Abstract

The paper contributes to the recent growth models debate through a cross-country analysis of growth drivers before and after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). It argues that the widely used dichotomy of export-led versus (debt-financed) consumption-led growth has lost its usefulness since the GFC. Specifically, identifying growth models through growth contributions can give misleading results when the drivers of economic growth change. The paper contends that Comparative Political Economy (CPE) has neglected the unstable nature of financial growth drivers, effectively ignores fiscal policy, and overemphasizes price competitiveness as a growth driver. It shows empirically that, first, debt-financed growth is cyclical and financial booms come with busts and debt overhang; second, post-GFC growth dynamics are strongly shaped by the fiscal policy reaction; third, price competitiveness through wage deflation has played a negligible role in driving growth. We conclude that CPE needs to broaden its analysis of growth drivers in order to understand how the GFC transformed growth models.

摘要

本文通过对 2008 年全球金融危机 (GFC) 前后增长驱动因素的跨国分析，为最近的增长模型辩论做出了贡献。它认为，自全球金融危机以来，广泛使用的出口导向与（债务融资）消费导向增长的二分法已经失去了作用。具体来说，当经济增长的驱动因素发生变化时，通过增长贡献来识别增长模型可能会产生误导性的结果。论文认为，比较政治经济学（CPE）忽视了金融增长动力的不稳定性，实际上忽视了财政政策，过分强调价格竞争力作为增长动力。它从经验上表明，首先，债务融资的增长是周期性的，金融繁荣伴随着萧条和债务积压；第二，全球金融危机后的增长动力很大程度上受到财政政策反应的影响；第三，工资通缩带来的价格竞争力对增长的推动作用微乎其微。我们得出结论，CPE 需要扩大其对增长驱动因素的分析，以了解 GFC 如何改变增长模式。