Population size and GDP per capita: US states

There have been a few posts here (here, here, and here) in the last week or so around the issue of population size and GDP per capita –  not because my prior is that there is any such relationship but (a) because I think there isn’t, and it is worth occasionally illustrating that across countries, and (b) because even some officials in the New Zealand government still appear to believe that our (small) size is a material element in the story of what holds New Zealand back.   There are arguments why, in theory, a larger population might result in better long-term economic performance (higher productivity), but whatever the merits of those arguments they seem to have been outweighed by other factors.  In the world we currently live in, the average big country is no more economically successful than the average small country, and that is so whether one throws all 190 countries into the mix at once, or looks only at advanced countries, only at European countries,  only at moderately-sized countries (eg excluding China and India) or whatever.  And one might imagine a plausible story in which economic success might have led to more population (migration or natural increase) rather than the other way round.

But what does the picture look like for US states?  Across all 50 states (one dot per state) here is the cross-sectional picture.

US states 2

And again, no obvious or statistically significant relationship.   In fact, to make the dots a bit easier to see, I left off the (non-state) District of Columbia which with about 600000 people has per capita GDP of about $160000.

The US case is interesting because –  unlike the situation with comparisons across individual countries –  there is no legal obstacle in the way of US citizens (and residents) moving within the country (across state lines) to pursue opportunities.   In that sense one might have (actually I initially did) expected to see more populous states also being more economically successful, if only because of internal migration.  But the relationship between population size and GDP per capita seems about as weak across US states as it does across countries.

I wouldn’t want to make anything much of these US state comparisons –  I just did them because the data were there, and having dug it out I thought I’d share it.  After all, in various places, big metropolitan areas straddle two or more states (New York is the best known example).   Then again, there is more policy similarity across US states than there is even across member states of the EU –  so a few more things are help constant when one looks at the simple scatter plot this time.

Whatever the theoretical arguments, a bit of history suggests we shouldn’t be surprised at the lack of any sustained relationship between population and economic performance.  After all, at its 14th century peak –  as probably the richest place in Europe – Florence is estimated to have had a population of fewer than 100000 people.

 

Small size simply isn’t the issue

Just yesterday I wrote, in response to a comment, that

My point simply was that there is no obvious correlation, in the cross section, between population size and GDP per capita (or productivity). I’m not aware of any serious observer arguing otherwise

At the level of very simple correlations, I’d illustrated this lack of relationship –  whether for all countries, just advanced countries, excluding the handful of extremely large countries, or whatever.  Bigger countries (by population) don’t, on average, have higher per capita incomes than smaller countries.

But then I went to a seminar at the Productivity Commission yesterday afternoon, attended by various private and public sector people.  The substance of the seminar –  a new MBIE report on the manufacturing sector, and the discussion of it and of possible policy responses –  is embargoed until David Parker releases the report next week.   But I hope I’m not breaching any rules in simply reporting that I noted around the room an almost unquestioned acceptance that size (small) is one of New Zealand’s economic problems.  Normally I might barely have noticed it, but having been writing about the topic in the last few days, it niggled away at me.

The more I’ve thought about that issue over the years, the more I’ve concluded that those who hold it are simply wrong, and perhaps in the thrall of the political equivalent of Keynes’s “defunct economists”  –  the long tradition of political leaders, dating back at least to Vogel, who’ve wanted, as a matter of policy, a lot more people in New Zealand, believing (presumably) that New Zealanders would be better off as a result.  There doesn’t seem to be much –  any? –  evidence in support of any economywide economic benefits flowing from this preference.

One hears talk in such discussions of ideas like “markets work better in big economies”, or even talk of economies of scale –  or opportunities for specialisation – in government/regulation.  In principle, the arguments sound plausible enough.

But they rarely seem to confront the simplest stylised data.  For example, Australia and New Zealand are almost equally remote (on standard measures), but Australia’s population has been consistently much higher than ours, and yet for a century (say 1860 to 1960) material living standards (GDP per capita) were much the same on the two sides of the Tasman.

Or we could look at some advanced countries where distance/remoteness is much less of an issue.  In what follows I’ve looked at the OECD member countries in Europe (continental plus the UK and Ireland).  There are 24 of them, ranging in population from Germany’s 82 million to Luxembourg’s 0.6 million.  Five of these countries – New Zealand’s size or smaller – didn’t even exist as independent states thirty years ago.

In this chart –  for 2016 –  I’ve ordered those 24 countries by population size and shown the real GDP per capita for each.  I’ve also shown the median (so not distorted by Luxembourg, or issues around Irish tax) for the group of countries with a population less than 10 million, and also the median for the large European OECD countries.

europe real GDP and popn

If anything, the typical larger country has a lower per capita income than the typical smaller country.  Of course, these are small samples, so not much weight should be put on them, but there is nothing to suggest bigger countries are performing better than smaller countries.  And if one insisted on excluding the former communist countries – even though they are now 25 years on as market economies –  the gap (in favour of the smaller countries) – is larger.

In many respects,  real GDP per hour worked  (labour productivity) is a better metric of economic performance.  Here is the same chart, for 2016, using the OECD’s data on productivity.

europe real gdp phw and popn

I could exclude Ireland and Luxembourg, I could exclude the ex-communist countries, I could add to the “small” category the countries (Portugal to Belgium) with populations just over 10 million, and it won’t change the story.  There is nothing in the simple stylised facts of European OECD countries suggesting that bigger countries do better than smaller ones.  Even at the most prosperous core bit of Europe (London is the richest –  by income –  region in Europe), Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark and Austria do really well.  And so do France and Germany (the UK less so).

Of course, there are lots of other things that help explain any individual country’s performance. Norway, for example, wouldn’t rank so high without oil, or Ireland without the features of its corporate tax policy which see a lot more economic activity booked in Ireland than directly results from economic activity occurring in Ireland.  One issue, of course, is the quality of policy.  There are lots of different dimensions of that, and sometimes one sees a story in which small countries try harder, regulate less, or whatever to overcome the alleged disadvantages of size.   One widely-used indicator is the OECD’s index of product market regulation.  As it happens, the PMR score for the median small country in OECD Europe is less good (ie more less-liberal regulation exists) than in the median large country.

Smarter people with richer datasets and serious econometric skills can produce much more complex models, encapsulating a lot more information simultaneously.  But whatever the results of such models –  which often end up depending on the modellers’ embedded assumptions –  it is always worth bringing them back to check against the simplest stylised facts.  Even in a region where distance is much less of a differentiator among countries (it isn’t nothing –  Portugal and Greece would have it tougher than Belgium and the Netherlands even with great policy) population size doesn’t seem to be an advantage, and isn’t associated with either higher GDP per capita or higher productivity.

For decades, I’ve used the line that if only we could detach New Zealand from the ocean floor and relocate it –  land and all –  in the Bay of Biscay, just off the coast of France we’d be much better off materially, all else unchanged.  Perhaps the North Sea would be even more propitious.  But the point remains, the biggest handicap to economic success in New Zealand is our distance/physical remoteness –  in an age when, across the board (although with individual pockets otherwise) distance isn’t becoming less of an issue, but perhaps even more of one.    A modest number of people probably can do very well here, but not many.   And yet our policymakers –  aided and abetted by official advisers –  keep driving policy to locate ever more people in a really quite unpropitious –  even if beautiful and (now) peaceful –  location.

There is simply no evidence supporting the notion that our small size is “the problem” (or even a material part of it), and when the story continues to be invoked it simply serves as a distraction –  mostly unwittingly so –  from a focus on the real issue, responding realistically to the unchangeable (absent quite different technologies) constraints of our physical isolation.

More on population and per capita GDP

My quick post on Saturday, in response to someone’s comment, was designed simply to illustrate what should have been quite an obvious point: looking across countries in any particular year, countries with large populations don’t tend to be richer (per capita GDP) than countries with small populations.  Just among the very big countries, the United States is towards the top of the GDP per capita rankings (beaten by a bunch of small countries), and China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Brazil are not.   Since both the physical sizes of countries, and their populations, are the outcomes of all sorts of historical factors, it wasn’t an observation about immigration policy or (wince) “population policy”.    And, of course, GDP per capita isn’t everything: moderately well-off large countries are typically more powerful (defence or offence) than small rich ones.

But, continuing to play with the same data download from the IMF WEO database (190 or so countries and territories) for the period since 1995, is there any obvious relationship betweeen population growth rates, and growth in real per capita GDP?

Here is the chart

population 9 Aug 1 all countries

Actually, I’ve left out three extreme outliers –  all oil producers.  Equatorial Guinea had growth in real GDP per capita of about 2500 per cent over the period, and UAE and Qatar had population growth of 300-400 per cent (in one case, with falling real GDP per capita, and in the other with a moderate increase).

There is basically no relationship between the two series –  again, each dot is a country.  The simple linear regression line is downward-sloping but that probably wouldn’t be a statistically significant relationship.  Bear in mind though that simply charting population growth and per capita GDP growth for the same period could have shown an upward-sloping relationship even if there was no causal link from faster population growth to faster per capita economic growth: countries with rapid growth in real GDP per capita might be expected to attract more people (immigrants flow towards opportunity) and perhaps even induce higher birth rates.   But there is no sign of even that sort of relationship, across all countries, and over this period of 20 years or so (this sort of reverse causality is a big problem looking at annual data, but much less so looking at long periods).

The full sample of countries includes a huge range of types of countries –  from war-torn poverty stricken basket cases (Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan) to tiny remote islands (Tuvalu), as well as places with strong institutions, good connections, and an established record of economic performance.   How do this simple bivariate relationships look if we focus just on these latter countries?

In various posts over the years, I’ve used a sample of about 40 fairly advanced countries, encompassing the members of the OECD and the EU, as well as Taiwan and Singapore.   There is still a lot of difference among these countries: places that were non-market communist economies only 30 years ago, the odd place (eg Mexico) that is more like an honorary member of the group of advanced countries, as well as the places with very high productivity (France, Germany, United States, Ireland, Norway).  And there are countries as small as Malta or Luxembourg, and as large as the United States.  This group leaves out countries that appear to be rich only because of oil.

Here is the simplest plot: of the levels of population and GDP per capita in 2016.

popn advanced 1

This time, the simple regression line is very slightly upward sloping.  Remove the US and it changes sign.  Remove all the countries with more than 50 million population and it is still downward sloping.

But what about growth rates?  For quite a few of these countries, GDP per capita is pretty shaky before about 1995 (communist-era and immediate post-communist transition).  That’s why I’ve done all these charts for just the last 20 years or so.  But that also happens to be a period when there has been a lot more population movement between advanced countries (especially in Europe).

popn advanced 2

Recall that even if there was no causal relationship running from population growth to growth in real GDP per capita, there was a possibility that we might have seen an upward-sloping relationship simply from any link between successful economies drawing in more people (as happened in Ireland most obviously –  net immigration rising well after the boom in per capita GDP and productivity).  But, in fact, across these 40 or so advanced countries, any relationship is downward sloping.  Across these countries in this period, faster population growth has been associated with slower real per capita GDP growth. (For the eagle-eyed among you, New Zealand is the red dot.)

And in this final chart, I’ve broken the period in two.  I’ve charted, for each country, population growth in the first 10 years of the period (1995 to 2005) against real GDP per capita in the second half of the period (2005 to 2016).  In other words, none of the population growth variable is directly caused by the growth in the real per capita GDP variable.

popn advanced 3

The downward-sloping relationships is weaker this time –  less of the variance in GDP growth is explained simply by prior population growth –  but again it is downward-sloping, and not the upward-sloping line many of the immigration-policy boosters in New Zealand would like us to believe.   I forgot to mark New Zealand on this chart –  we are one of the dots a bit below the line with 12 per cent population growth –  but there is nothing unusual about New Zealand’s place on either chart.

If one wants to get more sophisticated, one could look at growth in labour productivity or total factor productivity, rather than just real GDP per capita.  Especially for TFP, one becomes dependent on the model used in estimating TFP and the available sample of countries drops away,  As for labour productivity, in earlier posts I’ve illustrated the lack of a positive relationship between population growth and productivity growth (and recall that New Zealand has managed better real per capita GDP growth than productivity growth, by working longer hours), and that –  for example –  if anything business investment as a share of GDP has been negatively correlated with population growth across advanced countries.  That is the opposite of what might been expected if population growth –  and immigration –  was typically boosting the productivity and per capita income prospects of recipient countries.

It is past time we started backing our own people, not looking to replace or augment them with a mythical group from across the water.  Part of that involves the government getting serious about facing up to the disappointing economic outcomes of our long-running Think Big economic and social experiment with large scale immigration.  As part of that, in turn, a serious review of immigration policy by the Productivity Commission –  there have been two in Australia in the last 15 years –  would be a good place to start.

 

Population and real GDP per capita

I noticed a few comments to another of my posts about possible links between population size and economic performance.  My working assumption is that, on average, across all countries, there isn’t any such relationship.   Apart from anything else, if there were a positive relationship –  that was more than chance –  it would suggest that two countries merging would increase their respective real incomes.  And yet for at least the last 70 years, we’ve had steadily more countries emerging.  No doubt economics isn’t the only thing at work in those choices –  people might be willing to pay a price to be “free” and self-governing –  but it isn’t likely to be an irrelevant consideration either.

But what do the data show?   Here I’ve just used the IMF World Economic Outlook database data for 2016.

The first chart shows the relationship –  for the 193 countries/territories the IMF reports data for –  between real GDP per capita (in purchasing power parity terms) and population (each dot is one country).   The population term is expressed in logs.

popn and real GDP pc

As (I would have) expected, there is basically no relationship at all.   The simple linear regression line is actually slightly downward sloping, but that won’t pass any test of statistical significance.  Perhaps one could craft a story in which the top 10 countries (in terms of per capita income) all have quite small populations –  the biggest is around 5 million people – but since oil plays a big part in most of those individual cases even then one shouldn’t make too much of the point.

And here is the chart if we look only at the countries with populations from 0.5 million (a tenth of New Zealand’s) to 50 million (ten times New Zealand’s).  Since that is a much more compressed scale –  not everything from Tuvalu to the People’s Republic of China –  this time the population variable isn’t expressed in logs.

popn and real GDP pc 0.5 to 50m For those with sharp eyesight, New Zealand is a dot coloured orange.

Again, there really isn’t any sort of relationship.  Again, the simple regression line is downward sloping, but there are lots of countries with very small populations and very low per capita incomes.   But even within this more-compressed range of populations, there is no sign at all of any sort of upward sloping relationship –  the idea that, on average, a higher population will be associated with higher per capita incomes.

Of course, within each of these dots there are complex historical relationships, as to how population in any particular country came to be what it was (some about conquest, making big countries out of small one; sometimes the historical carrying capacity of the land; in some the role of slavery (eg forced depopulation from Africa), in others the role of immigration policy.   Some locations offer better prospects than others and will, typically, have attracted or retained poeple accordingly.

But this post isn’t attempting to get into any of that. it is simply observing that at the most elementary level of numerical analysis there is no sign that countries with larger populations tend to be richer (whether as a matter of cause, or of effect).

(Not much) investment in New Zealand

A few days ago I ran a post on the cross-country relationships between population growth on the one hand, and residential, government, and business investment on the other.   Using OECD data, averaged for each country over a couple of decades, it was apparent that (a) as one would expect, residential investment makes up a larger share of GDP in countries with faster population growth (people want a roof over their head, but (b) business investment as a share of GDP was smaller the faster the population growth a country had experienced.   New Zealand’s experience was quite consistent with these relationships.  That should prompt some introspection on the part of those –  bureaucrats, politicians, and other lobby groups –  who champion our large-scale non-citizen immigration programme, the largest such active migration programme (at least for economic reasons) in per capita terms anywhere in the world.

But today, I justed wanted to look at New Zealand’s own data on investment, and particularly the experience in the current cycle.    My starting point is this chart, using the components of gross fixed capital formation (“fixed investment” in the national accounts), as a share of GDP, going back to the 1987 when the official quarterly national accounts begin.

GFCF components to Mar 17

As I noted the other day, “business investment” isn’t an official SNZ category –  it would be great if they actually started publishing one –  but instead follows the OECD practice of subtracting general government investment (schools, roads etc) and residential investment from total investment.     It isn’t fully accurate, to the extent that some residential investment is done directly for the government (so there is some double-counting) but (a) the effect should be small, and (b) it is a consistent treatment through time.

And in case anyone is wondering what the spikes in 1997 and 1999 are, they are navy frigates.

Three things struck me from this chart.

  • First, total investment as a share of GDP (the grey line) has been rising quite strongly from the trough in 2009 and 2010, but
  • Second, total investment ex residential investment (the orange line) has barely recovered at all, and
  • Third, business investment (as proxied by the blue line) has not only barely recovered, but is now smaller as a share of GDP than in every single quarter from 1992 to 2008.   And this even though our population growth rate has accelerated strongly, to the fastest rate experienced since the early 1970s

The difference between the orange and grey line is residential investment.   It has picked up a lot as a share of GDP, but then it would have been extremely worrying if that were not the case.  After all, we had a series of destructive earthquakes in Canterbury, and huge volume of resources had to be devoted to simply restoring the existing housing stock.  And we’ve had a big acceleration in population growth.    Residential investment as a share of GDP is now higher than at any time in thirty years, although house and land price developments suggest that residential land is still being held artificially scarce.

Businesses invest when they see opportunities and can raise the finance (internally or externally to take advantage of the opportunities).     There will always be some financing constraints –  firms that don’t have the retained earnings or can’t persuade someone else to provide additional debt or equity –  but it is a little hard to believe that, as this stage of the cycle, those financing constraints are much different than usual.  It suggests that firms just don’t see the investment opportunities in New Zealand to anything like the extent they once did, even though the population is growing as fast as it ever has in modern times.     It is at least suggestive that the persistently high real exchange rate might be an important part of the explanation.

New Zealand’s quarterly national accounts data go back only to 1987, but the annual national accounts data go back to the year to March 1972.    Here is business investment as a share of GDP right up to the year to March 2017.

business investment to mar 17

Not much above recessionary levels (1991 or 2009), and showing no sign whatever of picking up.   And that is even though the population (and employment) are now much higher than would have been foreseen just a few years ago.    Investment goods do appear to have got (relatively) cheaper over time, but that seems unlikely to adequately explain how firms saw investment opportunities of around 12 per cent of GDP in the two growth phases, but only around 10 per cent now  (especially as we know we’ve now had no productivity growth for five years).

Statistics New Zealand also produces annual estimates of the capital stock.  The latest observation is for the end of March 2016, but the earlier charts suggest there is little reason to think the story for the most recent year will be any more encouraging when the March 2017 data are released later this year.  This chart shows the annual growth rate is the estimated per capita real net capital stock (excluding residential dwellings).

cap stock growth

This indicator uses all the non-residential capital stock (ie including that belonging to the government sector).  As government investment has held up more strongly than business investment (see the first chart above) and as employment has been rising faster than population, the picture for business investment per employee would probably look even more disconcerting.

And, of course, all the official capital stock numbers use reproducible capital only.  In New Zealand, in particular, land is a major input to significant parts of business production.   The quantity of land is fixed (improvements to the land are included in the investment numbers above), and that fixed quantity is spread over ever more people.

Given our very serious housing situation, with house price to income ratios among the highest anywhere in the advanced world, it should be a bit troubling when really the least poor bit in the investment data is residential investment.   But lest I inadvertently comes across sounding upbeat on that score, here is annual growth in the SNZ real residential capital stock per capita.

res cap stcok

But perhaps this too is some sort of “sign of sucess” or “quality problem”?    Most people, I suspect, would settle for signs that if we are going to have rapid policy-driven population growth, that businesses would then find it remunerative to invest much more heavily, whether in building houses or producing other stuff to sell here or abroad.

 

 

 

Squeezing out business investment

I was up early this morning to talk to the breakfast meeting of a Rotary club about immigration and economic performance in a New Zealand context (similar points to my LEANZ address last week, but shorter and a bit simpler).  I hadn’t been to a Rotary meeting for decades, since going to the odd one as a teenager as my father’s guest, and somewhat alien as it was (altogether too extrovert for me, especially at 7am), it was also rather inspiring –  people working together to make a difference in their community; some of George H W Bush’s “thousand points of light”.

In the course of my talk, I’d made my standard point that in New Zealand rapid population growth seems to have contributed to crowding out business investment.   Whatever the reason, over the decades business investment as a share of GDP in New Zealand has averaged around the lower quartile of what has happened in OECD countries as a group.  Driving home I remembered that a couple of months ago I’d downloaded all the data to help illustrate some of the stylised facts that bothered me, but had never gotten round to using the resulting charts.

All else equal –  and it never is –  a country that has faster population growth would normally be expected to devote a higher share of current output to investment than countries with slower population growth.  That observation isn’t exactly rocket science.  More people need more houses, and roads, and shops, and offices, and schools, and hospital, and factories.   A country with no population growth at all could simply maintain its capital stock per person by devoting enough of current output to capital expenditure to cover depreciation.  (To be clear, in all this I am using national accounts measure of investment (“gross fixed capital formation”), which (largely) measures resources devoting to building new stuff.)

Houses make up the largest single component of the reproducible capital stock (and almost half the total in New Zealand at present –  note that this is houses, not the land under them).    And since everyone needs a roof over their head, and almost everyone does, you would expect to find a materially larger share of current output devoted to house-building in countries with faster population growth rates.   There is lots of short-term cyclical volatility in house-building activity, so it makes sense to look at average over a long enough period to look through cycles.

In this chart, I’m looking at the period from 1995 to 2014 and looking across OECD countries.  I chose the period because quite a few OECD countries –  especially former eastern bloc ones –  don’t have data before then, and when I downloaded the data a couple of months ago a few countries didn’t yet have 2015 data.    One year won’t materially alter the picture.

res I % of GDP

New Zealand is the red dot close to the line (above population growth of about 27 per cent).

The slope has the direction you’d expect –  faster population growth has meant a larger share of current GDP devoted to housebuilding –  and New Zealand’s experience, given our population growth, is about average.     But note how relatively flat the slope is.  On average, a country with zero population growth devoted about 4.2 per cent of GDP to housebuilding over this period, and one averaging 1.5 per cent population growth per annum would have devoted about 6 per cent GDP to housebuilding.    But building a typical house costs a lot more than a year’s average GDP (for the 2.7 people in an average dwelling).     In well-functioning house and urban land markets you’d expect a more steeply upward-sloping line –  and less upward pressure on house/land prices.    But that isn’t today’s point, which was simply that more people has indeed meant more residential investment.

But what about the business investment picture?  In the data, business investment is a residual –  calculated by taking total investment and subtracting housing investment and general government investment.  Again, all else equal, you would expect a country with a faster population growth rate to have devoted a larger share of current output to business investment.  Workers need “tools”, and if economies are going to maintain their trajectory of growth in income per capita, then the growth in the capital stock needs to at least keep pace with the number of workers.

(You might wonder why I look across countries, rather than just across time within individual countries.  There are two reasons.  First, in many countries there isn’t much variation in population growth rates.  And second, to the extent there is, reverse causation may well be at work –  a booming economy will tend to draw in more people. )

But here is what the cross-country chart looks like.

Bus I % of GDP

Again, New Zealand is the red dot near the line.

There is plenty of variation –  not every observation is close to the line –  but there is no sign at all of the expected upward slope.  If anything, the regression line is downwards –  the faster population growth was across these countries in this period, the smaller the average share of current output devoted to business investment.  The (non-housing) capital stock per person will have been growing materially more slowly in the average high populaton growth country than in the low population growth countries.    The countries with material falls in population were all former eastern-bloc countries, who might be thought to have lots of convergence (and investment) opportunities anyway.  But even if one deleted them from the chart entirely –  and recall that we too were supposed to have lots of convergence opportunities –  the regression line is still very slightly downward sloping (basically dead flat).

It is a chart that should be pretty troubling.    Even a modestly upward-sloping line would still be weaker than ones prior might lead one to expect.

Some readers with more of a background in formal economic research don’t like these scatter plots at all.  They rightly note that it captures just a relationship between two variables, and there is a lot of other stuff inevitably missing.  The relationship may be causal, but it might not be.    One protection against that risk is the use of long period averages for 30+ countries.    But, as importantly, scatter plots of this sort have to be taken together with the wider context –  other stuff we know.

For example, is there a plausible mechanism that might account for such a relationship?  Well, the notion of “crowding out” is a pretty well-established one in the economics literature.  When the government increases its expenditure, the typical result (in a reasonably fully employed economy) is for private sector spending to fall.  Higher interest rates and a higher exchange rate are part of the mechanism by which that happens.   Whether or not there is a full offset is debated, but no one seriously doubts the mechanism or the direction of the effect.    Investment spending tends to be more sensitive than consumption spending, with the exchange rate channel making tradables sector activity (sales and investment) particularly likely to respond.

Increased demands associated with faster population growth may well work in much the same way.   The summary, scatter plot, data certainly isn’t inconsistent with such a story.   In the New Zealand context, one of the stylised facts we have to grapple with is that our real interest rates have been persistently higher than those in other advanced countries, and our real exchange rate has fluctuated around persistently high levels.  (And when I restrict the business investment chart only to countries with floating exchange rates, the downward slope is still apparent.)

So I don’t find the scatter plot in isolation conclusive, but it is troubling nonetheless –  and should be for those who like to invoke the empirical estimates of large per capita income gains from immigration, again in a cross-country context.  How likely are such gains, if countries with relative fast population growth rates (almost all, on account of high immigration inflows) are also the countries that, on average, have relatively modest levels of business investment?  Firms invest to take advantage of the new opportunities that arise.

I’ve asserted that high levels of planned immigration have a disproportionate effect on investment in the tradables sector.  These aggregate data don’t shed any light on that split –  they are just total business investment.   But, at least in a New Zealand context, it makes sense that things will have worked that way.   Higher real interest rates than in other countries –  unmatched by faster productivity growth – will deter all long-lived investment here, regardless of sector.  But when the exchange rate is also boosted, firms considering new investment in the tradables sector are exposed to a double-whammy: highest cost of capital, and a less competitive position relative to foreign firms.   Domestic demand tends to be strong in countries with fast population growth, while international demand is something New Zealand firms just have to take as given.   As our export share of GDP hasn’t been growing –  if anything shrinking –  while those in most other OECD countries have, it seems reasonably likely that investment in theNew Zealand tradables sector has been much weaker than otherwise, and weaker than that in the non-tradables sectors.  That weakness in tradables investment is likely to affect both our natural resource based industries (deterring more capital intensive modes of production) and in the struggling (where unsubsidised) other parts of the tradables sector.

For many countries, population growth isn’t that materially influenced by national policy.   In the former eastern bloc countries, the fall in population is about natives leaving.  In some other countries, illegal immigration can be a big issue.  But in New Zealand –  and Australia –  policy makes a big difference.   We have full control over our borders, and let in lots of legal non-citizen migrants.   In New Zealand, in particular, it looks as though discretionary policy choices have worsened the business environment, and in particular skewing things against the prospects for strong investment by firms that could successfully take on the rest of the world.

(In case anyone is interested, somewhat to my surprise I discovered that there is also a downward-sloping regression line when one plots general government investment and population growth.   I’d expected to find that the government investment just happened anyway –  governments not being subject to market tests.  But over these countries in this period it didn’t.  If, optimistically, you think that government investment is a complement to private investment in improving economic performance, that should be particularly worrying.  Even if the lagging government investment is just about keeping up with the numbers of schools and hospitals (say) a higher population requires, it doesn’t exactly look like a mark of success –  whether in New Zealand, or across the OECD.)

 

New Zealanders’ population choices

The other day Statistics New Zealand released the annual data on New Zealand birth rates.  There was some coverage of the continuing drop in teen birth rates (it was what SNZ highlighted), but the chart that caught my eye was this one.

TFR NZ SNZ

I’d been under the impression that New Zealand’s birth rate was at, or just above, replacement (roughly 2.1 births per woman, thus allowing for early deaths).   And, according to this summary indicator, it was for a few years not that long ago.    But that is no longer the case.

But what most interested me –  and it isn’t data I’ve ever paid that much attention to –  was the longer-term averages.  It turns out that for forty years now, New Zealand’s birth rate has averaged below the replacement rate (1977 was the last year the TFR had been persistently above 2.1).

This is how we compare with other OECD countries.

tfr OECD

New Zealand is still towards the right of the chart.  But note that only two OECD countries now have total fertility rates in excess of replacement –  one (Mexico) just barely.  The country that really stands out is Israel, with a TFR of 3.1.   New Zealand hasn’t been that high for 45 years.

(Diverting off topic for a moment) the gap between Israeli and New Zealand birth rates has been there for a long time.

TFR is and NZ

At one stage, the high Israeli birth rates were all about the Arab population, but apparently the Jewish and Arab-Israeli birth rates are now equal (Arab rates falling and Jewish rates –  especially among the orthodox –  rising.   (Israel also has a lot of immigration –  together they explain the very rapid population growth I highlighted yesterday – but that is a topic for another day.)

For forty years, New Zealanders in aggregate have been choosing to have slightly fewer children than would, all else equal, maintain the population.  But over that same period, there has also been a very large outflow of New Zealanders moving permanently to other countries (especially Australia).   In the forty years to March 2017, the estimated net outflow (as recorded in the PLT data, with all their limitations) of New Zealand citizens was 845,520.

plt since 78

There is a lot of cyclical volatility, but in not a single year in that period has the flow of New Zealand citizens been back to New Zealand.  In fact, the last time the data record a net inflow of New Zealand citizens was the year I was born.  By international standards, it is a staggering loss of our own people (more than 20 per cent of the average total population over that period).  I can’t think of any other functioning democracy in the last 100 years that has had such a large percentage outflow of its own people.

These New Zealanders have presumably been making their own choices and assessments about the opportunites for themselves and their (actual or potential) children.  Not only have they chosen to have not quite enough children to maintain the population, but many of them (us) have also decided that the opportunities abroad are simply better than those here.  Not all of them will necessarily have made the right choice, but average we should presume that it was a rational choice.  These aren’t simply patterns based on a single year’s whim, a single year’s bad news.

So New Zealanders’ own choices, about their own lives, would have set in train a process that would see a gradually falling population in New Zealand.   Immigration policy, regarding the access of non-citizens, dramatically reversed that, and has in fact given us one of the fastest population growth rates in the advanced world over recent decades.  You have to wonder what insights, and wisdom, our politicians and officials are blessed with that leads them to run a policy operating directly to undermine the effect of the choices of individual New Zealanders.  Perhaps they might share that wisdom, that research, with us one day, before they further worsen the prospects of the New Zealanders who chose to stay living here.

Declining populations do create some issues, as fast-growing ones do.  Over history –  even modern New Zealand’s short history –  many places have grown, and then faded away.  On the whole, it might be better to live in place that had so many opportunities, it could maintain strong productivity growth and offer those gains to more people (at least if transport and housing messes could be sorted out).  But one doesn’t fix the fundamental economic challenges –  that lead people individually to take actions that mean New Zealand’s population wouldm’t be growing –  just by going to a bunch of poorer countries and telling their people they can come here, in large numbers, if they want.   But, as I say, perhaps our political leaders could share with us their apparently superior insights and research results, which back their decisions to place their own preferences above the considered choices of New Zealand individuals.