Registration Form - Inter-American Development Bank

Latin American Research Network
Registration Form
Understanding Productivity Levels, Dispersion and Growth
in Latin American and Caribbean Industries
1. Name of institution: Universidad ORT Uruguay – dECON, FCS Universidad de la República
2. Research Team:
Project Director:
Nestor Gandelman
Researcher 1:
Carlos Casacuberta
Researcher 2:
Hector Laca
Researcher 3:
Marcel Vaillant
Consultant:
Susana Picardo
2. Name, title, phone number and e-mail of the person responsible for signing the letter of agreement
with the Bank:
Full Name:
Gaston J. Labadie
Title:
Dean, School of Managment and Social Sciences, Universidad ORT Uruguay
Tel:
(5982) 707 1806
E-mail:
[email protected]
3. Does the proposal include the following? (Please check in the appropriate space):
Description of the Data to be used in the study [maximum 3 pages]. The proposals should specify:
Coverage: Manufacturing versus overall economy, Census or Survey, firm or plant level data, whether it includes small
firms, number of observations. Frequency and number of periods available. Whether is possible to link data across periods
and number of periods in which individual observations are followed. Treatment of entry and exit. Definition and summary
statistics of available variables. X
Demonstrate data availability [maximum 2 pages]. Demonstrating access to firm or establishment data is a necessary
condition to obtain funding for this project. X
Questionnaire (s) of the data. X
Describe in detail which studies (part I, industry level studies) are going to be developed and the proposed methodology
for doing so [4-5 pages]. X
For the industry case studies, a justification of why the proposed case studies are relevant and illustrative [maximum 1
page per case study]. X
Previous studies available using firm or establishment level data [1 page]. X
CV of the research team, emphasizing previous relevant experience [maximum 2 pages per researcher]. X
A budget (on a separate annex) indicating the time and resources that will be used within the context of a research work
plan must be included. The budget proposed by the institution should desegregate items financed by the IDB contribution
and those financed by the Institution. The budget should distinguish among amounts assigned to professional honoraria,
“overhead,” and other major categories of research expenditures. X
Productivity growth and dispersion in Uruguay: beyond the
manufacturing sector
Research Proposal
Carlos Casacuberta
Néstor Gandelman
Héctor Laca
Marcel Vaillant
June 2008
1. Motivation
The economic performance of Uruguay in the last half-century has been disappointing. Per
capita GDP in the 1955-2003 period grew at modest rate (0.4% per year) well below the
growth rate of more dynamic countries in Latin America (e.g. Brazil or Mexico with 2.2%
on average for the same period) and East Asia (e.g. Korea or Thailand, with annual growth
rates above 4%).
In a recent paper Casacuberta, Gandelman and Soto (2007) report that in 1955-2003 the
annual growth rate in labor productivity has been only 0.9% per year. This is a very low
rate even compared to the rest of the Latin American economies, where productivity levels
grew at an average 1.3% per year. Needless to say, these rates are well below that of East
Asian countries (4.7%) and the OECD (2.4%). According to the authors, out of the 0.9% of
annual growth in productivity, TFP accounts for around 45% confirming the key role TFP
plays in economic growth. Nevertheless, the share of TFP in growth in East Asia and
Europe is usually higher (around 60%).
From an Economic History perspective Oddone (2005) Ph.D. dissertation refers to the
“Long Decline of Uruguay in the Twentieth Century”. According to Oddone there are three
key stylized facts to understand Uruguayan economic performance. First, its growth rate
has been low and thus Uruguay has been lagging behind. Second, business fluctuations
were deeper that other countries. Third, and more important for this proposal, Uruguayan
growth is attributed to factor accumulation rather than efficiency gains. Indeed according to
a simple growth accounting exercise in the 1956-2001 period the change in TFP has a
negative incidence in the growth rate.
There have been various studies in Uruguay measuring productivity levels and productivity
growth. These studies can be classified in two groups. A first group of papers work with
aggregate data and feature several variations of growth accounting exercises (Blyde and
Fernández-Arias 2004, Fossati, Mantero and Olivella 2004, de Brun 2001 and Bucacos
2000). The second group of papers, although differ in their methodologies to measure
productivity they all make use of micro data (Casacuberta, Fachola and Gandelman 2004,
López and Llambí 1998, Noya and Lorenzo 1999 and Tansini and Triunfo 1999). The
drawback of these latter studies is that they refer only to the manufacturing sector that
encompasses less than 20% of the Uruguayan GDP and labor force. Also due to restricting
policies of the National Institute of Statistics it was only possible to use micro data up
1995.
The first part of this research project aims to document and understand the differences in
productivity levels and growth. For that we will follow to strategies. First we will use a
newly available micro level data for the period 1997-2005 that includes other sectors not
previously studied (transportation, energy, telecommunications, commerce and various
service industries). The only two important sectors not covered by our micro database are
2
the agricultural and the banking industry. With this microdata we plan to estimate
production functions parameters using different methodological approaches and comparing
them. Our estimates will include OLS, intragroup estimator, Generalized Moments Method
estimates (Blundell and Bond, 1998), and Olley and Pakes (1996) and Levinsohn and Petrin
(2003) methodologies in order to obtain measures of TFP. We consider specially the fact
that the sole reliance in revenues data instead of physical quantities poses difficulties to
interpret residuals from production functions as true estimates of total factor productivity
(see for instance Foster, Haltiwanger and Syverson (2005), Katayama, Lu and Tybout
(2006)). Prices may reflect demand or market power shifts, and thus estimated
"productivity" may not be reflecting efficiency.
The second strategy to understand productivity growth involves using industry level data (4
digit ISIC). We will follow Fernald and Basu (1999) and decompose the change labor
productivity in four terms: changes in markups, changes in utilization rates, reallocation
effects and finally technical change.
We will also conduct two case studies. In order to somewhat remedy the lack of
information on the agricultural sector, the first case study will focus on dairy farming. The
dairy industry is the second most important source of export revenue in Uruguay.
Uruguayan dairy farming industry encompasses more than 5000 very heterogeneous
producers and we have access to a very rich database of these producers.
The second industry case will be the telecommunications sector. This sector is particularly
interesting since some of its segments have been subject to intense competition in recent
times. Though basic fixed telephone services are held as a monopoly by the public
telecommunications utility ANTEL, entry in cell phone market has developed new market
conditions. We have a small number of firms in this sector which, on the one hand makes
less difficult the access to physical quantities data. At the same time, econometric
methodologies may be problematic in order to obtain productivity estimates and we will
resort to index number methods.
2. Previous Studies in the Country using Establishment or Worker level data
As mentioned before, there are several studies that analyze productivity using microdata in
Uruguay, some of which use the same micro database that we propose to use, for the 198895 period only.
López and Llambí (1998) estimated TFP evolution for a sample of four-digit level ISIC
industries, from translog production functions with a technical efficient effect and from
other accountant non-parametric methodologies. They concluded that aggregate TFP
declined, but that it is not the case for exporting industries.
Tansini and Triunfo (1999) estimated the evolving technical efficiency from four five-digit
3
ISIC sectors, using stochastic translog frontier production functions. Their main findings
are that foreign firms and firms with increasing domestic sales have higher technical
efficiency levels and that the evolution of this efficiency is highly heterogeneous among
firms and sectors.
Using four-digit ISIC figures, Noya and Lorenzo (1999) find that TFP shows two clearly
different behaviors: importers and non tradable industries have a continuous increase since
1985, meanwhile exporting industries show a sharp decline since the middle of the 80s until
1992. The changes in TFP are much more moderate than those observed in the average
labor productivity, which can be explained by a significant capital accumulation
Cassoni, Labadie and Fachola (2001) examine the impact of unionization and the level in
which negotiations take place –industry or firm specific- on wages and on the economic
performance of firms controlling for the degree of exposure to international and regional
competition, and a set of industry and firm characteristics. The main findings point at
unionization increasing wages and employment; promoting investment due to the firms
substituting labor by capital; being organized in those plants with higher rate of profits, but
promoting increases in productivity and preventing profitability increases. The evidence
also points at firm-level negotiations taking into account the interests of both parties, so that
enhanced productivity and probably survival were achieved together with lower rates of
substitution of labor by capital and/or lower profits.
Casacuberta, Fachola and Gandelman (2004) study the impact of trade liberalization on
productivity in the Uruguayan Manufacturing Sector and report Olley and Pakes (1996) and
Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) productivity measures in the manufacturing industry for the
1988-1995 period.
3. Study 1: Measuring productivity levels, dispersion and growth
In this section we will follow two approaches: one using establishment level data and
another using industry level.
3.1. Establishment level data
3.1.1. Methodology
We plan to use different methodologies that have been customary in measuring total factor
productivity by estimating production function parameters using microdata. The
methodologies will include OLS, fixed effects estimator, and the Blundell and Bond
(1998), Olley and Pakes (1996) and Levinsohn and Petrin’s (2003) estimates to obtain a
measure of total factor productivity. We understand that comparing the different estimates
may give interesting clues about possible biases in estimation. Some of the methodologies
4
intend to control for unobservables and are based on proxy variables. In the case of
Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) we will use an electricity consumption variable in the
production function estimation to control for two problems common in this type of
estimations: the selection problem (i.e. in a panel a researcher would only observe the
surviving firms, hence those likely to be the most productive), and the simultaneity problem
(the input choices of firms conditional on the fact that they continue to be in activity depend
on their productivity).1 Olley and Pakes (1996) use investment as a proxy variable. A
drawback of this methodology is that it can only be implemented for periods when firms
experience positive investment levels.
Katayama, Lu and Tybout (2006) critique the usual productivity measures, which are
usually based on real sales revenues, depreciated capital spending and real input
expenditures instead of physical quantities. They show that for a particular market structure
with differentiated products the estimated productivity does not reflect technical efficiency
or product quality, but is likely to be correlated with policy shocks and managerial
decisions. They also develop an alternative approach to inference.
Our data for this section does not provide physical quantities and hence may be liable to
this critique. We will estimate however different production function parameters for sub
sectors defined as narrowly as possible to control for some of the heterogeneity. Amiti and
Koning (2007) propose adding controls for market structure, for instance Herfindahl
indexes in the second stage equations. Our sector studies are less liable to this problem,
since in the dairy sector physical quantities data are available and a substantial degree of
homogeneity is granted among producers. In the case of the telecommunications sector, we
will consider specifically the market equilibrium that applies to each of the products that we
include in the analysis, in order to asses to what extent our productivity estimates can be
biased by the influence of market structure and market power.
Once we have our productivity estimates, we can proceed with a multivariate panel
regression analysis to address the effects of size, learning-by-doing and selection,
controlling for all relevant variables. For each factor productivity estimate and for TFP, we
estimate the following specification:
prod it = ∑ α jt d jt + ∑ β τ ageτit + δbit + λeit + ε it ,
τ <T
where prod is a measure of firm productivity, h is firm’s i sector, the d´s are a set of sectoryear dummies, age indicates the number of years the firm is in activity, b is a dummy that
takes the value of one if the firm is born in that year, and e is a dummy that takes the value
of one if this is the last period before the firm exits.
We can also decompose each productivity measure, in order to assess the contribution of
entering, continuing and exiting firms:
1
In Casacuberta, Fachola and Gandelman (2004) we found similar results using Levinsohn and Petrin (2003)
and Olley and Pakes (1996) methodologies.
5
∆p t = ∑ φ it −1 ∆p it + ∑ ( p it −1 + p t −1 )∆φ it −1 + ∑ ∆p it ∆φ it + ∑ ( p it + p t −1 )φ it + ∑ ( p it −1 + p t −1 )φ it −1
i∈C
i∈C
i∈C
i∈N
i∈ X
All firms that are active in both periods belong to C, firms that enter are in N and exiting
firm are in X. The first term in the last equation represents the within plant component
while the second term represent the between plant component. The last two terms represent
the contribution of entering and exiting establishments.
3.1.2. Data
Source
We will use the Encuesta Anual de Actividad Económica (Economic Activity Survey)
1997-2005 from the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). This dataset becomes
available for research for the first time, and poses important challenges as to the database
construction.
Coverage
This section of the research proposal is based on annual firm level observations conducted
by the INE for the period 1997-2005. The survey-sampling frame encompasses Uruguayan
firms with five or more employees in a wide number of 4-digit ISIC sectors including, apart
from manufacturing, a wide number of services and commerce sectors.
Each four-digit International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) sector was divided in
two groups. All firms with more than 50 employers are included in the survey. For the
group of firms with more than 5 but less than 50 employees a probabilistic sample was
drawn.2
The survey adequately covers the following sectors (according to ISIC Rev. 3): DManufacturing, E- Electricity, gas and water, G-Commerce, H-Hotels and restaurants, ITransportation and communication services, K-Real estate and machine rentals, MEducational services, N-Health services, and O-Other community, social and personal
services. Table 1 reports the number of observations classified by 1 digit ISIC (revision 3)
sector.3
2
For a detailed discussion see INE (1997).
The number of observations in 1997 is much larger since in that year the Economic Activity Census was
carried out.
3
6
Sector
D
E
G
H
I
K
M
N
O
1997
Table 1. Establishments by ISIC Sector
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
2004
2005
3396
1002
983
977
938
973
887
910
3
3138
601
1147
966
554
480
617
6
1804
123
429
401
167
162
9
6
1778
122
427
399
161
160
9
6
1821
132
421
421
170
158
14
11
1750
134
554
531
207
201
8
6
1486
123
371
365
204
195
0
7
1222
119
344
325
201
182
0
5
1264
121
354
380
218
181
0
2002
In 2002, Uruguay suffered a profound financial crisis triggered by contagion effects from
the run on banks, massive currency devaluation, and gigantic default on sovereign debt that
took place in next-door Argentina. The real sector was also hit and the GDP fell by more
than 10% and a very substantial number of firms had to exit. Even for those that survived
their figures present anomalous results. The INE also suffered the effects of the crisis and
was unable to adequately gather the information for that year and therefore there will be a
one year gap in our panel.
Entry and Exit
The INE tried to address the sample attrition problem that affected the samples of 1982 and
1988 (used in previous research), and periodically intended to revise the sample coverage
and include new firms. The procedure was instrumented by an agreement with the Social
Security Institute (Banco de Previsión Social) that provided a list of new firms to be added
to the sample space of the Economic Activity Survey. A first problem is that the list was
not in practice available form all years. Thus, changes in the sample space are incorporated
only in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The economic crisis implied a large number of deaths.
It is important to note that the INE in practice did not draw the whole random part of the
sample, but rather included new firms without eliminating firms that did not close.
Hence, in general once a firm enters into the survey, it is followed until its death even if it
falls bellow 5 employees. Therefore, when we have no more data for a particularly
establishment, we interpret data as a plant closure (exit).
Dealing with entry brings some difficulties. As mentioned, the INE periodically includes
new firms, but these new firms are not necessarily newborn firms. The survey does not
report the age of firms. The firm’s date of birth is reported the Economic Census, hence it is
available only for part of them (those that were active in 1997). We have included in the
research team the former Director of the INE’s division in charge of this survey to help us
with this and all other database problems that may arise.
7
3.2. Industry level data
3.2.1. Methodology
In this section we will follow the approach developed by Fernald and Basu (1999) to
quantify the relative importance of the different explanations of procyclical productivity.
Our goal is to disaggregate productivity changes in what is really technical change from
other sources that may be affecting the perceived labor productivity. The starting point is a
gross-output production function estimated in log differences at the sector level, that allows
for variations in utilization of inputs, imperfect competition, and technical change (as a
residual). After estimating these gross-output production functions sectors can be
aggregated under a value added specification. Aggregation across sectors, however, is not
simply the sum of the individual components because it includes a reallocation term that
reflects the effect on output growth of differences among sectors in the social values of the
marginal product of inputs. Therefore, output growth depends on the distribution of input
growth among sectors as well as on their level; if inputs grow rapidly in sectors that have
above-average marginal products, output grows rapidly as well. These are qualitative
additional effects at the aggregate level which may be important both for estimating sectorlevel parameters and as powerful amplification mechanisms in their own right.4
Following Fernald and Basu (1998) the decomposition of productivity defined as the
difference of the growth rates of value added and a weighted average of labor and capital
inputs (dp = dv − dxV) is:
dp = ( µ V − 1)dxV + du + R + dtV
where dv is the aggregate growth in value added, µ V is the average markup across firms,
dxV is the weighted-average growth of labor and capital inputs, du is the weighted average
of utilization rates at the sector level, R represents reallocation of inputs between firms, and
dtV is the weighted average of sector technical change.5
3.2.2. Data
In this section we will be using the same Encuesta Anual de Actividad as in the previous
subsection. We will be covering the following sectors (according to ISIC Rev. 3): DManufacturing, E- Electricity, gas and water, G-Commerce, H-Hotels and restaurants, ITransportation and communication services, K-Real estate and machine rentals, MEducational services, and N-Health services. The main difference is that the analysis of this
section will be carried out at the 4 digit ISIC industry level. See the appendix for a Table
with the detail of the sectors to be included.
4
In Casacuberta, Gandelman and Soto (2007) we applied this methodology to the manufacturing sector for
the 1988-1995 period.
5
The aggregate output measure is presented in value added terms rather than in gross terms and is obtained as
a difference between gross output and materials. For details on the computation of aggregate variables see
Fernald and Basu (1999).
8
4. Industry case study 1: The dairy farming sector
The Uruguayan dairy industry is the second most important source of export revenue to the
country. Last year dairy exports totaled USD 340 million. The industry, mostly integrated
by cooperative firms, comprises 5.000 dairy farmers that supply 1.4 billion liters of milk.
Around 75% of the milk supplied is exported as milk powders, cheese, butter and other
byproducts.
Over the last 15 years some dairy farmers have been exiting production and some of their
land has been redistributed among other dairy farmers. Overall, dairy area declined by 10%
to 900 thousand hectares.
Even though productivity per cow and per hectare has increased, an international
comparison shows for instance that the gap with New Zealand productivity is large. In fact,
partial productivity convergence is not taking place (Laca 2004). Previous studies (Vaillant,
1990; Paolino et al., 1997) indicated that dairy farming efficiency in the use of the available
technology was low. Preliminary results from a sample of 1500 dairy farmers extracted
from 2000 Census data indicate that average efficiency in the use of technology is 66%,
ranging from 11% to 94%.
Results seem to indicate that a severe problem of technology adoption and extension are
affecting the dairy industry, which in turn may hamper its future development. Given the
present level of competition for resources, particularly land, if the industry is not able to use
them at it best their chances to retain them is dubious.
A study than provides insights into the determinants of inefficiency is certainly required.
This would help to ease the pressure over the resources and help the policy makers and the
industry itself to tackle a structural problem that constraints its national and international
competitiveness.
The literature on determinants of farm inefficiency is not vast and some of the results are
conflicting.
Hallam and Machado (1996) investigated the relationship between technical efficiency
estimates and some farm characteristics using a simple OLS regression. They reported a
positive association between size (measured in farm value added) and technical efficiency.
Intensiveness in milk production is measured by feed per cow (positive and significant) and
land per cow (positive but not significant). The stock of machinery and equipment per cow
that was considered a proxy of capital-intensive production technology, was positive but
not significant. Evidence that family farms are more efficient than entrepreneurial farms is
not conclusive. Finally, they introduced dummies for location (coastal vs. inland), altitude
and handicapped zones, to determine whether technical efficiency is influenced by them.
Results were conflicting, as one region that should appear to be efficient turned out to be
more efficient. However, as the estimates of technical efficiency obtained were relative to a
9
common frontier, location differences in efficiency may have masked different
technologies.
Kumbhakar, Ghosh and McGuckin (1991) reported a positive association (causality given
the methodology) between size and technical efficiency. Similarly, farms with a higher
level of education are more technical efficient.
Mathijs and Vranken (2001), on hungarian dairy farms, did not find a significant difference
in technical efficiency between family and corporate farms. They also reported a positive
impact of education on technical efficiency for family farms. However, for corporate farms
human capital does not explain much of the differences in technical efficiency. For family
farms, age has a negative effect on efficiency. Size as measured by total output, as well as
specialization has a positive effect on efficiency both for family and corporate farms.
Interestingly, Mathijs and Vranken (2001) found that off-farm work has a positive impact
on efficiency whereas Kumbhakar, Biswas and Bailey (1989) reported a negative
association, which occurred because less time is spent on managerial activities improving
farm efficiency. Mathijs and Vranken (2001) proposed an alternative view by suggesting
that time off-farm allows information to be acquired that improves the farmer’s managerial
skills.
Weersink, Turvey and Godah (1990), also used a two-step approach to investigate factors
affecting inefficiency. Their model explains 46% of the variability in the overall technical
efficiency.
As in other studies, they found that herd size (measured in cows) has a positive effect on
technical efficiency, but at a decreasing rate. They also reported that farming experience
has a negative effect. Their explanation is based upon the assumption that younger farmers
are more acquainted with advanced technologies. Milk production per cow, as well as
butterfat content has a positive effect on efficiency. The proportion of feed purchased,
another management characteristic, has a negative effect on efficiency. They concluded that
quality and price of home-grown feed is better than for purchased feeds. Debt to asset ratio,
building per cow and horsepower of the largest tractor all have negative coefficients,
implying that farms may be operating at less than full capacity and are overcapitalised.
Finally, two other findings are worthy of mention. First, farm efficiency was found to be
positively related to the infrastructure of services, which in turn is determined by the
number of farms and the resource base. Second, corporate operations were not found to be
more efficient than owner-operators.
As mentioned before, preliminary farm efficiency estimates from the sample of the 2000
Census data in Uruguay are highly dispersed. As suggested this might indicate some
restrictions in the adequate use of the available technology.
10
However, the most important assumption that underlies this estimation is that all farms
share the same technology. According to the frontier approach, it is assumed that all farms
are confronted with a single production frontier and therefore share the same underlying
technology. Differences between farms arise in the efficiency with which technology is
used.
Comparing farms against the same frontier is valid if they are on the same production
function (i.e. applying the same technology) but using different proportions of inputs
(Piesse, Thirtle and Turk, 1996). Tsionas (2002) reasoned that assuming farms share the
same technology when they do not, will result in biased measures of efficiency and
confusion between technological differences. Battese et al (2004) emphasized that farms
operating under different technologies are not strictly comparable. In fact, given a set of
inputs, inefficiency may be confused with the use of a different technology.
Few studies on efficiency addressed the issue of technological differences between farms.
Kumbhakar, Biswas and Bailey (1989) divided the sample of Utah dairy farmers into three
groups according to total value of sales. They accepted the alternative hypothesis that
production structure differs across farms of different sizes.
Similarly, Hallam and Machado (1996) tested whether specialized and non-specialized
Portuguese dairy farms operated under the same technology. They accepted the null
hypothesis that both sub-samples are confronted with the same production frontier.
The biological nature of agricultural production implies that the spatial dimension is
significant for agricultural technology (Alston, 2002). Soils, climate and landscape differ
between regions influencing, for example, the amount and type of feed grown, the
opportunity cost of land and the level of scale economies (Sumner and Wolf, 2002). In turn,
these exogenous conditions may impose some restriction in the selection and type of
technology used.
Along this trend, Mbaga, Romain, Larue and Lebel (2003) divided the sample of Quebec
dairy farmers into two groups (non-maize and maize regions) to assure homogeneity of
exogenous conditions. They then estimated the frontier for each subsample. However, they
did not test whether technologies were different even when some results pointed in that
direction.
Either for policymaking or research and extension it seems vital to ascertain whether
technological differences are present. In doing so some questions pertaining to productivity
differences among farms may receive a better approach.
Some of the questions that would lead the research are as follows:
11
1. Does dairyfarming operate under different technologies? If so, what factors determine
technology applied.
2. Are determinants of inefficiency the same for all technologies applied?
3. What are the characteristics of the most (least) efficient farms under each technology
applied (farm case studies)?
4.1. Methodology
Technical efficiency will be defined as the departure of the level of production from the
maximum attainable output. Hence measurement of inefficiency will be based on the
estimation of the production frontier. As Green (1997) asserted, gauging the efficiency of
individual firms with respect to the ‘theoretical ideal’ is the rationale behind frontier
estimations.
The two primary methods of frontier estimation are stochastic frontiers and Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) (Coelli, 1995 and Coelli, Rao and Battese, 1998). Both
methods involve estimation of “best practice” frontiers, with the efficiency of a specific
decision-making unit being measured relative to such frontier.
Stochastic frontiers require the specification of a functional form for the production frontier
and some distributional assumption regarding the error terms. Estimation is carried out by
maximum likelihood methods (ML). The term “stochastic” is motivated by the idea that
failure to obtain maximum output might be associated with random disturbances not under
the control of the firm (Battese, 1992; Bauer, 1990; Coelli, 1995; Greene, 1993, 1997 for a
review).
Data Envelopment Analysis is a mathematical programming technique to construct a
piecewise linear convex hull of the data. By enveloping the data set, a “best practice
frontier” is obtained. Inefficiency is then computed as the distance of the firm from the
“best practice” (this lumps noise and inefficiency together; it is therefore deterministic) (Ali
and Seiford, 1993; Coelli, 1995; Førsund and Sarafoglou, 2002; see Seiford and Thrall
1990 for a review).
Both approaches aim to envelope the data in different ways. The essential differences
between the two methods can be summarized as follows:
a) The stochastic approach is parametric as it relies on the specification of a functional form
to the production frontier. The programming approach is non-parametric.
b) DEA is less demanding than parametric frontiers even when the number of linear
programming problems to be solved can be quite large.
12
c) The parametric frontier approach is subject to specification error by the selection of the
functional form, which can be avoided by selecting a flexible functional form at the cost of
increasing multicollinearity. The specification error of DEA is minimal.
d) The stochastic approach has a composed error term with a stochastic component (to
account for random errors not under the control of the firm) and a deterministic component
(that captures departures from maximum output, i.e. inefficiency). In the deterministic
model (like DEA), deviations from the frontier (theoretical maximum) are attributed solely
to inefficiency, i.e. lumps noise and inefficiency together.
e) The stochastic approach allows for traditional hypothesis testing.
4.2. Data
Every ten years the Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerio de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca
MGAP) carries out a census of the dairy farming sector. We will make use of the
establishment level data for the 2000 Census. We have access to a detailed data for the
more than 5000 farms that were active at that time.
We will also use a survey conducted by the MGAP in 2007 of 400 farmers. Data of these
400 farmers can be linked to the data of the 2000 Census. Therefore we have for the
universe of dairy farmers an observation at a single point in time and for a representative
sample we can have two points.
The variables reported include among others: amount of liters produced, cows in milk
(number), cows not in milk, area (hectare), type of grass, employees (disaggregated by sex
and age), machinery (detailed by type), installations, land tenure (owner, renter, etc).
Besides that there are many socio-demographic variables on the producers (nationality,
education, etc.).
13
5. Case Study 2. Telecommunications sector
5.1. Global background
In many developing countries telecommunications services were traditionally provided by
public firms generating large amounts of public revenue (Fink et al, 2003). The exclusive
presence of the public sector was justified by natural monopoly arguments. However,
technical change in the sector made this line of argument obsolete. Changes in control or
ownership of firms (privatization) and in market structure (greater level of competition)
were the new trends. However, there are still ownership and access to public networks
restrictions. Another relevant outcome in the sector is the internationalization process. Two
decades before, the telecommunications sector was established in a domestic environment
with parameters fixed at a national level. In the new environment the limits to international
trade and foreign investment are considered restrictions to the sector’s development.
The main submarkets are basic local telephone services (using the fixed physical network);
long distance services; cell mobile phone services; and internet. Foreign suppliers may use
two channels to provide telecommunication services: trade across borders and domestic
commercial presence. The access problem in this market -both for foreign and domestic
firms- is that some connection to networks is required to develop new products. Such
networks are usually controlled by a dominant supplier, frequently public, that may operate
in monopoly some market segments. This operator may have also regulatory prerogatives
in the market, which brings additional difficulties to competition.
5.2. Market characteristics in Uruguay
The telecommunication sector in Uruguay is an interesting case study since it has been
subject to intense restructuring in recent years. In the 1990 decade the global wave towards
privatization and liberalization of telecommunication services was based on the need to
develop a framework for infrastructure investment in the sector. Such changes were
associated to intense political debate. In Uruguay there was a lack of consensus and
majorities on the issue, so liberalizing reforms were not undertaken. President Lacalle
(1990-1995) passed law 16.211 in 1991 privatizing several public utilities, but it was
repealed in a referendum. Afterwards, during the Batlle presidency (2000-2005) the fear of
defeat in a referendum to eliminate privatizing articles in law 17.296 of 2001 about the
incumbent public utility, led to its early derogation by the Executive, while an earlier norm
that established exclusivity in the supply of telecommunications services to public utility
ANTEL was also eliminated. A degree of legal indefiniteness arose.
Telephone services market in Uruguay includes segments with different degrees of
competition. In basic fixed telephone services (including national long distance) a
monopoly is granted by the law to ANTEL (a public utility 100% owned by the state) hence
no private suppliers exist. In 2001 the international long distance market was opened to
14
competition via a transitory law that was used to grant licenses to provide long distance
telephone services while it was in force.6 Most of the authorized firms still provide the
service in competition at present. This law has been interpreted in the sense that no new
licenses are to be granted, but entry to the market is possible by negotiating with the license
holders. New technologies have implied that demand for conventional LD services has
fallen, and in fact this generated the concentration of business in a few firms. 20 licenses
were granted, and though some firms aren’t operating at present, none of them has been
revoked.
In Uruguay Mobile phone services started in 1991 provided by MOVICOM a firm that
supplied services on account of ANTEL. In 1994 ANTEL started to provide services on its
own through its division ANCEL. In October 2002 the first auction for radio electric
frequencies was launched and as a consequence MOVICOM started to supply services on
its own account since 2003. Afterwards, in the Communications spectrum auction in 2004
CTI Móvil was incorporated. As to access of new operators, there are no legal limits to the
number of firms. However since 2004 no new auctions have been undertaken.
In 2007 a decree enabled URSEC to pursue a competitive procedure to allocate spectrum
both to incumbent to new firms applying for a license to provide services. URSEC is at
present elaborating the set of conditions for such auction.
Regarding ownership of mobile phone services firms, there are no restrictions with respect
to origin of capital and the law establishes that equal treatment must be provided to private
and publicly owned firms7. Mobile phone market structure consists of three firms. Effective
competition between them has brought about an important decrease in prices, as well as a
significant growth both in clients and in traffic for all of them.
In summary, while the market for international long distance is at present competitive,
fixed urban telephone and national long distance services are provided by a monopoly held
by the public enterprise ANTEL. At the same time, mobile telephone services involve
multiple firms in a competitive framework, and competition became intense in the last
years. The examination of changes in productivity is particularly interesting.
The main questions for research are: Did the market structure changes starting in the mid
nineties until now have an effect on TFP growth in the telecommunications sector in
Uruguay, beyond the international wave of technical progress that characterizes the sector?
Are institutional barriers still a significant factor in TFP evolution? Are these changes
homogenous across firms and products or it is possible to identify a heterogeneous pattern?
Does public or private ownership of firms explain some of the differences? Can we say
something about the evolution of cross subsidies in the public enterprise ANTEL?
6
Law 17.296 in its article 613 enabled private provision of long distance telephone service. It was eliminated
by Law 17.524 in 2002. There is some interpretation disagreements as to the exclusivity of such supply.
7
The law 16.906 of Investment promotion (1988) provides the framework.
15
5.3. Data and methodology
We will combine different datasets. In particular we have the corresponding observations of
the sector from the Annual Economic Activity survey, including capital stock, employment
and intermediate inputs (not discriminated by activity). Physical quantities of the various
products sold by different firms can be obtained from various surveys and official records.
We will complement different sources to complete a suitable data base for the application
of a productivity estimation methodology8. We will use the World Bank Templates for
telecommunication services as guideline to perform interviews to the three main players in
Uruguayan market, the public enterprise ANTEL an the other two private firms
(MOVISTAR and CLARO).
We will consider specific methodologies applied to measure TFP growth in
telecommunication services (see Lam and Lam 2005, Rushdi, 2000, Foreman-Peck and
Manning, 1988). Due to the small number of observations in our sample, for our total factor
productivity measures we will rely in index number methods rather than in econometric
estimations. For instance, Törnqvist indexes are based on a quotient of quantity indexes,
product yt , and inputs xt .9 They are consistent with relatively general production function
specifications.
Weights for Törnqvist indexes are not fixed and reflect changes in quantities and prices by
period. If firms provide several products we may consider as the product index a Törnqvist
aggregate index of quantities. 10 Using physical units quantities of product i (i = 1, … , n)
in period t, qit and prices
p it we calculate shares in total revenue11. Weights in the quantity
indexes are averages between shares in present and lagged period ( wit =
1
(sit + sit −1 ) ).
2
Quantity indexes are calculated as
8
In particular the regulatory agency in this market (URSEC) is considered a relevant source of information at
the firm level.
9
See Diewert y Nakamura (2002).
10
This is based on Kunze et al (1995).
s it =
11
p
it
q
it
n
∑
1
p
it
q
it
.
16
yt =

Qt
= exp

Qt −1

n
∑
1
 q 
wit ln  t  
 qt −1  
Or in growth rates we have
ln yt = ln Qt − ln Qt −1 =
n
∑
1
 q 
wit ln  t 
 qt −1 
This gives an index for period t based in period t-1. 12
Input indices are Törnqvist indexes for labor, capital services and intermediate inputs.13
For the input index we also consider physical quantities Let Lt be total employment (hours).
A measure Kt of physical units of capital will not be feasible and we use a constant price
index. As the flow of services of capital would not be available, the usual assumption that
relates proportionally the flow of services to the stock will be used. Intermediate inputs mt
is the constant price aggregate of materials, raw inputs, energy, fuel, expenses, etc. The
input quantity index weights quantity indexes of each input according to:
xt =
It
I t −1

 k 
 m 
 L 
= exp  ω Kt ln  t  + ω Mt ln  t  + ω Lt ln  t  


 k t −1 
 m t −1 
 Lt −1  

ω
Weights jt are in this case also the averages of the shares in gross revenue of each input in
past and present period. Weight for labor is built by averaging the ratio of total labor
compensation to gross revenue, while intermediate inputs weight is based on materials,
inputs and energy purchases. The capital weight is a residual (1 minus the other two).
Analogously to products, we have
s Kt =
rkt k t
(rkt k t + Wt Lt + Pmt mt )
s Lt =
;
Wt Lt
(rkt kt + Wt Lt + Pmt mt )
s Mt =
;
Pmt mt
(rkt k t + Wt Lt + Pmt mt )
Each period is averaged with the former:
ω Kt =
12
1
(s Kt + s Kt −1 )
2
;
ω Lt =
1
(s Lt + s Lt −1 )
2
;
ω Lt =
1
(s Mt + s Mt −1 )
2
To obtain a series indexes must be chained perdiod by period Starting from period 0, we have
y20 =
Q2 Q2 Q1
=
;
Q0 Q1 Q0
y30 =
and so on.
13
This follows US Department of Labor, BLS (2000).
17
Q3 Q3 Q2 Q1
=
;
Q0 Q2 Q1 Q0
The expression for total factor productivity will be:
ln PTFt = ln yt − ln xt = ln Qt − ln Qt −1 − (ln I t − ln I t −1 )
n
ln PTFt =
∑w
it
1
 q  
 k 
 m 
 L 
ln  t  −  ω Kt ln  t  + ω Mt ln  t  + ω Lt ln  t  


 qt −1  
 kt −1 
 mt −1 
 Lt −1   .
We believe such data allow us to obtain at least preliminary answers to our main research
questions about the evolution in TFP. It must be borne in mind that no prior measures of
TFP evolution have been estimated for the sector, and that major structural changes are
very recent. Accurate estimation of TFP evolution is an issue in itself and a valuable
contribution of this proposal.
In summary though we may have insufficient sample size and variation for detailed
econometric hypothesis testing, we will add to our TFP measures an analytic view of the
market functioning. To complement and enrich the interpretation of results we will
qualitatively consider how productivity measures may be biased due to the type of
competition and the market structure that characterizes each sub market. Estimations may
suffer from measurement errors due to our productivity measures being based on revenues
deflated by common sector price indexes instead of quantities, as pointed by Katayama, Lu
and Tybout (2006).
18
6. Short background of the researchers
Project Director:
Researcher 1:
Researcher 2:
Researcher 3:
Néstor Gandelman
Carlos Casacuberta
Hector Laca
Marcel Vaillant
Consultant:
Susana Picardo
Néstor Gandelman is the Director of the Department of Economics of Universidad ORT.
He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Rochester. Carlos Casacuberta is
affiliated with the Departamento de Economía, FCS of the Universidad de la República.
Casacuberta holds a M.Sc. in Economics form the London School of Economics.
Casacuberta and Gandelman have intensively worked in the past with establishment level
data studying firm dynamics, productivity and adjustment costs. Hector Laca is a PhD
(cand.) in Agribusiness from Massey University, New Zealand and is currently affiliated
with Universidad ORT. Laca’s dissertation is a study on the determinants of productivity in
the dairy farming in New Zealand. Marcel Vaillant holds a PhD. Economics from the
Universitet Antwerp. He is specialized in trade and is the head of the International Trade
Area at the Departamento de Economía, FCS.
Susana Picardo is currently affiliated with the Departamento de Economía, FCS of the
Universidad de la República. Previously she worked for the INE and was in charge
(Director of Economic Statistics) of the Encuesta Anual de Actividad Económica that we
will be using in this study.
19
7. References
Ali, A. I. and Seiford, L. M. (1993) The mathematical programming approach to efficiency
analysis. Chapter 3 in Harold O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell and Shelton S. Schmidt (eds.), The
Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. Oxford University Press, pp
120-159.
Alston, J. M. (2002) Spillovers. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol.
46(3): 315-346.
Amiti, M. y J. Konings (2007), “Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity:
Evidence from Indonesia”. American Economic Review, Vol.97, No. 5.
Battese, G. E. (1992) Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical
applications in agricultural economics. Agricultural Economics, vol. 7: 185 - 208.
Battese, G. E.; Rao, D. S. P. and O'Donnell, C. J. (2004) A Metafrontier Production
Function for Estimation of Technical Efficiencies and Technology Gaps for Firms Operating
under Different Technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol. 21: 91-103
Bauer, P. (1990) Recent developments in the econometric estimation of frontiers. Journal of
Econometrics, vol. 46 (1/2): 39-56.
Blundell, R. y Bond, S. (1998), “GMM estimation with persistent panel data: an application to
production functions.” Working Paper Series Nº W99/4. The Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Blyde, J. and Fernandez-Arias, E. (2004); Economic Growth in the Southern Cone; Economic and
Social Study Series, RE1-04-004, Inter-American Development Bank.
Bucacos, E. (2000); Sobre los Determinantes de la Productividad en Uruguay: 1960-1999; Revista
de Economía del Banco Central del Uruguay, Segunda Época, 7(1)
Casacuberta, C; G Fachola and N. Gandelman (2004) “The Impact of Trade Liberalization on
Employment Capital and Productivity Dynamics: Evidence from the Uruguayan Manufacturing
Sector”, Journal of Policy Reform. 7(4) pp.225-248.
Casacuberta, C., N. Gandelman and R. Soto (2007), “Long run growth and productivity changes in
Uruguay: evidence form aggregate and industry level data”, International Journal of Development
Issues, 6(2), pp 106-124.
Cassoni, A, G. Fachola and G. Labadie (2001) “The Economic Effects of Unions in Latin America:
Their Impact on Wages and the Economic Performance of Firms in Uruguay” unpublished paper.
Inter American Development Bank.
Coelli, T. J. (1995) Recent developments in frontier modelling and efficiency measurement.
Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 39(3): 219-245.
20
Coelli, T. J.; Rao, D. S. and Battese, G. E. (1998) An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity
Analysis. Kluver Academic Publishers
De Brun, J. (2001); Growth in Uruguay: Factor Accumulation or Productivity Gains?; Global
Development Network Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association, Working Paper.
Diewert, E. y Nakamura, A., (2002), The measurement of aggregate total factor productivity
growth, capítulo del Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 6, Elsevier.
Fernald, John G. and Susanto Basu (1999): "Why Is Productivity Procyclical? Why Do We Care?"
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, International Finance Discussion Papers,
Number 638,
Foreman-Peck, J., and D. Manning (1988) How Well is BT Performing? An International
Comparison of Telecommunications Total Factor Productivity, Fiscal Studies 9 (3) , 54–67.
Førsund, F.R. and Sarafoglou, N. (2002) On the Origins of Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of
Productivity Analysis, vol. 17: 23-40.
Fossati, F., Mantero, R. and Olivella, V. (2004); Determinantes del (Escaso) Crecimiento
Económico en Uruguay: 1955-2003, Un Análisis de la Productividad Total de los Factores;
unpublished manuscript Universidad de la República.
Foster, L, J. Haltiwanger and C. Syverson (2005), Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency:
Selection on Productivity or Profitability? NBER Working Paper No. 11555.
Green, W. M. (1993) The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. Chapter 2 in Harold O.
Fried, C. A. K. Lovell and Shelton S. Schmidt (eds), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency:
Techniques and Applications. Oxford University Press, pp 68-119.
Green, W. M. (1997) Frontier Production Functions. Chapter 3 in M. Hashem Pesaran and Peter
Schmidt (eds.), Handbook of Applied Econometrics: Microeconomics. Blackwell Publishers, pp 81166.
Hallam, D. and Machado, F. (1996) Efficiency Analysis with Panel Data: A Study of
Portuguese Dairy Farms. European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 23 (1): 79-93.
INE (1997) “Metodología: Encuesta de Actividad Economica” Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
Katayama, H., S. Lu and J. Tybout, 2006. Firm-level Productivity Studies: Illusions and a
Solution.” NBER Working Paper No. 9617
Kumbhakar, S. C.; Biswas, B. and Bailey, D. (1989) A Study of Economic Efficiency of Utah
Dairy Farmers: A System Approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 71 (4): 595-604.
Kumbhakar, S. C.; Ghosh, S. and McGuckin, J. T. (1991) A Generalized Production Frontier
21
Approach for Estimating Determinants of Inefficiency in U.S. Dairy Farms.
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics (July): 279-286.
Mathijs, E. and Vranken, L. (2001) Human capital, gender and organisation in transition
agriculture: Measuring and explaining technical efficiency of Bulgarian and Hungarian farms.
Post-Communist Economies, vol. 13 (2): 171-187.
Mbaga, M. D.; Romain, R.; Larue, B. and Lebel, L. (2003) Assessing technical efficiency of
Québec dairy farms. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol.51 (1): 121-137.
Kunze, K., M. Jablonski y V. Klarquist, (1995), BLS modernizes industry labor productivity
program, en Monthly Labor Review, vol. 118, No. 7.
Laca, H. (1997) “An insight on the Uruguayan Dairy Policy: Some Mercosur effects” Master
Science dissertation. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
Laca, H (2007) “An insight into technological differences in NZ dairy farming: a comparison
between Canterbury and Waikato using stochastic frontier analysis” Massey University, New
Zealand.
Lam, P and T. Lam, 2005, Total factor productivity measures for Hong Kong telephone,
Telecommunications Policy Volume 29, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 53-68.
Levinsohn, James, and Amil Petrin. 2003. “Estimating production functions using inputs to control
for unobservables”. Review of Economic Studies 70 (April): 317-41
López, Ana and Cecilia Llambí (1998) “Evolución de la productividad total de factores: estudio de
casos en la industria manufacturera”. Unpublished graduation dissertation. Montevideo, School of
Business and Economics, Universidad de la República.
Noya, N. and F. Lorenzo (1999b),“Trade specialization pattern, total factor productivity and export
volatility,. Unpublished manuscript CINVE.
Oddone, G. (2005) “El largo declive económico de Uruguay durante el siglo XX”, Ph.D.
disserattion Universitat de Barcelona.
Olley, G. and Pakes, A. (1996), “The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications
equipment industry”, Econometrica, 64, 1263-1297.
Piesse, J.; Thirtle, C. and Turk, J. (1996) Efficiency and Ownership in Slovene Dairying: a
Comparison of Econometric and Programming Techniques. Journal of Comparative Economics 22:
1-22.
Sumner, D. A. and Wolf, C. A. (2002) Diversification, Vertical Integration, and the Regional
Pattern of Dairy Farm Size. Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 24 (2): 442-457.
22
Seiford, L. M. and Thrall, R. M. (1990) Recent developments in DEA: the mathematical
programming approach to frontier analysis. Journal of Econometrics, vol. 46(1/2): 7-38.
Tansini, Ruben and Patricia Triunfo (1999) “Eficiencia técnica y apertura comercial en cuatro
ramas industriales”. Montevideo, Departamento de Economía, FCS, Universidad de la República.
Tsionas, E. G. (2002) Stochastic Frontier Models with Random Coefficients. Journal of Applied
Econometrics, vol. 17 (2): 127-147.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, (2000), Multifactor productivity measures for
three-digit SIC manufacturing industries. Report No. 948.
Weersink, A.; Turvey, C. G. and Godah, A. (1990) Decomposition Measures of Technical
Efficiency for Ontario Dairy Farms. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 38: 439-456.
23
Appendix
Table. Sectors to be included in Industry level analysis.(ISIC Rev.3)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
15
1511
1512
1513
1514
1520
1531
1533
1534
1541
1542
1543
1544
1549
1551
1552
1553
1554
16
1600
17
1711
1712
1713
1720
1730
18
1810
INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS
ELABORACION DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS Y BEBIDAS.
Matanza y preparac. carnes y aves
Elab. y conservación de pescado.
Elaboración conservación de frutas, legumbres y hortalizas
Aceites y grasas vegetales y animales.
Productos lácteos.
Molinos harineros y yerbateros.
Elaboración de alimentos preparados para animales
Molinos arroceros.
Elaboración de productos de panadería
Elaboración de azúcar.
Elaboración de cacao, chocolate y productos de chocolate, caramelos. Frutas y cáscaras abrillantadas.
Fideerías y fabricación de pastas
Elaboración de productos alimenticios n.c.p.
Destilación, rectificación y mezcla bebidas espirituosas. Alcohol etílico.
Elaboración de vinos.
Cervecerías y fabricación de maltas
Bebidas sin alcohol.
ELABORACION DE PRODUCTOS DE TABACO.
Industria del tabaco
FABRICACION DE PRODUCTOS TEXTILES.
Hilandería y tejeduría
Acabado de productos textiles
Lavadero y fabricación de tops
Textiles excepto prendas vestir.
Fabricación de tejidos de punto
FABRICACION DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR Y TEÑIDO DE PIELES.
Fabricación de prendas de vestir
D
19
CURTIEMBRES Y TALLERES DE ACABADO; FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE CUERO
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1911
1912
1920
20
2010
2021
2029
21
2101
2102
2109
22
2211
2212
2230
Curtiembres y talleres de acabado
Artículos de cuero.(marroquinerías)
Fabricación de calzado
PRODUCCION DE MADERA Y PRODUCTOS DE MADERA EXCEPTO MUEBLES
Aserraderos y fabricación de parquet
Fabricación de productos de madera(excepto muebles)
Fabricación productos de madera n.c.p. y corcho
FABRICACION DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL.
Pulpa madera, papel y cartón
Envases papel y cartón.
Fabricación de artículos de papel y cartón n.c.p.
ACTIVIDADES DE ENCUADERNACION, IMPRESION, EDICION Y REPRODUCCION
Encuadernación, impresión, edición, grabación y reproducción sobre papel excepto diarios y revistas.
Impresión, edición: diarios, revistas
Edición y reproducción grabaciones
D
23
FABRICACION DE PRODUCTOS DIVERSOS DERIVADOS DEL PETROLEO Y DEL CARBON.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
2310
2320
24
2411
2412
2413
2421
2422
2423
Materiales a base de asfalto
Combustibles y aceites grasas lubricantes productos bituminosos y otros derivados del petróleo.
FABRICACION DE SUSTANCIAS Y DE PRODUCTOS QUIMICOS.
Sustancias químicas básicas
Abonos
Fabricación de plásticos en formas primarias, caucho sintético, resinas sintéticas y fibras artificiales.
Plaguicidas
Pinturas, barnices y lacas
Fabricación de productos farmacéuticos y medicamentos
24
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
2424
2429
25
2511
2519
2520
26
2610
2691
2692
2694
2695
2699
27
2700
28
2811
2812
2890
29
2910
292
2920
2930
30
3000
31
3100
Artículos de limpieza y de tocador
Productos químicos n.c.p.
FABRICACION DE PRODUCTOS DE CAUCHO Y PLASTICO.
Fabricación de cámaras y neumáticos. Recauchutaje.
Fabricación de productos de caucho natural o sintético en formas básicas .
Productos de plástico.
FABRICACION DE OTROS PRODUCTOS MINERALES NO METALICOS.
Vidrio y productos de vidrio
Objetos de barro, loza y cerámica.
Fabricación de productos de arcilla y cerámica refractaria o no refractaria.
Fabricación de cemento, cal y yeso
Fabricación de artículos de cemento, hormigón y yeso
Productos minerales no metálicos n.c.p.
INDUSTRIAS METALICAS BASICAS.
Industria básica de hierro, acero y metales no ferrosos
FABRICACION DE PRODUCTOS METALICOS, MAQUINARIAS Y EQUIPOS.
fabricación de productos metálicos estructurales (herrería de obra)
Fabricación de recipientes de metal.
Otros productos de metal.
CONSTRUCCION DE MAQUINARIA EXCEPTUANDO LA MAQUINARIA ELECTRICA.
Maquinaria de uso general.
Fabricación de maquinaria de uso especial (para el agro, la minería y la construcción)
Maquinaria de uso especial
Electrodomésticos.
FABRICACION DE MAQUINARIA DE OFICINA, CONTABILIDAD E INFORMATICA.
Maquinaria de oficina, contabilidad e informática.
FABRICACION DE MAQUINARIA Y APARATOS ELECTRICOS N.C.P..
Maquinaria y aparatos eléctricos n.c.p.
D
32
FABRICACION DE EQUIPOS Y APARATOS DE RADIO, TELEVISION Y COMUNICACION.
D
D
3200
33
Equipos y aparatos de radio, televisión y comunicación
FABRICACION DE INSTRUMENTOS MEDICOS, OPTICOS Y DE PRECISION.
D
D
3300
34
Fabricación de aparatos e instrumentos médicos, aparatos para medir, verificar, ensayar, navegar y otros fines.
FABRICACION DE VEHICULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
3400
35
3510
3590
36
3610
3691
3699
Automotores y repuestos.
FABRICACION DE OTROS TIPOS DE EQUIPO DE TRANSPORTE.
Construcción y reparación de buques
Otro equipo de transporte n.c.p.
FABRICACION DE MUEBLES; INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS N.C.P..
Muebles y colchones
Joyas y artículos conexos.
Otras industrias manufact. n.c.p.
COMERCIO AL POR MAYOR Y AL POR MENOR; REPARACION DE VEHICULOS
COMERCIO, MANTENIMIENTO Y REPARACION DE VEHICULOS AUTOMOTORES
Comercio de vehículos automotores.
Mantenimiento y reparación de vehículos
Comercio de partes y accesorios de vehículos automotores.
Comercio y reparación de motocicletas
Comercio al por menor combustibles para automotores.
50
5010
5020
5030
5040
5050
G
51
COMERCIO
AUTOMOTORES)
AL POR MAYOR Y A COMISION (EXCEPTO EL COMERCIO DE VEHICULOS
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
5110
5121
5122
5131
5139
5141
5142
COM.POR MAYOR A CAMBIO DE RETRIBUCION
Comercio al por mayor materias primas agropecuarias, animales vivos.
Comercio al por mayor de alimentos, bebidas y tabaco.
Comercio al por mayor de productos textiles, prendas de vestir y calzado.
Comercio al por mayor de otros enseres domésticos
Comercio al por mayor de combustibles sólidos, líquidos, gaseosos.
Comercio al por mayor de metales y minerales metalíferos.
G
G
5143
5149
Comercio al por mayor de materiales de construcción, artículos de ferretería y materiales de sanitaria y calefacción.
Comercio al por mayor de sustancias químicas básicas, materiales plásticos en forma primaria, fibras textiles.
25
G
G
G
5150
519
5190
Comercio al por mayor de maquinaria, equipo y materiales.
Comercio al por mayor de otros productos (no incluidos en las clases anteriores).
Com. por mayor de otros productos.
G
52
Comercio al por menor excepto el comercio de vehículos automotores y motocicletas; reparación de efectos
personales
G
G
5210
5220
Supermercados, gdes. almacenes.
Almacén, carnicería, fiambrerías ,etc
G
5231
Comercio al por menor de productos farmacéuticos, medicinales y ortopédicos, cosméticos y artículos de tocador.
G
G
5232
5233
Comercio al por menor de productos textiles, prendas de vestir y calzado.
Comercio al por menor de aparatos, artículos de uso doméstico.
G
5234
Comercio al por menor de artículos de ferretería, pintura, vidrios y productos de vidrio. Materiales de construcción.
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
5239
5240
5252
Com.p/men.de otros productos.
Com.por menor de productos usados.
Com.p/menor de puestos callejeros, y mercados.
HOTELES Y RESTORANES
HOTELES Y RESTORANES.
Hoteles
Servicio de alojamiento por hora, apart hotel, moteles, hoteles de alta rotatividad
Restoranes, bares, cantinas
TRANSPORTE ALMACENAMIENTO Y COMUNICACIONES
TRANSPORTE POR VIA TERRESTRE Y POR TUBERIA.
Transporte colectivo de pasajeros.
Transporte no regular de pasajeros
Transporte de carga por carretera
TRANSPORTE POR VIA ACUATICA.
Transporte marítimo y de cabotaje.
TRANSPORTE POR VIA AEREA.
Transporte regular por vía aérea
ACTIVIDADES DE TRANSPORTE, COMPLEMENTARIAS Y AUXILIARES.
Carga y descarga de mercancías.
Almacenamiento y depósitos de mercaderías
Otras actividades de transporte.(Puertos, etc)
Actividades de agencias de viaje
Actividades de otras agencias de transporte.
CORREO Y TELECOMUNICACIONES.
Correo (incluye vta. de sellos)
Telecomunicaciones
ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS EMPRESARIALES Y DE ALQUILER.
ALQUILER DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO, EFECTOS PERSONALES Y ENSERES
Alq.eq. de transporte sin conductor
Alq. maq. y equipo sin operario.
Alq. efectos pers.y enseres domest.
INFORMATICA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS.
Consultores en equipo informática
Consultores en progr. de informática
Procesamiento de datos
Acts. relac. con base de datos
Mantenim. y rep. maq. ofic, cont, inform.
OTRAS ACTIVIDADES INFORMATICAS
INVESTIGACION Y DESARROLLO.
Invest. y desarr. cs. naturales y socs.
Servicios prestados a las empresas, exceptuando el alquiler y arrendamiento de maquinaria y equipo.
Servicios jurídicos y notariales
Servs. cont., audit., tened.de libros
Investigación de mercados y realización de encuestas.
Asesoramiento, orientación y asistencia operativa a las empresas.
Servicios técnicos de arquitectura, ingeniería, agrimensura, etc.
Ensayos, análisis técnicos de materiales y productos.
Publicidad
55
5511
5512
5520
60
6021
6022
6023
61
6110
62
6210
63
6301
6302
6303
6304
6309
64
6410
6420
71
7110
7120
7130
72
7210
7220
7230
7240
7250
7290
73
7300
74
7411
7412
7413
7414
7421
7422
7430
26
K
K
K
K
K
K
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7499
80
8010
8020
8030
8090
85
8511
8512
8519
8530
Obtención y dotación de personal
Investigación y seguridad: bienes y personas
Actividades de limpieza de edificios
Casa de fotografía, laboratorios fotográficos
Actividades de envase y empaque
Otras acts. empresariales n.c.p.
ENSEÑANZA
ENSEÑANZA.
Enseñanza preesc., primaria, espec.
Enseñanza secund, técnica y comerc.
Enseñanza superior
Otros tipos de enseñanza n.c.p.
SERVICIOS SOCIALES Y DE SALUD.
ACTIVIDADES RELACIONADAS CON LA SALUD HUMANA.
Hospitales, sanatorios, clínicas medicas. Servicios de laboratorios clínicos y radiológicos.
Servicios médicos en consultorios privados, a domicilio o en clínicas de pacientes.
Otras actividades relacionadas con salud humana
Institucs. asist. social, orfanatos
27
Néstor Gandelman Ungerovich
Curriculum Vitae, January 2008
Personal Information
Date of Birth:
Nationality:
Marital Status:
Email:
12/27/1971
Address:
Uruguayan
Married
Phone:
[email protected]
B. Blanco 616 ap. 102
Montevideo 11.300, Uruguay
(5982) 710 1205
Education
1996-2000
University of Rochester,
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
Master of Arts (M.A.)
Universidad de la República,
Licenciado en Economía
1990-1995
Rochester NY, USA
June 2000
May 1999
Montevideo, Uruguay
September 1995
Professional Experience
Current affiliation
2003-2008
Coordinador Académico de Economía
(Director Department of Economics)
Universidad ORT Uruguay
2000-2002
Coordinador Académico Adjunto de Economía
(Associate Director of the Department of Economics)
Universidad ORT Uruguay
Participation in IADB Projects
2007-2008
2007
2007
2005-2006
2005-2006:
2002-2003:
2002
2001
QoL in Urban Neighborhoods in LAC
Titling in Latin America: Effects and Channels
Construyendo confianza y capital social para reducir barreras de exclusión.
Discrimination and Economic Outcomes
The Development of Latin-American Bond Markets
Market Institutions, Labor Market Dynamics, Growth and Productivity: An Analysis of LAC
What is the State of Housing Finance in LAC
Determinants and Consequences of Financial Restrictions Facing Firms in LAC
Other relevant experience
World Bank:
2007
Assessing the Effects of TRIPS-plus Provisions on Uruguay’s Pharmaceutical Market
2007
Export productivity premiums in Uruguay
2005
The Impact of Trade Liberalization and International Exposure on Labor and Capital
Adjustment Functions in Uruguay
Ministry of Housing, Uruguay:
2006
Deficit habitacional y capacidad de acceso a la vivienda.
2006
Ministry of Housing: Ejecuciones hipotecarias: plazos y costos
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis:
2007
Visiting Scholar
2004
Visiting Scholar
i
Research
Publications
•
Mobility between employers and assortative matching: field evidence from soccer data.,
forthcoming (expected April 2008) Journal of Sports Economics.
•
Long-Run Growth and Productivity Changes in Uruguay: Evidence from Aggregate and
Industry Level Data (2007), with C. Casacuberta and R. Soto, International Journal of
Development Issues Vol. 6(2), 106-124.
•
El Mercado de Renta Fija en Uruguay (2007), joint with J.de Brun, H. Kamil and A.
Porzecanski Revista de Economía del Banco Central del Uruguay Vol. 14(1), 35-96.
•
R&D Institutional Arrangements: Start up vs. Lab joint (2007) with Manfred Dix, The
Manchester School Vol. 75(2), 218-236.
•
Community Tax Evasion Models: A Stochastic Dominance Test (2005), Journal of Applied
Economics, Vol. 8(2), 279-297.
•
Creación, destrucción y reasignación de empleo y capital en la industria manufacturera (2005),
joint with C. Casacuberta y G. Fachola, Revista de Economía del Banco Central del Uruguay,
Vol. 12(2), 89-124.
•
The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Employment, Capital and Productivity Dynamics:
Evidence from the Uruguayan Manufacturing Sector (2004), joint with C. Casacuberta y G.
Fachola, Journal of Policy Reform, Vol. 7(4), 225–248.
•
A Tax Community Competition Model with Evasion (2004) joint with R. Hernández-Murillo,
Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 4: No. 1, Articule 13.
Chapters in books
•
Traditional Excluding Forces, joint with a H. Ñopo y L. Ripani, in Márquez, Chong, Duryea,
Mazza and Ñopo (eds.), Outsiders? The Changing Patterns of Exclusion in Latin America and
the Caribbean, Economic and Social Progress in Latin America - IPES 2008, Inter American
Development Bank.
Also in Spanish:
Las fuerzas tradicionales de exclusión, joint with H. Ñopo and L. Ripani, in Márquez,
Chong, Duryea, Mazza y Ñopo (eds.), ¿Los de afuera? Patrones cambiantes de exclusión
en América Latina y el Caribe, Informe de Progreso Económico y Social –IPES 2008, Inter
American Development Bank.
•
The Fixed Income Market in Uruguay, joint with J.de Brun, H. Kamil and A. Porzecanski, in K.
Cowan, B. Eichengreen and U. Panizza (eds), On the Verge of a Big Bang? Bond Markets in Latin
America, MIT Press (Expected 2008).
•
International Exposure, Unionization and Market Concentration: the effects on factor use and
firms’ productivity in Uruguay (2007) joint with C. Casacuberta y G. Fachola, in Aryeetey and
Dinello (eds.) Testing Global Interdependence: Issues on Trade, Aid, Migration and
Development, Edward Elgar Publishing.
ii
•
Investment equations and financial restrictions at firm level: The case of Uruguay (2003) joint
with E. Baribieri and J. de Brun, in Galindo and Schiantarelli (eds.) Credit Constraints and
Investment in Latin America, Inter American Development Bank.
Papers submitted to refereed journals
•
Protection, Openness and Factor Adjustment: Evidence from the manufacturing sector in
Uruguay, Revised and Resubmit for Economic Development and Cultural Change.
•
Gender Differentials in Judicial Proceedings: field evidence from housing related cases in
Uruguay, Revised and Resubmit International Review of Law and Economics.
•
Female Headed Households and Homeownership in Latin America, Revised and Resubmit
Housing Economics.
•
Multiple job holding: the artist’s labor supply approach, submitted Applied Economics.
•
Traditional Excluding Forces: A Review of the Quantitative Literature on the Economic
Situation of Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants, and People Living with Disability,
submitted Journal of Survey Economics.
Teaching experience
2000-2007
Summer 1999
1998- 1999
Professor, Universidad ORT Uruguay
Industrial Organization and Principles of Economics
Summer Instructor, University of Rochester
Intermediate Macroeconomics
Teaching Assistant, University of Rochester
Industrial Organization and Intermediate Macroeconomics
Honors
2006
2005
2004
2002
1998-2000
1996-2000
Medal Award Winner, Eight Annual Global Development
Conference (GDN), Beijing, China
Finalist “Japanese Award for Outstanding Research on
Development”, Seventh Annual Global Development Conference (GDN),
St Petersburg, Russia.
Finalist “Medal for Outstanding Research on Development”, Sixth Annual
Global Development Conference (GDN), Dakar, Senegal.
National Award in Economics “Profesor Raúl Trajtenberg” (Second Place).
Fulbright grantee
Department of Economics, University of Rochester Scholarship
Languages
Spanish: native speaker
English: complete fluency
iii
Hebrew: advanced.
CV - Carlos Casacuberta
Birth date:
Address
Telephone
:
:
:
Email
:
1. Studies
1993-94
1992
22/02/1964
Juan Ma. Gutiérrez 3456 CP 11701, Montevideo Uruguay
(598 2) 309 45 68
Office: (598 2) 410 6449 ext 660
[email protected]
Master of Science in Economics
The London School of Economics and Political Science
Economics Degree
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administración,
Universidad de la República, Montevideo.
2. Research positions
2007
Senior Lecturer
dECON, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales,
Universidad de la República, Montevideo.
2002 -2006
Lecturer-researcher
dECON, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales,
Universidad de la República, Montevideo.
2001-2003
Researcher IADB Latin American Network: Market institutions,
Labor Markets Dynamics, Growth and Productivity Project
2001
Associate Researcher
Human Development Report Project Uruguay 2001.
ECLAC - UNDP
3. Research papers
3.1 Refereed Journals
Casacuberta, C., and N. Gandelman, , Protection, openness and factor adjustment:
evidence form the manufacturing sector in Uruguay. Revise and resubmit, Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 2008.
Casacuberta, C., N. Gandelman, and R. Soto, Long-Run Growth and Productivity
Changes in Uruguay: Evidence from Aggregate and Industry Level Data, 2006. Journal of
Development Issues. Vol. 6 No. 2, 2007
iv
Casacuberta, C., G. Fachola, and N. Gandelman, Creación, destrucción y reasignación
de empleo y capital en la industria manufacturera. Revista de Economía, Banco Central
del Uruguay. Vol XII, No.2, November 2005.
Casacuberta, C., G. Fachola, and N. Gandelman., The impact of Trade liberalization on
employment, capital and productivity dynamics: evidence from the Uruguayan
Manufacturing Sector. Journal of Policy Reform, Vol. 7, 4, 2004.
Casacuberta, C. and M. Vaillant, Trade and wages in Uruguay in the 1990’s. Revista de
Economía, Banco Central del Uruguay. Vol XI, No.2, Noviembre 2004.
Bucheli, M. and C. Casacuberta, Asistencia escolar y participación en el mercado de
trabajo de los adolescentes en Uruguay. El Trimestre Económico, México, Vol. LXVII
(3), julio-setiembre 2000.
3.2 Chapters in books
Casacuberta, C., G. Fachola, and N. Gandelman., International exposure, unionization,
and market concentration: the effects on factor use and firm’s productivity in Uruguay, in
Testing Global interdependence: issues on trade, aid, migration and development;
Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007.
Bucheli, M. and C. Casacuberta, Incidencia y duración del desempleo, in Uruguay:
empleo y protección social: de la crisis al crecimiento, OIT, Santiago de Chile, 2005.
Vaillant, M. and C. Casacuberta, Reforma Comercial y mercado de trabajo, Informe de
Desarrollo Humano en Uruguay, 2001, CEPAL-PNUD.
3.3 Working papers
M. Snoeck, C. Casacuberta, R. Domingo, H. Pastori, and L. Pittaluga, The emergence
of new successful export activities in Uruguay, working paper, IADB Research network,
forthcoming, 2008.
Casacuberta, C., and N. Gandelman, Factor adjustment and imports from China and
India: evidence from Uruguayan manufacturing. 2007. Working Paper No. 29/ Universidad
ORT Uruguay, ISSN 1510-7477.
Casacuberta, C., and N. Gandelman, Multiple job holding: an artist labor supply
approach, 2006. Working paper No. 19, 2006, dECON, FCS, 2003
Casacuberta, C., and N. Gandelman, Protection, openness and factor adjustment:
evidence form the manufacturing sector in Uruguay World Bank Working Paper Series,
2006.
v
Casacuberta, C., M. Rossi, and I. Rossi, El arte y el éxito: un matrimonio incómodo.
Working paper No. 3, dECON, FCS, 2003.
Bucheli, M. and C. Casacuberta, Sobreeducación y prima salarial de los trabajadores
con estudios universitarios. Working paper No. 6, dECON, FCS, 2001.
4. Consultancy Reports
2008 Casacuberta, C. and N. Gandelman, Evaluation of a simulation model for the impact
of intellectual property legislation on medicines market using Uruguayan public
sector data, World bank.
2006 Casacuberta, C., Situación de la vivienda en Uruguay. Informe de divulgación.
Módulo de Vivienda, Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Ampliada, Instituto Nacional de
Estadística, Uruguay.
2006 Casacuberta, C., and N. Gandelman Déficit habitacional y capacidad de acceso a la
vivienda en Uruguay, Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio
Ambiente, Uruguay.
2004 Casacuberta, C., An analysis of selected in kind social assistance programs in
Uruguay, World Bank. Policy Expenditure Review.
2004 Casacuberta, C. and Soto, R., Long run growth and productivity changes in Uruguay:
Evidence from aggregate and plant level data. World bank, Sources of Growth
report, 2004
2001 Casacuberta, C. and Roche, H., La protección de la propiedad intelectual y los
incentivos a la actividad creativa en Uruguay.
www.iniciativalatinoamericana.org/cultura/estudios/01_ponencia_derechos_autor_ec_de_la_cultura
.doc
5. Teaching
2006
Associate Professor
Labor Economics, Master’s degree in Economics
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administración, U de la R
2003-2006
Lecturer
Economics II, (2nd. Year, Sociology degree)
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República, Montevideo
2002-2004
Lecturer
Labor Economics, (8o. Semester, Economics degree)
Universidad ORT Uruguay.
vi
CURRICULUM VITAE
Héctor Ramiro LACA VIÑA
ADDRESS:
Rafael Barradas 1515
Montevideo 11500
Uruguay
Ph. 00 598 2 601 75 54
Mobile 00 598 99 272 021
@mail: [email protected]
PERSONAL DATA
Date of birth:
Place of birth:
Nationality:
Marital status:
6 August, 1965.
Montevideo, Uruguay.
Uruguayan.
Married, three children
HIGHER EDUCATION
Graduate
2003PhD (cand.) in Agribusiness, Massey University, New Zealand.
Recipient of a NZ-ODA Scholarship
2002-2003
Master in Management (Agribusiness), Massey University, New Zealand
1996-1997
Master of Science in International Agricultural and Food Marketing
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Recipient of a DFID (UK) Scholarship
Undergraduate
1988-1995
LANGUAGES
Spanish:
English:
French:
Licenciado in Biological Science at the Faculty of Science
Universidad de la República Oriental del Uruguay.
Mother language.
Very good working knowledge
-Oxford Examination in English (written)
-First Certificate in English Studies
-International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
Acceptable working knowledge
-Certificat D’Etudes Elementaires de Langue Française.
vii
CURRENT AFFILITION
Since December 2006
Coordinator of Institutional Relations
University ORT, Uruguay
Currently reviewing the PhD thesis
Topic: Productivity and efficiency of New Zealand dairy farms.
Oral: to be scheduled.
PREVIOUS OCCUPATION
September 2006
External consultant for CIFRA (Uruguayan consultant firm) in the Project “Perfil de
Gobernabilidad en Nicaragua” for the InterAmerican Development Bank
November 2005
Seminar at the University of Montevideo (30 hrs)
Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay: Comparison of the beef and dairy industry
November 2004 - May 2005
International market analyst at the National Meat Board
The principal objective was to propose a marketing strategy in order to enhance the
comparative advantage and to develop the sustainable competitive advantage of the Uruguayan
beef supply chain.
Products:
• Situation and outlook for livestock and beef in China
• Market analysis for beef in Shanghai and it zone of influence
• Situation and outlook for livestock and beef in New Zealand
July 1994 – December 2001
Technical adviser of the Department of Programming and Agricultural Policy (OPYPA)
Ministry of Agriculture.
Personal duties:
a) Monitoring beef and dairy production
b) To prepare situation and outlook reports on livestock, beef and dairy (national and
international markets)
c) Responsible for monitoring and evaluating the National Milk Quality Program.
October 1994 – December 2001
Secretary of the National Milk Board, which aim is to advise the Government in different
issues referred to dairy policy
viii
July 1993 – July 1994
Attaché to the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Education
PUBLICATIONS
Laca-Viña, H. R. and Bailey, W. C. (2004) “Regional dairy production: short-term projections and
expected demand for inputs” Proceedings of the Annual Conference NZ Agricultural and
Resource Economics Society, Blenheim, New Zealand, June 2004
Laca-Viña, H. R. (2003) “Uruguay – New Zealand Convergence in Dairy Farm Productivity” Master
Management dissertation. Massey University. Supervisor: Prof. William C. Bailey
Laca Viña, H. R (2001) “Estructura Productiva de la Ganadería: una década de cambio” (The structure
of livestock production: a decade of change) 1er. Congreso Rioplatense de Economía Agraria
24 al 26 de octubre de 2001 – Montevideo, Uruguay.
Ilundain, M; Laca Viña, H. R.; Lema, J. (2001) “Evolución de la ganadería vacuna en Uruguay en la
década de los ´90” (The evolution of livestock production in Uruguay during the nineties) 1er.
Congreso Rioplatense de Economía Agraria 24 al 26 de octubre de 2001 – Montevideo,
Uruguay.
Laca-Viña, H. R. (1999) “La producción mundial de carne vacuna” (World beef production)
Anuario de OPYPA (OPYPA Yearbook) (pg. 275-282)
Laca-Viña, H. R (1999) “El Sistema Nacional de Calidad de la Leche” (The Milk Quality System)
Anuario de OPYPA (OPYPA Yearbook)
Peyrou, J. I.; Preve, J. I. y Laca-Viña, H. R. “Situación Actual y Perspectivas de la Carne Vacuna”
(Beef Production: Situation and Outlook) Anuario de OPYPA 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999
(OPYPA Yearbook, various issues)
Laca-Viña, H. R. (1997) “An insight on the Uruguayan Dairy Policy: Some Mercosur effects” Master
Science dissertation. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. Supervisor: Prof. David Harvey
ix
CURRICULUM VITAE
MARCEL VAILLANT
1. Personal data
•
Name: Marcel Edme Vaillant Alcalde
•
Date of birth: 21st October 1957, Montevideo-Uruguay
•
Nationality: Uruguayan.
•
E-mail:[email protected]
2. Education
•
1997-2000- Doctor in Economics, Universitaire Faculteiten Sint Ignatius Antwerpen
(Belgium)
•
1995-1997- MSc in Economics,. Universidad Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain)
•
1983-1985- MSc in Economics,. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (Mexico DF,
Mexico).
•
1976-1982- Bsc Engineer agronomist, Universidad de la República (Montevideo, Uruguay).
3. Present and previous position
•
2000-2003/ 2007- Full time Professor International Trade. Responsible of the International
Trade and Trade Policy courses in the MSc in International Economics, Department of
Economics of the Social Science Faculty, Universidad de la República, Uruguay.
•
2004-2006- Economic Consultant in the MERCOSUR Secretariat, Technical Sector. Full
time position.
•
2001-2003- Director of the Department of Economics of the Social Science Faculty,
Universidad de la República Uruguay, see general background of the institution in
http://decon.edu.uy. From 1994 until 2000 my previous position was as Coordinator of the
International Trade Area in the Department of Economics of the Social Science Faculty,
Universidad de la República.
•
From 1995 until now I was consultant of many governmental agencies in Uruguay (Foreign
Affaires Ministry, Economic Ministry, etc) and multilateral institutions (LAIA, IADB,
UNCTAD and UNDP).
•
1991-1992/1997- Coordinator of nationals chapters of many regional projects developed
with ECLAC Office in Santiago de Chile (Citrus in Uruguay, Dairy Sector, Technological
policies and industrial innovation, Dairy Cluster in Uruguay).
x
•
1986-1990- Consultant in ECLAC Office in Montevideo responsible of the project
“Dynamic exports sectors in Uruguay”, assistance development project with UNDP
support.
•
1986-1993-Reasercher and lecturer in International Trade (Research Assistance, Lecturer
and Associate Professor in consecutives periods) in the Economics Institute and CEIPOS of
the Universidad de la República.
4. Recent participation in regional trade policy programmes
•
2007- Consultant of the Trade Policy Division of the Ministerio de Economía in Uruguay
“Trade liberalization in services”.
•
2005-2006- Regional coordinator of the project: “Strengthen MERCOSUR institutions and
consolidation of the regional common market”. It was a technical cooperation programme
for the “MERCOSUR Secretariat” developed with the financial support of the IADB.
•
2003- Co regional coordinator with Julio Berlinski (Argentina) and Honorio Kume (Brasil)
of the MERCOSUR-NET project “Towards a common trade policy in MERCOSUR” with
the financial support of IDRC (Canada).
•
2001- 2002- Regional coordinator of the MERCOSUR NET Project “MERCOSUR and the
creation of the free trade zone of the Americas” with the financial support of the Tinker
Foundation (USA).
5. Recent publications (2000-2008)
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2008: “¿Por que Uruguay necesita negociar un TLC con Estados Unidos?,
Cuadernos del CLAEH, Revista Uruguaya de Ciencias Sociales Número 94-95 (to be
republished in Portuguese in the Revista Brasileira do Comercio Exterior).
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2007: “Convergencias y divergencias en la integración sudamericana”,
Marcel Vaillant, Nº 87 (LC/L.2777-P), Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América
Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), 2007. Publicación de las Naciones Unidas, y a ser republicado
por la Revista de Economía y Estadísticas, por la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas de la
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.
•
Moncarz, Pedro y Vaillant, Marcel, 2007: “Measuring the role of MERCOSUR on the
Regional Pattern of Import of its Country Members”, GEP Research Paper 07/27, The
Leverhulme Centre for Research on Globalisation and Economic Policy, University of
Nottingham, England.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2007: “Objetivos, resultados y restricciones de la Negociación Común con
Terceros en el MERCOSUR”, en MERCOSUL quinze anos, organizador Rubens A. Barbosa,
Fundacao Memorial, Imprensa Oficial, Sao Pablo.
•
Alvaro Forteza (coordinator), Daniel Buquet, Mario Ibarburu, Jorge Lanzaro, Andrés
xi
Pereyra, Eduardo Siandra and Marcel Vaillant, 2007: “Pro-Market Reform in Uruguay:
Gradual Reform and Political Pluralism”, Global Development Network, Palgrave Mac
Millan, USA.
•
Berlisnki, Julio, Kume, Honorio, Vaillant, Marcel (coordinadores), 2006: ”Hacia una Política
Comercial Común”, RED MERCOSUR, Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2006: “Determinants of trade liberalization strategies in Uruguay”, in
Domestic Determinants of National Trade Strategies: a comparative analysis of
MERCOSUR countries, Chile and México edited Roberto Bouzas, Chaire MERCOSUR,
Science Po, Paris.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2005: ”MERCOSUR: regional integration under construction”,
Internationale Politics and Society, Herausgegeben von der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung,
Germany.
•
Vaillant, Marcel and Fernando Lorenzo, 2005: ”The MERCOSUR and the creation of the
Free Trade Zone of the Americas”, Woodrow Wilson Center/RED MERCOSUR,
Washington, USA.
•
Vaillant, Marcel y Caetano, Gerardo, 2005: “¿Que MERCOSUR necesita Uruguay?, ¿Qué
Uruguay necesita el MERCOSUR?, Apuntes para entender requerimientos recíprocos, serie
Análisis y propuestas de FESUR, Uruguay.
•
Vaillant, Marcel y Arcuri, Reginaldo, 2004: “Unión Europea América Latina y el Caribe”,
Guadalajara 2004, Aportes a la III Cumbre, CELARE, Santiago de Chile.
•
Vaillant, Marcel and Ventura Díaz Vivianne, 2004: "Trade policy in a small country” in
Trade Policy Reform in Latin America, Multilateral Rules and domestic institutions, Miguel
F. Lengyel and Vivianne Ventura Dias (eds), Latin American Trade Network., Palgrave
Mac Millan.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2004: “Desde la región hacia el mundo un país natural y tecnológico”, en
Uruguay, 2005 Propuestas de Política Económica, Ediciones de la Banda Oriental.
•
Vaillant, Marcel and Carlos Casacuberta, 2004: “Trade and wages in the 90`s”, Revista de
Economía del BCU, Vol 11, No 2, Segunda Época, Noviembre.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2003: “Gobierno, bienestar colectivo e intereses particulares: el caso de la
reforma comercial en Uruguay”, en Economía Política en el Uruguay, Instituciones y
Actores Políticos en el Proceso Económico editores Diego Aboal y Juan Andres Moraes,
Instituto de Ciencia Política, Departamento de Economía y CINVE, Editorial Trilce.
•
Vaillant, Marcel and Bizzozero Lincoln, 2003: “El acuerdo de asociación entre el
MERCOSUR y la Unión Europea: una lenta y larga negociación”, Información Comercial
Española, Revista de Economía, número 806, abril 2003.
•
Vaillant, Marcel and Alvaro Ons, 2002: “PTA between European Union and South America:
xii
The political economy of free trade zones in practice”, The World Economy, Oxford
BlackWell Publisher, forthcoming in the next number October, 2002.
•
Vaillant, Marcel and Nin Alejandro, 2002: “International Coalitions for Agriculture Trade
Liberalization”, in Paolo Giordano (ed.), “An integrated approach to the European Union–
MERCOSUR Association”, Chaire Mercosur de Sciences Po, 2002; Paris.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2002: “Probable impacto que tendrían los acuerdos con la Unión Europea
en el comercio intraregional y en el comercio de los países miembros con los países de
Europa”, ALADI/SEC/Estudio 149, Agust, Montevideo.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2002: “Inserción internacional, empleo y desarrollo humano”, Informe de
Desarrollo Humano del Uruguay , 2001, UNDP-ECLAC, principal researcher author of
chapter I and III, Uruguay.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2001: "Politique commerciale et spécialisation agricole” in a colective book
"Vers un accord entre L’Europe et le MERCOSUR", Paolo Giordano, Alfredo Valladao,
Marie-Francoise Durand, Edition des Presses de Sciences Po, Paris.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2001: "Impacto del ALCA en el comercio intraregional y en el comercio de
los países miembros de la ALADI con Estados Unidos y Canadá", ALADI/SEC/Estudio 139.
September, Montevideo.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2001: “Profundización del proceso de integración económica en bienes” in
“El desafío de integrarse para crecer, balances y perspectivas del MERCOSUR en su
primera década” Daniel Chudnosvky y José María Fanelli (coordinators) with prologue of
Enrique Iglesias, RED MERCOSUR, Siglo XXI, BID, Madrid.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, Terra, Inés y Pastori Hector, 2001: “El caso uruguayo” in "Sobre el beneficio
de la integración plena en el MERCOSUR" Julio Berlinski et al, Red MERCOSUR, Siglo
XXI, Madrid.
•
Vaillant, Marcel y Inés Terra, 2001: "Comercio, fronteras políticas y geografía: un enfoque
regional de la integración económica" publicado en “Los rostros del MERCOSUR”,
Gerónimo de Sierra (compilador), editado por CLACSO, Buenos Aires.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2001: "Cluster lácteo en el Uruguay", en libro colectivo “Apertura
económica y (des)encadenamientos productivos, Reflexiones sobre el complejo lácteo en
América Latina”, Martíne Dirven (Compiladora) , Edited by ECLAC in Book series,
Santiago de Chile.
•
Vaillant, Marcel, 2000: "Limits to trade liberalisation: a political economy approach", Phd
doctoral thesis, tutor Prof. Mathew Tharakan, UFSIA, September, 2000, Belgium.
xiii
SUSANA L. PICARDO PRATS
CV
C.I.:
C.C.:
Date of birth:
Birthplace:
Address:
Telephone:
E_mail:
1.103.889-0
B.C.B 56164 (MDEO).
December 6, 1947.
Montevideo - Uruguay.
San Salvador 1893
Montevideo, Uruguay
598 2 410 2324
[email protected]
EDUCATION:
Public Accountant and Administration Degree
University of the Republic, Faculty of Economics and Administration
Since 1975 has undertaken specialized courses on planning, implementation, processing and
analysis of Economic Research (census and sample surveys) CIENES (Universidad de Chile, IASI
OAS) and other national and international institutions.
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE:
Extensive experience in statistical planning, execution and analysis in activities such as Economic
Censuses and Surveys, particularly in the multi-annual economic surveys, including surveys of
innovation activities carried out by INE in agreement with DICYT (former DINACYT) for the
Manufacturing, Commerce and Services sector, as well as the coordination of economic surveys to
units of Free Trade Zones (2005). This experience led her to develop research in economic
surveying as detailed in published papers.
WORK EXPERIENCE:
From 1974 until June 2007 and has worked on advisory and management activities in the INE
(National Institute of Statistics) of Uruguay.
Since 1997 coordinated or participated in various statistical projects and activities at the National
Institute of Statistics and Uruguay, as follows:
- Director of the Economic Statistics Division until June 2007 at the National Institute of Statistics of
Uruguay (INE)
-Head-project Economic Census of 1997 (CEN97).
-Project Director in designing the annual survey of economic activity, years 1998 to 2005.
xiv
-Project Director in designing indicators of changes in manufacturing (Physical volume indicator) to
change the reference base period to 2006 = 100, using the new structures from CEN97 and
subsequent annual surveys as well as that of the previous base 2002 = 100
Technical Advisor in the design of the new basis of the average wage index based December 2002.
Project Director in the design of the new index of wholesale prices for National Products based
August 2001.
- Director of the project to design a blueprint for change in basis for the index of wholesale prices of
imported products (2002).
- Coordinating Officer for Uruguay's at first EU-MERCOSUR Project between the EU and
MERCOSUR Statistical Institutes for regional harmonization of statistics (2002-2003).
OTHER STATISTICAL ACTIVITIES:
In 2007 served as a consultant for the survey of consumer prices for Institute for Statistics
Denmark.
In 2001 and 2002 served as senior researcher in a statistical research on channels and distribution
margins of domestic and imported products within the framework of an agreement between the
Faculty of Social Sciences and the Central Bank of Uruguay.
In 2001 served as a consultant to ECLAC in a study on births and deaths of companies in Uruguay.
That same year, undertook consultancy work for the Economic Commission for State Reform
(CEPR) with the objective of designing an indicator of price trends in government purchases.
In 1999 and 2000 conducted activities as a consultant to ECLAC in two studies:
• construction of an indicator of changes in activity by 4-digit ISIC rev2 sector and size in terms of
sales strata.
• a study to estimate the total payroll from the data of social security agencies by 4-digit ISIC rev2
sector and size in terms of personnel employed.
TEACHING:
Since 1976 she conducted various educational activities at the Faculty of Economics and
administration and at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of the Republic of Uruguay, as
follows:
Since 1994 has been assistant professor (grade 3) in charge of coordinating the database Area of
Economics and Economic History of the Faculty of Social Sciences.
1976 to 1982: Assistant in the Statistics workshops of the third year of the Degree in Business
Administration and Economics, Faculty of Economic Science.
xv
Since 1976 he has participated as a teacher in various training courses at the INE and the
Uruguayan National Statistical System:
-Basic Course of Statistical Techniques (economic and social statistics)
-Survey sampling techniques Course (probability and Statistical Inference)
-Economic indicators Course
-Sample survey planning and design Course (Sample Theory).
In the recent training activities of INE (2003-2004) participated as a teacher of economic indicators.
WRITTEN WORK:
Co-author of a paper analyzing the National Survey on Sports Habits for the Sports Direction,
Ministry of Tourism and Sports of Uruguay (March 2006) presented at a workshop in December
2006.
Co-author of “Un análisis de las exportaciones directas e indirectas de productos manufacturados”
presented at the Conference on the Economy of the Central Bank of Uruguay July 2005.
Co-author of “El Uso de Internet en las empresas. El caso uruguayo” presented at the Sixth
Workshop on Science and Technology RICyT Buenos Aires from 15 to 17 September 2004.
Co-author of "Indicadores de precios para deflactar insumos en la Industria Manufacturera 19801999”. edited by the Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics (document 17/02).
Co-author “Índice de Costo de Mano de Obra años 1982 a 1995” edited by the Faculty of Social
Sciences, Department of Economics (document nro.1/97 August 1997).
Co-author of “Aspectos metodológicos para el usuario de Cuentas Nacionales de Uruguay” edited
by the Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics (Note No.5 July 1997).
Author of “Introducción a las estadísticas de precios y salarios”, edited by the Faculty of Social
Sciences, Department of Economics. (Note 1/94 July 1994).
Co-author of "indice de precios de insumos por rama de actividad en la industria uruguaya 19801992” at the seminar "The Industry before the opening 25 and April 26, 1994.
Partners in the assembly of a manual codes Products and Supplies Manufacturing Industry. (I.N.E.).
xvi