Abstract
The case of Martinique offers some new insights on the capacity of diversification as a way out of recessions. Economic accounting of Martinique shows that diversification in service activities can have a causal and long effect on macroeconomic growth but not necessarily on per income capita growth. Reflecting on the last half century of this small island, an Overseas Region of France, using the models of the New Development Structuralist Approach suggests that diversification can be a consequence of a development strategy and a macroeconomic growth accelerator as well, if the territory itself is considered as a product: “a strategic invisible service”.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Otherwise named “capacities” of the economy.
- 2.
All the figures are authors’ calculations from regional accounts of Martinique and from World Indicator Indices (WDI) for France and Caribbean small states.
- 3.
In order to eliminate cyclical and erratic possible influences, regressions (1) and (2) are carried out with the trends of norm of absolute value (NVA), modified Lilien index (MLI), and the global GDP rate of growth, all computed with the Hodrick-Prescott filter.
- 4.
With residuals normally distributed, Fisher and student tests ascertaining the non-nullity of the parameters and the effective influence of indices and the RESET test attesting the linearity of the relation conducted, the quality of regressions is quite good, except for the specification weakness of the Durbin and Breush Pagan test (other explaining variables are missing).
- 5.
Because of the difference between the integration orders of time-series indices and the one of GDP per capita rate of growth.
- 6.
The continuing decrease of the real global GDP growth rate with an increase of the diversification indices.
- 7.
As is the case for other regions of France, as an expression of regional and spatial redistribution system in the French Republic.
- 8.
According to Putnam (1993), social capital covers the features of social organizations, such as trust, norms, and networks, that improve the effectiveness of society and facilitate coordinated actions.
- 9.
2.5% for all the overseas regions.
References
Baldacchino, Godfrey, and Geoffrey Bertram. “The Beak of the Finch: Insights into the Economic Development of Small, Often Island, Economies.” Small States: Economic Review and Basic Statistics, 12 (2007).
———. “The Beak of the Finch: Insights into the Economic Development of Small Economies.” The Round Table 98 (2009), 141–160.
Baldacchino, G., and D. Milne. Lessons from the Political Economy of Small Islands: The Resourcefulness of Jurisdiction. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000.
Bertram, G. “The MIRAB Model in the Twenty-First Century.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 47, no. 1 (2006): 1–13.
Bertram, G., and R. Watters “The MIRAB Economy in South Pacific Microstates.” Pacific Viewpoint 26, no. 2 (1985): 497–519.
Bertram, G., and B. Poirine. “Island Political Economy.” In A World of Islands, ed. Godfrey Baldacchino, 325–373. Malta: G. Baldacchino Editions, Media Center Publications, 2007.
Claude De Miras, C. “Le développement des petites économies insulaires relève-t-il encore de l’économie de marché?.” Revue Tiers Monde 38 (1997): 79–98.
Dietrich, A. “Does Growth Cause Structural Change, or Is It the Other Way Around? A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis for Seven OECD Countries.” Empirical Economics 43, no. 3 (2012): 915–944.
Granvorka, C.G., and P. Angelelli “The European Legal Framework in the French Caribbean.” Social and Economic Studies 65, no. 1 (2016): 87–105.
Lewis, W.A. “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor.” Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 22, no. 2 (1954): 139–191.
Lilien, D. “Sectoral Shifts and Cyclical Unemployment.” Journal of Political Economy 90, no. 4 (1982): 777–793.
McElroy, J.L. “Small Island Tourist Economies Across the Life Cycle.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 47, no. 1 (2006): 61–77.
McMillan, M., D. Rodrik, and C. Sepulveda Structural Change, Fundamentals, and Growth. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2016.
———. “Structural Change, Fundamentals, and Growth: A Framework and Case Studies.” Working Paper No. 23378, NBER, 2017.
Oberst, A., and J.L. McElroy. “Contrasting Socio-Economic and Demographic Profiles of Two, Small Island, Economic Species: MIRAB Versus PROFIT/SITE.” Island Studies Journal 2, no. 2 (2007): 164–176.
Poirine, Bernard. Small Island Economies: Theory and Development Strategies. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1995.
Putnam, R., R. Leonardi, and R.Y. Nanetti. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Rodrik, D. “Structural Change, Fundamentals, and Growth: An Overview.” 2013. https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/publications/structural-change-fundamentals-and-growth-overview.
Stern, N. “The Determinants of Growth.” Economic Journal 101, no. 404 (1991): 122–133.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Causality Tests, Cointegration Test and Regressions
Appendix: Causality Tests, Cointegration Test and Regressions
All tests and regressions are performed with Gretl software
(a) Causality Tests
Causality test index norm of absolute value (NAV) for production (PRODNAV) to growth rate of real per capita GDP (TxPIBtAtcons).
Equation 2 TxPIBtAtcons
Coefficient | Std error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0160651 | 0.0106804 | 1.504 | 0.1427 |
PRODNAV_1 | −0.807569 | 0.567939 | −1.422 | 0.1650 |
PRODNAV_2 | 1.81679 | 0.590801 | 3.075 | 0.0044*** |
PRODNAV_3 | 0.0106085 | 0.464639 | 0.02283 | 0.9819 |
TxPIBtAtcons_1 | −0.133702 | 0.174329 | −0.7670 | 0.4489 |
TxPIBtAtcons_2 | 0.337674 | 0.217313 | 1.554 | 0.1304 |
TxPIBtAtcons_3 | −0.423187 | 0.176711 | −2.395 | 0.0229** |
Fisher tests for no restriction:
All lags of PRODNAV F(3, 31) = 3.3889 [0.0302]
Causality test index modified Lilien index (MLI) for production (PRODMLI) to growth rate of real per capita GDP (TxPIBtAtcons).
Equation 1 TxPIBtAtcons
Coefficient | Std error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0180695 | 0.0101776 | 1.775 | 0.0856* |
TxPIBtAtcons_1 | −0.130.890 | 0.165906 | −0.7889 | 0.4361 |
TxPIBtAtcons_2 | 0.363477 | 0.223863 | 1.624 | 0.1146 |
TxPIBtAtcons_3 | −0.447105 | 0.179755 | −2.487 | 0.0185** |
PRODMLI_1 | −0.0748681 | 0.0477233 | −1.569 | 0.1268 |
PRODMLI_2 | 0.160.623 | 0.0484191 | 3.317 | 0.0023*** |
PRODMLI_3 | 8.95359e-05 | 0.0408131 | 0.002194 | 0.9983 |
Fisher tests for no restriction:
All lags of PRODMLI F(3, 31) = 3.8629 [0.0186].
Causality test index NAV for production (PRODNAV) to growth rate of real GLOBAL GDP (TXPIBCONS).
Equation 2 TXPIBCONST
Coefficient | Std. error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0183433 | 0.0104461 | 1.756 | 0.0890* |
PRODNAV_1 | −0.938466 | 0.488476 | −1.921 | 0.0639* |
PRODNAV_2 | 1.78460 | 0.484161 | 3.686 | 0.0009*** |
PRODNAV_3 | −0.0783544 | 0.452923 | −0.1730 | 0.8638 |
TXPIBCONST_1 | −0.0861520 | 0.191228 | −0.4505 | 0.6555 |
TXPIBCONST_2 | 0.456958 | 0.178603 | 2.559 | 0.0156** |
TXPIBCONST_3 | −0.409778 | 0.185530 | −2.209 | 0.0347** |
Fisher tests for no restriction:
All lags of PRODNAV F(3, 31) = 4.8232 [0.0072]
Causality test index MLI for production (PRODMLI) to growth rate of real GLOBAL GDP (TXPIBCONS).
Equation 1 TXPIBCONST
Coefficient | Std error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0200335 | 0.0100124 | 2.001 | 0.0542* |
TXPIBCONST_1 | −0.0914565 | 0.179870 | −0.5085 | 0.6147 |
TXPIBCONST_2 | 0.481670 | 0.178983 | 2.691 | 0.0114** |
TXPIBCONST_3 | −0.429126 | 0.182555 | −2.351 | 0.0253** |
PRODMLI_1 | −0.0874613 | 0.0384569 | −2.274 | 0.0300** |
PRODMLI_2 | 0.157059 | 0.0393897 | 3.987 | 0.0004*** |
PRODMLI_3 | −0.00547476 | 0.0391537 | −0.1398 | 0.8897 |
Fisher tests for no restriction:
All lags of PRODMLI F(3, 31) = 5.6665 [0.0032]
(b) Cointegration Tests
Cointegration of the trend of NAV for production (PRODNAV) and growth rate of trend of real GLOBAL GDP (TXhpPIBCONS)
Trends of PRODNAV (hpt_PRODNAV) and of real GLOBAL GDP (TXhptPIBCONST) are Hodrick-Prescott filters of the two variables
Step 3: cointegration
Cointegration regression
OLS using observations 1972–2002 (T = 31)
Dependent variable: TXhptPIBCONST
Coefficient | Std error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0228666 | 0.00128480 | 17.80 | 3.78e-017*** |
hpt_PRODNAV | 0.757540 | 0.0602914 | 12.56 | 2.94e-013*** |
Mean. Dep. var. | 0.037771 | Std error dep. var. | 0.006857 |
Sum-squared resids. | 0.000219 | Std error of regres. | 0.002748 |
R2 | 0.844812 | R2 adjusted | 0.839461 |
Log likelihood | 139.8548 | Akaike criterion | −275.7096 |
Schwarz criterion | −272.8416 | Hannan-Quinn | −274.7747 |
rho | 0.870156 | Durbin-Watson | 0.145035 |
Step 4: unit root test for residuals
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test for residuals
testing down from six lags, Akaike criterium (AIC)
Null hypothesis unit root: a = 1
Model: (1 − L)y = (a − 1)*y(−1) + … + e
Estimation (a − 1): −0.0552523
Test value: tau_c(2) = −1.76024
prob. 0.6497
Cointegration of the trend of MLI for production (PRODMLI) and growth rate of trend of real GLOBAL GDP (TXhpPIBCONS)
Trends of PRODNAV (hpt_PRODMLI) and of real GLOBAL GDP (TXhptPIBCONST) are Hodrick-Prescott filters of the two variables
Step 3: cointegration
Cointegration regression
Ordinary Least Square (OLS) using observations 1972–2002 (T = 31)
Dependent variable: TXhptPIBCONST
Coefficient | Std error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0240733 | 0.00135840 | 17.72 | 4.23e-017*** |
hpt_PRODMLI | 0.0657574 | 0.00596318 | 11.03 | 6.86e-012*** |
Mean dep. var. | 0.037771 | Std. error dep. var. | 0.006857 |
Sum-squared resids. | 0.000272 | Std. error of regression | 0.003061 |
R2 | 0.807437 | R2 adjusted | 0.800797 |
Log likelihood | 136.5101 | Akaike criterion | −269.0201 |
Schwarz criterion | −266.1522 | Hannan-Quinn | −268.0853 |
rho | 0.856393 | Durbin-Watson | 0.140440 |
Step 4: unit root test for residuals
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test for residuals
With 3 lags (1 − L) residuals
Null hypothesis of unit root: a = 1
Model: (1 − L)y = (a − 1)*y(−1) + … + e
Estimation (a − 1): −0.0522303
Test value: tau_c(2) = −1.80559
prob. 0.6276
(c) Regressions
Trends of PRODNAV, PRODMLI, and of real GLOBAL GDP are Hodrick-Prescott filters of the two variables
Regression 1: TXhptPIBCONST: a + b hpt_PRODNAV
OLS using observations 1972–2002 (T = 31)
Dependent variable: TXhptPIBCONST
Coefficient | Std error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0228666 | 0.00141737 | 16.13 | 5.06e-016*** |
hpt_PRODNAV | 0.757540 | 0.0925790 | 8.183 | 5.06e-09*** |
Mean dep. var. | 0.037771 | Std error dep. var. | 0.006857 |
Sum of squared resids. | 0.000219 | Std. error of regression | 0.002748 |
R2 | 0.844812 | R2 adjusted | 0.839461 |
F(1, 29) | 66.95535 | prob. (F) | 5.06e-09 |
Log likelihood | 139.8548 | Akaike criterion | −275.7096 |
Schwarz criterion | −272.8416 | Hannan-Quinn | −274.7747 |
rho | 0.870156 | Durbin-Watson | 0.145035 |
Normality tests for residuals
Hull Hypothesis: resids. are normally distributed
Chi-deux(2) = 0.974865
prob. = 0.614201
RESET test for linearity
Null hypothesis: the relation is linear
F Test: F(2, 27) = 12.6589
With prob. = P(F(2, 27) > 12.6589) = 0.000132326
Regression 2: TXhptPIBCONST: a + b hpt_PRODMLI
OLS using observations 1972–2002 (T = 31)
Dependent variable: TXhptPIBCONST
Coefficient | Std error | t student | Prob | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Const | 0.0240733 | 0.00148582 | 16.20 | 4.52e-016*** |
hpt_PRODMLI | 0.0657574 | 0.00943241 | 6.971 | 1.15e-07*** |
Mean. dep. var. | 0.037771 | Std error dep. var. | 0.006857 |
Sum-squared resid. | 0.000272 | Éc. type of regression | 0.003061 |
R2 | 0.807437 | R2 adjusted | 0.800797 |
F(1, 29) | 48.60082 | prob. (F) | 1.15e-07 |
Log likelihood | 136.5101 | Akaike criterion | −269.0201 |
Schwarz criterion | −266.1522 | Hannan-Quinn | −268.0853 |
rho | 0.856393 | Durbin-Watson | 0.140440 |
Normality test for residuals
Null hypothesis: resids. are normally distributed
Chi-deux(2) = 0.0866859
prob. = 0.957583
RESET test for linearity—
Null hypothesis: the relation is linear
F test: F(2, 27) = 20.0549
With prob. = P(F(2, 27) > 20.0549) = 4.5899e-006
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marques, B., Granvorka, C.G. (2019). Diversification, Macroeconomic Growth and Development: The Case of Martinique. In: Bissessar, A. (eds) Development, Political, and Economic Difficulties in the Caribbean. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02994-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02994-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02993-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02994-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)