.15
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
0.1
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
0.05
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
0
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
−0.05
−0.1
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Back
50
Appendix. South Korea Data
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Why study South Korea?
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr emp
Agr Trade
%
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2004
80 (approx)
58.5
45.7
24.9
11.8
8.1
GDP capita
(Korea / US)
%
11.3
11.1
17.9
25.2
45.4
51
Openess
(X+M)/GDP)
11.6%
24.22%
62%
64.4%
58.7%
84%
Agr imports
(over Agr GDP)
%
7.8
19.6
17.2
18.5
24.1
51
Appendix. South Korea exogenous variables
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Agricultural policy variables:
Conclusion
Import tariff (iceberg-cost type): ta
Production subsidy: σ a
Lump-sum tax to households: τ
Balanced government budget constraint: σ a qya = τ
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Description
Value
Data source
σa
Agr prod subsidy
0 (1963 - 1972)
10% (1973 - 2007)
To match na data
ta
Agr import tariff
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
USDA
(1990: 104%)
52
Appendix. South Korea exogenous variables
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Description
Sample period
growth
Future
growth
Data source
Population
growth
Smoothed data
(0.025, 0.005)
0.005
Bank of Korea
-0.0216
Bank of Korea
0.032
0.032
To match na
0.021
0.021
To match na
Conclusion
Appendix
ν
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
γq
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
γa
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
γn
Rel agr price
growth
Pa Ya /Ya
Pn Yn /Yn
smoothed
(-0.012, 0.023)
Agr TFP
growth
Nonagr TFP
growth
Description
K (0)
Initial capital stock
Value
K
Yn =2.87
in 1963
Data source
Korea Development
Institute
53
Appendix. South Korea exogenous variables
Introduction
Relative price agricultural good
Relative price agricultural good
Model
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Data
5
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
No Agr Policy Simulation
Baseline Simulation
1.6
1.4
4.5
1.2
4
1
Appendix
3.5
0.8
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
3
0.6
2.5
0.4
Closed Economy
1965
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Open Economy
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
US Data
Agricultural Sector TFP
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
280
Simulation Exogenous Variable
260
Measured Data
Nonagricultural Sector TFP
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Measured Data
190
180
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
240
170
220
160
200
150
180
140
160
130
140
120
120
110
100
100
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
54
Appendix. South Korea Data
Exports minus Imports over GDP
Introduction
Model
0.15
Simulations
LDC
Implications
0.1
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
0.05
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
0
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
−0.05
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
−0.1
−0.15
−0.2
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Back
1990
1995
2000
2005
55
Appendix. South Korea Policy experiments results
Introduction
Sample period results (1963-2007):
Model
Simulations
% Avg. change
(w.r.t. Baseline)
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
Autarky
No subsidy
No subs
No tariff
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
q
na
cn
ca
k
16.5
0
21
-17
0.3
0.65
-1.1
0.04
-3.5
2.8
-42
-73
10.9
5.5
12.1
Open Economy
Real income growth:
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
Autarky
Baseline
No subsidy
No ag policy
4.5%
4.71%
4.72%
5.47%
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Intertemporal Welfare gain with respect to Autarky:
(in terms of annual consumption expenditures)
Autarky
Baseline
No subsidy
No ag policy
0
0.4%
0.45%
5.4%
Back
56
Appendix. United Kingdom Exogenous Variables
Introduction
Model
Simulations
LDC
Implications
Description
Sample period
growth
Future
growth
Data source
Conclusion
Appendix
Literature
ν
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
γq
Closed Economy
Open Economy
US Data
Korea Data
γa
Korea Results
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
γn
Population
growth
Rel agr price
growth
Agr TFP
growth
Nonagr TFP
growth
Smoothed data
(0.016, 0.08)
Smoothed data
(-0.0043)
-0.0043
Mitchell (1962)
Maddison (2003)
Mitchell (1962)
Deane,Cole (1969)
0.0125
0.0125
To match na
0.0065
0.0065
To match na
Description
K (0)
0.01
Initial capital stock
K
Yn
Value
= 2.52 in 1800
Data source
Feinstein (1988)
57
Appendix. United Kingdom Exogenous Variables
Introduction
Agricultural relative price
Total Population
4.5
Model
2.6
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Data
2.4
Simulations
4
2.2
3.5
1.8
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
2
Appendix
Literature
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Measured Data
1.6
3
1.4
Empirical
Evidence
1.2
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
2.5
1820
1840
1860
1880
1
1900
1810
1820
1830
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
Open Economy
Agricultural Sector TFP
US Data
Nonagricultural Sector TFP
220
Korea Data
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Measured Data
Korea Results
UK Data
200
300
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Simulation Exogenous Variable
Measured Data
180
250
160
200
140
150
120
100
100
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
Back
58
Appendix. United Kingdom Policy experiment results
Introduction
Sample period results (1800-1900):
Model
Simulations
% Avg. change
LDC
Implications
(w.r.t. baseline)
Conclusion
Autarky
Appendix
q
na
cn
ca
k
45.8
155.7
-10.5
-5.4
-20.8
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
Real Income Growth:
Open Economy
Autarky
1.28%
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
Baseline
1.44%
UK Data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Intertemporal Welfare gain with respect to Autarky:
(in terms of consumption expenditures)
Autarky
0
Baseline
5.5%
Back
59
Appendix. Alternative preferences simulations
Introduction
Household preferences:
Model
Z ∞
Simulations
0
LDC
Implications
Conclusion
u (ca , cn ) = µ
Appendix
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Description
Closed Economy
US Data
Korea Data
Korea Results
UK Data
σ
1−σ
ca − ca
+ log (cn )
1−σ
Simulation parameter values:
Agr Trade
Open Economy
e−ρt N (t ) u (ca (t ) , cn (t )) dt
µ
σ
ca
Agr good weight
Agr subsistence level
Agr cons threshold
Value
Source
47
7.75
35% agr cons 1963
to match ca data
to match ca data
to match ca data
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
Sample period results (1963-2007): comparison S. Korea simulations
Autarky
No subsidy
No subs
No tariff
Growth
%
6.4
5.8
q
%
19.8
0
se
%
22.1
-21
cn
%
-0.1
0.1
ca
%
-1.7
0.09
5.5
-44
-76
13.18
7.45
60
Appendix. Alternative preferences simulations
Introduction
Fraction of Employment in Agricultural Sector
Model
0.7
Agricultural consumption per capita
150
Model
Data
Simulations
0.6
LDC
Implications
0.5
Conclusion
0.4
Appendix
0.3
Model
Data
140
130
120
Literature
Empirical
Evidence
Agr Trade
Closed Economy
110
0.2
100
0.1
0
Open Economy
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
90
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
US Data
Korea Data
Agricultural production per capita
UK Data
Aggregate capital stock (in logs)
160
150
Korea Results
Model
Data
150
Model
Data
140
UK Results
Korea Alt.
Preferences
140
130
130
120
120
110
110
100
100
90
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
90
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
61