This paper examines the supply side drivers of growth in emerging market and developing economics (EMDEs) during the past decades and discusses the role of productivity-enhancing reforms in bolstering future growth prospects. It examines aggregate and sectoral productivity trends including around reform episodes to draw broad policy lessons on what policies are needed to increase productivity. Findings suggest appropriate policies need to be tailored to the stage of economic development and to other pertinent features that give rise to the heterogeneous experiences of EMDEs.

No abstract

Finger, and an IMF Staff Team 2 Authorized for distribution by Siddharth Tiwari June 2015 DISCLAIMER: This Staff Discussion Note represents the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent IMF views or IMF policy. The views expressed herein should be attributed to the authors and not to the IMF, its Executive Board, or its management. Staff Discussion Notes are published to elicit comments and to further debate.

This paper seeks to understand the behavior of Greenspan's Federal Reserve in the late 1990s.Some authors suggest that the Fed followed a simple "Taylor rule," while others argue that it deviated from such a rule because it recognized that the "New Economy" permitted an easing of policy. We find that a Taylor rule based on inflation and unemployment does break down in the late 1990s. However, the Fed's behavior appears stable once one accounts for the falling NAIRU of the period. A rule based on inflation and the deviation of unemployment from the NAIRU captures the Fed's behavior through the entire period from 1987 to 2000.

Financial markets in the CE4 countries are still shallow compared to other advanced EU countries. While the government bond markets are comparable in size, measured by capitalization in percent of GDP, the private bond, private credit, and equity markets lag behind. Empirical analysis in this paper helps identify factors that explain this phenomenon. We find that the observed differences cannot be explained by macroeconomic variables only, but incorporating indicators of institutional development and external funding eliminates the gap in the case of the equity and private credit markets. However, for the private bond market a significant gap remains even after accounting for these factors.