Escaping the Middle-Income Trap: The Experiences of Ireland and Mexico

Thursday, December 17, 2015
low and middle income trap
Thinkstock/Aitormmfoto

Today’s post is the third and final in a series examining why developing countries have difficulty moving up the economic ladder. 

Escaping the “low- and middle-income traps” has proven to be a challenge for many developing nations. In a recent article in The Regional Economist, Assistant Vice President and Economist Yi Wen and Senior Research Associate Maria Arias used the experiences of Mexico and Ireland to shed light on the middle-income trap.

A previous post examined some of the theories that have attempted to explain why developing countries haven’t been able to converge with developed ones in terms of per capita income. Wen and Arias noted that many of these theories simply don’t hold up in practice. “Instead, both regional economic inequality and the failure or success stories of nations that have attempted industrialization could be explained by the specific development strategies and industrial policies adopted.”

The Experiences of Ireland and Mexico

Both Ireland and Mexico maintained a roughly similar level of development in terms of per capita income going back as early as the 1920s, and both adopted political democracy. Yet they took dramatically different approaches to development in the postwar era.

Ireland

The authors noted that Ireland’s economy did not experience fast growth between the 1920s and 1950s due to since-discredited industrialization policies. Since the 1950s, however, Ireland:

  • Adopted industrial policies to gradually open up to global markets to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), instead of fully liberalizing its capital markets at once
  • Created special government agencies to guide and steer FDI to its manufacturing sector
  • Increased government spending on public education for all
  • Adopted new tax, fiscal and monetary policies to control high government deficits and inflation
  • Promoted domestic investment and targeted its exports to Europe and the U.S.

Since 1950, Ireland’s per capita income relative to the U.S.’s has risen from less than 40 percent to more than 80 percent.

Mexico

Mexico, on the other hand, had a much more open economy than Ireland between the 1920s and the 1970s. However, the authors noted: “Mexico lacked sufficient government effort and discipline to build its state capacity to steer the economy.”

In particular, Mexico rapidly expanded its public debt in the 1970s. Wen and Arias noted that this debt became very expensive in the 1980s when the U.S. increased interest rates drastically to fight inflation. In turn, this pushed the Mexican economy into default and prompted a large currency devaluation.

Other issues hindering Mexico’s development include:

  • Not investing highly in education
  • Not establishing government agencies to design industrial policies to promote foreign and domestic investment in areas consistent with Mexico’s comparative advantages
  • Investors looking outside the banking system for financing following economic reform and banking system nationalization in the early 1980s

These developments have contributed to Mexico’s per capita income relative to the U.S.’s being roughly the same in 2010 as it was in 1950.

The authors concluded: “Comparing the divergent growth paths of Mexico and Ireland in the 20th century suggests that state capacity and industrial policies are critical in explaining the issue, rather than differences in political institutions or vast interests of local monopolies, per se.”

Follow the Series

Additional Resources

Posted In Output  |  Tagged yi wenmaria ariaslow-income trapmiddle-income trapinternational economies
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.


Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email mediainquiries@stls.frb.org. For all other blog-related questions or comments, email on-the-economy@stls.frb.org.

Categories