The Myth of the Middle Income Trap

The Economist writes,

The forces of economic convergence are powerful, but not all powerful. Poor countries tend to grow faster than rich ones, largely because imitation is easier than invention. But that does not mean that every poor country of five decades ago has caught up, as today’s chart shows. It plots each country’s income per person (adjusted for purchasing power) relative to that of America, both in 1960 and in 2008. The chart appeared in the World Bank's recent China 2030 report. If every country had caught up, they would all be found in the top row. In fact, most countries that were middle income in 1960 remained so in 2008 (see the middle cell of the chart). Only 13 countries escaped this middle-income trap, becoming high-income economies in 2008 (top-middle). One of these success stories, it should not be forgotten, was Greece.

This is an example of how macro statistics can be used to mislead people. Countries essentially don’t fall into “traps”, it is the individual who make or unmake their respective wealth.

What truly restrains people from advancing is when productive resources are diverted into non-productive use. That’s basic, and is a matter of the law of opportunity costs or the law of scarcity.

And what induces non-productive use of resources are insatiable government spending, the welfare state, bloated bureaucracy and trade restrictions, anti-competition laws, bubble policies (or policies which induces consumption), inflationism (QEs) and all sorts of market distorting interventionism. Yes, all of them are interconnected.

As the great Professor Ludwig von Mises wrote, (bold emphasis added)

Each authoritarian interference with business diverts production, of course, from the lines it would take if it were only directed by the demand of the consumers as manifested on the market. The characteristic mark of restrictive interference with production is that the diversion of production is not merely an unavoidable and unintentional secondary effect, but precisely what the authority wants to bring about. Like any other act of intervention, such restrictive measures affect consumption also. But this again, in the case of the restrictive measures we are dealing with in this chapter, is not the primary end the authority aims at. The government wants to interfere with production. The fact that its measure influences the ways of consumption also is, from its point of view, either altogether contrary to its intentions or at least an unwelcome consequence with which it puts up because it is unavoidable and is considered as a minor evil when compared with the consequences of nonintervention.

Restriction of production means that the government either forbids or makes more difficult or more expensive the production, transportation, or distribution of definite articles, or the application of definite modes of production, transportation, or distribution. The authority thus eliminates some of the means available for the satisfaction of human wants. The effect of its interference is that people are prevented from using their knowledge and abilities, their labor and their material means of production in the way in which they would earn the highest returns and satisfy their needs as much as possible. Such interference makes people poorer and less satisfied.

In short, the more intervention, the lesser the capital accumulation or reduced economic growth. When politicians become greedy enough to divert much wealth into policy driven consumption activities then productivity diminishes. And that's where the so-called statistical 'trap' comes in.

Bottomline: the so-called Middle income trap represents a macroeconomic hooey.