Search

The paper studies the decline of the labor income share (LIS) in Mexico during the 1990-2015 period. The decline is mostly explained by reductions within the economy's major sectors (including manufacturing, tradables, and non-tradables), rather than by a recomposition of value added towards sectors with low labor shares. In contrast to agriculture --where LIS fell due to a shift of labor force from self-employment to wage-employment-- in other major areas of the economy the fall in LIS is explained by reductions within the wage-employment sector. Econometric estimations indicate that parallel declines in the wage share and relative productivity of non-tradables and in the US manufacturing labor share all played a large role in the reduction of the manufacturing wage share in Mexico. More generally, the analysis suggests that the lagging productivity of the economy's informal non-tradable sector --itself a reflection of the country's low aggregate rate of economic growth-- is a crucial factor in the fall of LIS in the formal sectors. The paper concludes by discussing possible explanations for the paradox of the slow rate of economic growth in Mexico despite the rise in the profit share. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the growth slowdown of the Mexican economy during the reform and post reform periods. It addresses four possible factors behind the growth deceleration. First, the role of international trade integration, showing that the trade policy reforms of the 1980s and 1990s were in fact very successful in enhancing export growth and trade openness but not in promoting a dynamic pattern of trade specialization. Second, the productivity growth slowdown, arguing that this should be seen as a consequence rather than a cause of the growth deceleration as the evolution of productivity growth is closely associated with the expansion of tertiary underemployment. Third, the discussion of the role of human capital formation suggests that educational and health indicators have been improving during the recent period, partly as a consequence of the demographic bonus, and cannot be held responsible for the fall in output per worker that has taken place since the early 1980s. Finally, the paper focuses on what it believes is the primary determinant of the growth slowdown, the low rate of physical capital accumulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]