This paper provides an empirical evaluation of the impact of infrastructure development on economic growth and income distribution using a large panel data set encompassing over 100 countries and spanning the years 1960-2000. The empirical strategy involves the estimation of simple equations for GDP growth and conventional inequality measures, augmented to include among the regressors infrastructure quantity and quality indicators in addition to standard controls. To account for the potential endogeneity of infrastructure (as well as that of other regressors), we use a variety of GMM estimators based on both internal and external instruments, and report results using both disaggregated and synthetic measures of infrastructure quantity and quality. The two robust results are: (i) growth is positively affected by the stock of infrastructure assets, and (ii) income inequality declines with higher infrastructure quantity and quality. A variety of specification tests suggest that these results do capture the causal impact of the exogenous component of infrastructure quantity and quality on growth and inequality. These two results combined suggest that infrastructure development can be highly effective to combat poverty. Furthermore, illustrative simulations for Latin American countries suggest that these impacts are economically quite significant, and highlight the growth acceleration and inequality reduction that would result from increased availability and quality of infrastructure.

Saving rates display considerable variation across countries and over time. This paper investigates empirically the policy and nonpolicy factors behind these saving disparities using a large, cross-country, time-series data set and following an encompassing approach including a number of relevant private saving determinants. The paper extends the literature in several dimensions. It uses the largest data set on aggregate saving assembled to date and explores both national and private saving determinants. It uses panel instrumental-variable techniques to correct for endogeneity and heterogeneity. Finally, it performs a variety of robustness checks to changes in estimation procedures, data samples, and model specification. © 2000 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Macroeconomic volatility, both a source and a reflection of underdevelopment, is a fundamental concern for developing countries. Their high aggregate instability results from a combination of large external shocks, volatile macroeconomic policies, microeconomic rigidities, and weak institutions. Volatility entails a direct welfare cost for risk-averse individuals, as well as an indirect one through its adverse effect on income growth and development. This article provides a brief overview of the recent literature on macroeconomic volatility in developing countries, highlighting its causes, consequences, and possible remedies. It then introduces the contributions of a recent conference on the subject, sponsored by the World Bank and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona.

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

Using a large sample of developing and industrialized economies during 1970-1999, this paper explores whether the choice of exchange rate regime affects the sensitivity of local interest rates to international interest rates. In most cases, we cannot reject full transmission of international interest rates in the long run, even for countries with floating regimes. Only a couple of large industrial countries can choose their own interest rates in the long run. However, short-run effects differ across regimes. Dynamic estimates show that interest rates of countries with more flexible regimes adjust more slowly to changes in international rates, implying some capacity for monetary independence. #