Personal Statement
1. Philosophy of Teaching:
My teaching philosophy emphasizes the importance of historical, institutional, and political conditions in determining the evolution and relative importance of economic concepts and issues. It has been my experience that this interdisciplinary approach enhances the interest of students in the subject matter because they begin to realize that economic concepts do not develop in a social and political vacuum and, mutatis mutandis, are capable of enhancing their understanding of a wide variety of past and current events. Moreover, this pedagogical approach fosters classroom discussion and participation which, in my opinion, is the best vehicle for stimulating the development of an independent and critical mind. This ultimately leads to a more substantive and lasting understanding of difficult economic concepts and issues.
As evidenced by my teaching evaluations at Trinity College over the past eight years, and at Yale and Wesleyan universities where I have frequently taught as a visiting faculty member, students have responded enthusiastically to my teaching style, organization of course work, and the challenging content of my lectures and seminars. In key categories such as "Successfully organized the course material," "Presented course material clearly," "Showed enthusiasm in teaching subject matter," "Was prepared for class," and "How would you rate the instructor in comparison to other instructors you have had at Trinity?" my scores fall well-within College and Departmental standards of excellence.
To illustrate more clearly my pedagogical approach to teaching economics, I will provide four examples of my teaching methods: one at the introductory or survey level (Economics 101), another in International Finance(Economics 316), one from my Latin American Economic Development course (Economics 231), and finally, an example from my seminar dealing with economic issues and problems in international finance and development (Economics 331).
As a first example, consider the development of the Keynesian or Amodern theory@ of employment and income in Economics 101, the introductory course. At times it is presented in a "cookbook" fashion without any attention being paid to the historical roots and/or institutional reasons why these concepts emerged. Nor is it asked whether the concepts so developed are applicable to current economic and social conditions. At the end of the process, students are often confused about the significance and relevance of all the diagrams, derivations, and concepts such as the income (employment) multiplier really are. At best, they can manipulate a few algebraic expressions and in a mechanistic fashion solve for the equilibrium level of income. In my course, in addition to being able to perform these technical exercises, students are required to delve into the economic, social, and institutional factors which led to the emergence of the modern theory as a potential alternative to the classical system. To motivate the students to do the required readings from Keynes's General Theory or Marshall's Principles, I read from time to time relevant passages from these works as I elaborate the distinction between the so-called modern and classical systems. Usually, this method engages the students' attention and motivates them to participate in class discussion, as well as perform the required assignments. Put differently, by emphasizing the historical origins of these concepts, students no longer treat them as ready-made ideas which have to be memorized and/or manipulated; they come to see them as having a definite connection with real world events and personalities. It has been my experience that this approach also works well with the presentation of other material in the course, such as perfect and imperfect competition, utility analysis, elasticities, and comparative advantage.
I approach the International Finance course in a different fashion. The reason for the difference in approach lies partly in the fact that the students who attend this course are, by and large, economic majors and usually in their junior or senior year. To a greater or lesser extent, they are self-motivated and willing to do work which goes beyond the usual boundaries of the textbook, assigned readings, and classroom setting. Therefore, in addition to examining theoretical issues such as the impact of real disturbances on open economies with flexible exchange rates and varying degrees of capital mobility, I motivate their interest by providing real world application of these concepts, such as the link between the sharp appreciation of the pound sterling, the North Sea oil boom, and the deterioration of the international competitiveness of British manufactured goods during the late seventies; the unprecedented rise in the value of the dollar between 1980 and early 1985 and the associated deficit in the current account; the underlying economic and political reasons for the demise of the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System during the 1992 and 1993 crises; the Mexican peso debacle of 1994-1995; the Asian and Russian crises; and the more recent Brazilian devaluation. These examples, in addition to readings from relevant journals such as the Journal of Economic Perspectives, the Journal of Economic Issues, Contemporary Economic Policy, Federal Reserve publications, the New York Times, and specialized reports such as the Finance and Development, provide students with an historical and institutional framework to which they can refer when writing their own original research papers. It also helps immensely in stimulating classroom discussion and participation which, in my opinion, is the best channel for fostering independent thinking and lasting knowledge of difficult economic concepts.
Students taking the Latin American Economic Development course, Economics 231, are both economics and non-economic majors. Economics 101 is the only requirement. I therefore achieve my teaching objectives by first acquainting students with the individual histories of the major countries of the region; second, identifying those economic patterns and processes shared in common by Latin American societies; and third, ascertaining (if possible) the economic and institutional reasons for the differences in their economic performance and historical development. (A case in point is the highly divergent economic and social development of Costa Rica and Guatemala.) Throughout the course, I stress that in order to understand fully the economic problems and challenges facing Latin America and the Caribbean, they must be placed within the context of global economic expansion and integration, especially from the mid-nineteenth century onward (i.e., with the beginning of their export-import phase of development).
To ensure classroom discussion and participation, I require students to participate directly in the presentation of the more historically oriented material. This usually occurs after the mid-term exam in order to insure that students have the basic theoretical and institutional building blocks in place when organizing and interpreting new historical, economic, and institutional data. Thus, a student or a group of students is selected on a voluntary basis each week to make a presentation on the economic, historical, and legal-institutional development of a particular country or group of countries of the region (e.g., the nations of Central America). For this approach to be successful, it is useful to have a book which surveys the recent economic history of the countries of the region (e.g., Skidmore and Smith's Modern Latin America). Of course, this does not preclude the student from making use of other relevant sources of information such as journal articles, books, and reports (e.g., Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, World Development Report, Finance and Development, etc.). The student presentations are then followed by a question and answer session that gives members of the class (as well as the instructor) an opportunity to challenge and/or make further comments on the presentation of their peers.
The student presentations are organized in such a way that they do not constrain the presentation of the theoretical and more technical aspects of the course. Thus, since the course meets twice per week, one session is devoted to student presentations and to the question and answer period. In the other class period I lead the discussion by concentrating on the economic and theoretical aspects of the course (see course syllabus). (I have found Meier's Leading Issues in Economic Development , Bulmer-Thomas's Economic History of Latin America, Cardoso's Latin America's Economy , and my own packet of selected articles and edited works to be useful sources of readings for the economic and technical requirements of the course.) By following this interdisciplinary approach, students are more motivated since they realize how important the combination of economic and historical factors is in inducing social changes that, in turn, have important political consequences for the countries of the region.
Besides the student presentations, I have found it pedagogically useful to require every other week a short critical essay (no more than five type-written pages) on those assigned readings which I deem to be of crucial importance to the successful development of the course. At a minimum, these short essays must 1) identify and outline the underlying thesis or theses of the assigned reading, 2) provide a brief summary of the various sections of the paper, 3) discuss the various arguments and evidence provided by the author (s) to support their major thesis or theses, and finally, provide a concise and evaluative summary of the assigned reading; i.e., they must provide me with reasons why they consider the paper to be good, useful, or simply bad. These exercises enhance class discussion since they compel the student to organize critically his or her thoughts about the material presented in class. I follow a similar approach before the mid-term and final examination by giving the students at least nine potential questions a week in advance out of which I select five or six. Students have responded enthusiastically to this method of teaching since it helps them organize, what is at times, a vast volume of new historical facts and difficult economic concepts.
Each member of the class is also required to write a typed paper of at least 18, but no more than, 25 pages on what he/she considers to be the leading obstacles to economic development and social progress in Latin America. In this connection, students are encouraged to meet with me individually after the mid-term to discuss their ideas for a paper. Three weeks before the term ends they are required to hand in an outline of their proposed paper.
Turning to my senior seminar in International Finance and Economic development (Econ. 331), I organize the discussion of economic problems and issues around a carefully prepared packet of selected articles from periodicals such as the Journal of Economic Perspectives, the Journal of Development Studies, the Journal of Economic Issues, Contemporary Economic Policy, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Finance and Development, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Federal Reserve publications, and selections from IMF, IDB and World Bank publications (including working papers). Students in the seminar tend to be self-motivated and have a solid background in the intermediate theory courses, so they can be exposed to more technical and intellectually demanding material. It is therefore possible to require that they write on a weekly basis a typed paper of at least 4 pages (and at most six) that examines the assigned readings (and other material that they deem to be relevant to the discussion) in a critical manner. Although this constitutes a challenge for all of us, I make a concerted effort to review these papers in a timely fashion and provide ample comments and criticisms, as well as suggestions for improvement and further research. It should be pointed out that during the first three weeks of the seminar I devote time to reviewing key economic concepts and issues, as well as informing students of what I expect of them in terms of participation, attendance, the organization of their weekly review papers, and the writing of their major research paper.
Once the basic foundations of the seminar have been firmly put in place, it is possible for me to assume the role of moderator and allow the students to take the initiative in leading the discussion of the economic issues and problems at hand. Usually the week prior to our next meeting, one or two students are asked to lead the discussion on issues such as whether capital account liberalization introduces an intrinsic instability into the financial system as a result of sudden portfolio adjustments, and whether capital controls would be effective in reducing the speed of these adjustments. I encourage them to supplement their assigned readings with works cited in the bibliography, any relevant materials they have come across in previous courses, as well as my own suggestions for further reading. I also emphasize to students that it is important to write an outline or summary (not a verbatim account) beforehand of the major points and issues addressed in the targeted articles, rather than memorize them outright or rely on "spontaneous" remarks and observations. In this manner the student presentations have an inherent consistency and structure that, at the same time, does not detract from the semi-informal nature of the seminar setting. As indicated in my evaluations, students at Trinity and elsewhere find my seminars to be intellectually demanding, interesting, and impartial in their coverage of divergent schools of economic thought and current issues.
To summarize, my teaching philosophy emphasizes the importance of historical, social, and political factors in determining the origin and relevance of economic concepts and ideas. In so doing, the interest of students in the subject matter is enhanced since they come to see economic concepts as arising from particular historical and institutional arrangements, and therefore capable of shedding light on a wide variety of past and current events.
2. Research :
As indicated in my curriculum vitae and furnished materials, since my appointment as an associate professor in economics during the fall of 1989 I have been very active in the field of Latin American economic development. Below I will outline the three major areas of my past and ongoing research.
By and large, my research has examined in a critical and systematic manner the changing (and diminished) role of the state in the capital formation process of countries such as Mexico and Chile as they attempt to stabilize their economies and pursue market-oriented reforms. At the theoretical level I have developed a conceptual framework that explicitly incorporates the public capital stock as a separate input in a modified neoclassical production function; in so doing, I have been able to analyze various conceptual effects associated with a ceteris paribus increase in public investment spending in both closed and open economies. In the case where the public capital stock is productive and complementary to the private capital stock, an increase in the former will raise output directly in the same way an increase in any other factor of production raises output. Second, it will indirectly raise private investment spending and output by increasing the marginal productivity of the private capital stock relative to a given real interest rate. Third, it will increase output through its positive effect on the marginal productivity of labor; i.e., by increasing the amounts of private and public capital per worker and through technological improvements embodied in the new increments of capital. In the case where public capital expenditures displace private capital formation, an increase in public investment spending via, say, the operations of state-owned enterprises generates a positive direct effect, but a negative effect (via its effects on private investment and labor productivity) that could easily offset it. Lastly, in the case where private and public capital are independent, an increase in the latter will only generate a direct positive effect on output and, perhaps, labor productivity in the public sector.
My work in this area has also led me to undertake research in the targets-instruments literature where I have generated static and dynamic models, under conditions of certainty and uncertainty (in a probabilistic sense), that include the composition of government spending as an additional policy instrument for targeting desired internal and external objectives. For example, my paper entitled, "Direct Effects of Public Spending on Private Spending (1996)" I examine the impact of changes in both the level and composition of government spending on relevant targets in the flexible rate case with perfect capital mobility. It is shown that public officials may prescribe potentially destabilizing policies if they mistakenly believe that they are operating in the conventional model.
As a natural outgrowth and maturity of my theoretical work, I have undertaken in recent years several econometric investigations that address the potential impact of public investment expenditures on private capital formation and productivity growth for Latin America as a whole (via panel data), and Mexico and Chile in particular (via time-series data). The estimated models range from Two Stage Least Squares (2SLS) estimation of private investment functions to the estimation of error correction models (ECM) derived from cointegration analysis of dynamic production functions which include, inter alia, public and private investment (as a proportion of GDP) as explanatory variables. In the past two years, I have also estimated models that include a capital stock series (using the perpetual inventory model) for public and private investment for both Chile and Mexico. The estimates obtained have been consistent with my previous findings (e.g., see my recent article entitled, "Public Capital Formation and Labor Productivity Growth in Chile" (2000)).
After accounting for several economic and qualitative factors, the statistical findings suggest that public investment in economic and social infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, dams, education), as opposed to investments by relatively inefficient state-owned enterprises, tend to "crowd in" private investment spending and enhance productivity growth in the region. These results are in line with those obtained by other prominent investigators, such as Aschauer (1989; 1990; 1992), Barro (1990), Cardoso (1993), Green and Villanueva (1991), Kelly (1997), Ram (1996), Serven and Solimano (1993), and Cruz and Teixeira (1999). The original contribution of my research in this area is that, aside from formulating an internally coherent conceptual model for analyzing the impact of public investment spending, it relies, in the cases of Chile and Mexico, on time series data for both public and private capital formation that stretches as far back as 1950. With the exception of work by Calderon (1989), Cardoso (1993), Looney (1995), Solimano (1990; 1993), there are no other extant time series studies for Latin America (and Mexico and Chile in particular) that examine the direct impact of government investment spending on private investment expenditures and labor productivity growth. In the above mentioned studies, the authors' findings are relatively less compelling and robust because they: (1) do not develop an internally consistent conceptual apparatus for incorporating the impact of public and private investment; (2) their time series data are not as disaggregated and do not extend as far back; (3) they often use population data rather than labor force data or substitute investment data for capital stock data; and (4), they do not employ the latest econometric methods and techniques for estimating nonstationary macroeconomic data over time, namely, cointegration analysis.
My work on the role of the state in the economies of Latin America, and Mexico in particular, has naturally led me to a related area of inquiry and research, viz., the economic and social impact of privatization and liberalization reforms in the region. In the Mexican case, I have written several articles and chapters in edited works that discuss the evolution, theoretical rationale, and preliminary impact of the country's privatization and liberalization program. In so doing, the major economic and political arguments advocated by neoliberal enthusiasts--not to be confused with neoclassical economists (there is a difference!)--for privatization and liberalization in the region are critically examined in light of the Mexican and Chilean experiences. For example, I consider and evaluate the intellectual merit of ideas such as a functionally neutral or minimalist state, economic efficiency and the lack of a proper regulatory environment, principal-agent problems associated with public enterprises, the role of privatization in "signaling" and establishing political credibility, and last but not least, conjunctural factors such as the "cut off" from external sources of funds (as a result of the debt crisis) in the decision to privatize.
My work shows, through a variety of concrete examples, how the state's unprecedented withdrawal from key economic sectors has generated in the Mexican case an unprecedented concentration of economic power in key industries, such as banking and finance, attracted mostly speculative capital into the stock market, led to a massive loss of jobs in affected industries, compromised hard-won labor rights for all Mexican workers, led to a drastic reduction in social services and a concomitant increase in overall poverty, and, perhaps most importantly, reduced the state's ability to foster economic and social policies that pave the way for sustained growth and broad-based economic development.
Another important area addressed by my work on privatization relates to the new and often deficient regulatory frameworks that have emerged from the region's privatization of public service sectors. The problem is not so much the lack of a system for commercializing property rights through contract law--as the cases of Chile and Costa Rica demonstrate--but rather, many of these systems are emerging with little or no track record, poor enforcement mechanisms. They are underequipped, understaffed, and their personnel are poorly paid relative to the industry that is being regulated. The net result is that cases take a long time to work their way through the court system, monitoring costs are high, outcomes are often unpredictable, and regulators may be susceptible to bribes and political influence.
In addition, the regulatory systems and antitrust laws have tended to emerge after, rather than before, the privatization of a public service firm (as happened with the merger of the recently privatized Aeromexico and Mexicana airlines in the beginning of 1993). Under these circumstances it is not possible for regulators to establish a track record and rectify some of the worst operational problems that are likely to emerge. That is, it is far easier to combat practices aimed at creating market power such as mergers, than it is to combat the anti-competitive practices of established monopolists, such as collusion and predatory pricing (Aeromexico and Mexicana now control over 70 percent of the domestic air travel, and have almost complete control over the most traveled trunk routes.
Finally, the permissive nature of the regulatory frameworks in place in many countries of Latin America (including Chile) may mean that government officials are willing to trade off improved internal efficiency of privatized firms for potentially deteriorated allocative efficiency; that is, they are betting that the loss in allocative efficiency and social equity in the present will be more than offset in the long run by increased profitability, investment, and technological progress in the privatized firms. Unfortunately, as my work has shown, from the standpoint of social equity this could be another version of the "trickle-down" approach that tended to dominate thought in the 1980s (see my recent article entitled, "Privatization and Regulatory Reform in Mexico and Chile: A Critical Overview" (1998)).
At this juncture, I should point out that many of my reservations about the nature, speed, and lack of regulatory supervision and transparency which characterized the privatization and deregulation process in Mexico (which I may add were, in many respects, similar to those found in the Chilean experience during 1978-81) came as early as 1991-92--and not with the benefit of hindsight following the economic and financial debacle of late 1994 (see Ramirez, 1994 and 1995).
Insofar as liberalization of the tradeable sector is concerned, I have discussed in several articles and reviews the nature and impact of Mexico's current trade reform strategy (culminating with the passage of NAFTA in 1993) in the context of severe macroeconomic stabilization. The evidence suggests that, with the removal of the highly protectionist and "byzantine" import licensing system in 1986 after joining GATT, Mexico's liberalization program has enabled exporters to have greater access to competitively priced factor inputs and technology, thereby allowing them to compete more effectively in world markets. The econometric evidence I have garnered suggests that over the past twelve years the trade reform program has been partly responsible for the remarkable growth in non-oil exports and the diversification of the country's export structure. The growth in non-oil exports has been concentrated in the manufacturing (maquiladora) sector, particularly in branches with a strong participation by transnational corporations. This is a welcome development because these firms tend to contribute to the transfer of technology and managerial knowhow, as well as make relatively greater use of the country's abundant factor of production.
Having said this, my research also points out several problems that may undermine the progress made so far by Mexico's trade liberalization and investment program. For example, the deflationary policies that have been implemented, pari passu, with the trade reform measures have generated deep cuts in investments in economic and social infrastructure such as roads and highways, port facilities, bridges, sewerage and water systems, health facilities, and education services. These types of investments are indispensable for capturing the long-term efficiency, productivity, and employment benefits promised by liberalization enthusiasts. Of course, it can be argued that the government need not provide these quasi-public goods directly. The goods can be contracted out to the private sector in accordance with government specifications and guidelines. In fact, in recent years Chile and Mexico have been privatizing the production and provision of quasi-public goods and services. However, as the "highway of the Sun" fiasco in Mexico clearly illustrates (see World Bank Report, 1994), relatively little or no attention has been given to monitoring costs and the nature of the concessions granted to the private sector in the outsourcing of public works projects. If these costs are substantial, particularly in the long run, then the bias in favor of privatizing these types of expenditures may disappear.
Another current problem with Mexico's ongoing trade and investment strategy resides in its over-dependence on the U.S. market for both its exports and imports--a trend which has been accentuated since the passage of NAFTA. To begin with, this state of affairs renders the tradeable sector (and therefore the Mexican economy) not only highly vulnerable to the vagaries of the U.S. business cycle, but also to the resurfacing of protectionist fears in this country. Second, the most dynamic segment of the tradeable sector during the past ten years has been the maquiladora (assembly-line) industry, but given its limited linkages with domestic suppliers and markets, it has had, in toto, a meager spread or multiplier effect on the rest of the Mexican economy. Finally, the woefully inadequate infrastructure and lax enforcement of environmental and health standards in this industry threatens the quality of life and future growth of the border region.
My last major area of research interest lies in the literature dealing with the nature, timing, and sequencing of stabilization (expenditure-changing) and adjustment (expenditure-switching) policies in Latin America as a whole, and Mexico and Chile in particular. In several theoretical and empirical papers I discuss and assess the deleterious impact of IMF-sponsored programs on the working poor--the great majority of the people--of Latin America by focusing on the evolution of real salaries (both average and real minimum wages), employment levels (in the formal and informal sectors), and health and education indicators (an indirect gauge of the quality of the country's stock of human capital). I also examine and analyze the shortcomings of applying simultaneously conventional stabilization and adjustment programs, especially in terms of their highly negative impact on the region's rate of capital formation--its future source of income growth and employment creation. That is, as observed by Krugman (1978)and Taylor (1978; 1983; 1997) some years ago in their now seminal work, expenditure-switching policies such as real devaluation may have major unexpected expenditure-reducing effects in the short to medium run in small open economies. These policies also have negative effects on the distribution of income and the capacity to import key intermediate goods and capital inputs denominated in foreign currency. The distributional effect arises because a real devaluation induces a fall in the real wage and a concomitant shift in the distribution of income from low-saving workers towards high-saving capitalists. Under conditions of excess capacity, the higher potential saving is likely to lead to further economic contraction with a worsening of the distribution of income unless export volume responds quickly to the real devaluation. However, in most developing countries, an export elasticity close to one with respect to the exchange rate is a reality only in the medium run. That is, the positive effects of real devaluation on the tradeable sector, if forthcoming at all, will only materialize after a considerable period of time. In the meantime, if monetary and fiscal policies are overly restrictive, there is a high likelihood of excessive contraction, or what has been called Aoverkill@ by IMF critics. The prohibitive increase in the domestic currency cost of imported capital inputs, on the other hand, arises as a result of the absence in many of the countries of Latin America of an integrated capital goods sector capable of endogenously generating technology.
My own empirical work in this area, as well as that of other prominent researchers, suggests that repeated devaluations of the domestic currency (in the short run), indiscriminate cuts in government investment, particularly central government capital expenditures, and huge reverse net transfers of resources out of Latin America have all had a statistically negative effect on private capital formation and growth. These results give further support to the theoretical work, and policy arguments, of Krugman (1978), Taylor (1983; 1997), Cardoso (1993), Calva(1995; 1997), Giron (1998), Hicks (1991), Ibarra (1996), and Riedel (1992) for discontinuing the forceful and simultaneous application of conventional measures, because they often lead, in the case of the small open economies of Latin America and the Caribbean, to chronic stagflationary pressures, social malaise, and political instability.
In view of the differential impact of stabilization measures, and the differing speeds of adjustment between the tradeable and nontradeable sectors, it is preferable, in a "second best" world, to follow a sequential and gradualist approach in the short to medium run. (Of course, in a perfectly competitive setting the optimal path to follow is to open all markets at once.) In other words, it is better to first gradually devalue the currency--and then implement a crawling-peg system to control the rate of domestic currency appreciation--since a current account deficit that cannot be financed with a net inflow of funds becomes a binding constraint on growth. Then, after implementing a number of complementary policies that I discuss in further detail in my work, expenditure-reducing measures such as a decrease in the rate of growth of real public spending (and domestic credit) should be undertaken without indiscriminately reducing investments in infrastructure, health, and education. In recent years Chile, as opposed to Mexico, has pursued this more sensible approach with superior results in terms of real per capita growth, investment and savings performance, and the reduction of overall and indigent poverty (see my article entitled, "Public Capital Formation and Labor Productivty Growth in Chile" (2000)). Finally, my work outlines a long-run neostructuralist alternative proposed by several prominent investigators (see Meller, 1991; Ros, 1995 and 1996, Sunkel, 1994, Taylor 1983, 1997) that goes beyond the demand-side approach of conventional analysis and emphasizes the need to address in an economically responsible and politically credible fashion structural bottlenecks. These include: (1) supply inelasticities and low productivity of the agricultural sector of many countries of the region; (2) the inefficient and regressive tax systems that renders nations such as Mexico, Brazil and Honduras overly dependent on export and tariff revenues; (3) the lack of diversity and technological sophistication in the export structure of many countries; and (4), the highly regressive distribution of income and wealth that limits the size of the internal market of many countries, thereby preventing newly privatized firms from reaping internal economies of scale. Production costs are therefore high and profit rates low, which often leads to low rates of capital formation and savings--particularly in the presence of underdeveloped and shallow capital markets and inadequate infrastructure.
The neostructuralist position to which I subscribe also incorporates the political and distributional struggle as an essential element in understanding the persistence of inflationary pressures in Latin America. Following the lead of Albert Hirschman (1981), inflation is conceived as a social mechanism that permits society to exist in a situation when no economic group or social class is sufficiently powerful to impose its stabilization program over any extended period of time. The significance of viewing inflation in this manner is that it forces policymakers to address explicitly the political and social constraints generated by the stabilization process as powerful economic groups and social classes place competing claims on the nation's dwindling economic pie. Equipped with this valuable knowledge, policymakers are therefore in a better position to implement the appropriate mix of economic and political incentives to enhance their political credibility and commitment to sensible market-based reforms.
In addition to my book Mexico's Economic Crisis: Its Origins and Consequences (Praeger 1989), my research in the three areas outlined above has led to the publication of articles in Comparative Economic Studies (1991), Contemporary Economic Policy (1997, 2000) the Eastern Economic Journal (1990; 1991; 1995; 1998), the Journal of Developing Areas (1993), the Journal of Economics and Business (1992), the Journal of Economic Issues (1993), Organization (1995), and the Southern Economic Journal (1990; 1994).
During the past four years I have had several articles published or accepted for publication in the three major areas of research outlined above, including one with an undergraduate student, Shahryar Khan, in International Advances in Economic Research (1999) which tests the purchasing power hypothesis for five industrial countries using cointegration and error-correction modeling. Another article in the Atlantic Economic Journal (1996) compares and contrasts the changing role of the state in Mexico and Chile during the ISI and post-ISI period. It shows that the legitimation and investment functions of the state cannot be properly understood unless one relates them to the internal and external political and social constraints placed upon it by key economic agents, social classes, and multilateral institutions. The article also provides contrasting econometric evidence for the Mexican and Chilean cases on the important question of whether public and private investment spending enhances average labor productivity growth.
A paper in Contemporary Economic Policy (1997) with Nader Nazmi (of Lake Forest College, Chicago) analyzes the changing role of the Mexican state in the investment process during the ISI and post-ISI period, and estimates a dynamic neoclassical production function utilizing the Phillips-Perron test for unit roots and the Johansen-Juselius cointegration method. (I am also in the process of writing an empirical paper with Professor Nazmi that investigates, using panel data for nine Latin American nations over the 1970-92 period, the major determinants of private capital formation and economic growth in the region. Our preliminary results suggest that there is a positive and significant relationship between (lagged) public investment and output growth, and that there is no statistically discernible difference between the impact of private investment spending and public investment expenditures on the growth rate of output. In addition, the results suggest that current public investment expenditures crowds out private capital formation, while lagged public investment has a positive and statistically significant effect at the one percent level.)
An article in the Journal of International Development (1996) develops a formal model with varying prices for a small open economy and offers policy prescriptions under fixed and flexible rates with varying degrees of capital mobility. More recently, I have had four published papers: one in the Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs (1997) that critically reviews the underlying economic and political determinants of the rapidly increasing indebtedness of Mexican middle class consumers and investors during the 1990-94 period, and analyzes the nature and implementation of Mexico's latest stabilization and adjustment program and its prospects for success. One in the Eastern Economic Journal (1998), that analyzes, using cointegration analysis, whether public and private investment enhance productivity growth in Mexico during the 1950-90 period. The empirical results suggest that both private and (lagged) public investment expenditures have positive and significant effects on the rate of labor productivity growth, while increases in government consumption expenditures have a depressing effect. In addition, the error-correction models suggest that deviations in the current period from the long-run productivity growth relationship are partially corrected in the next period. The EC models also perform well in terms of simulating the historical data on labor productivity growth in Mexico.
Another paper appeared in the Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (1998), and it addresses the actual and potential problems that have arisen in Mexico and Chile when privatization and liberalization efforts have taken place without efficient and credible regulatory frameworks in place. For example, the paper argues that regulatory systems and enforceable antitrust laws need to be in place well before the privatization and deregulation of a given industry. Otherwise, one may end up with a situation which emerged in the Mexican airline industry or the Chilean electricity industry where, in the presence of lax regulatory supervision and the absence of anti-trust laws, the privatized firms were able to quickly consolidate and exercise considerable monopoly power. Finally, I had a paper published in Contemporary Economic Policy (2000) which uses an endogenous growth model to analyze the impact of public and private investment spending on labor productivity growth in Chile during the 1960-95 period.
In addition to articles in professional journals, I have written two chapters for edited works, one entitled, AEconomic and Social Consequences of the National Austerity Program in Mexico,@ in Werner Baer and Howard Handelman (eds.) Paying the Costs of Austerity in Latin America (Westview Press, 1989) and another entitled, APrivatization and the Role of the State in Post-ISI Mexico,@ in Werner Baer and Melissa Birch (eds.) Privatization in Latin America (Praeger Publishers, 1994). These works examine, respectively, the socioeconomic impact of the stabilization program in Mexico, and the potential impact of the privatization program on the economic operations and political room to maneuver of the Mexican state. I have also published nine book reviews in professional journals, refereed numerous papers for professional journals, presented and discussed many papers at professional and invited conferences, and written several newspaper articles.
During the current academic year I have had two chapters published and one forthcoming in edited works. One is entitled, AThe Mexican Economy,@ in Laura Randall, ed. Latin American Economies in the Post-War Period (University of Texas Press, 1997) that examines the economic growth and structural transformation of the Mexican economy over the past seventy years. A second is entitled, AThe Evolution, Rationale, and Impact of Mexico=s Privatization Program, A in Jerry Haar and Melissa Birch, eds. Latin American Privatization ( North-South Center of the University of Miami, forthcoming in Spring 2000) that examines the most recent economic and political effects associated with the country's privatization and liberalization movement. Finally, I have a chapter entitled, AEl programa mas reciente de estabilizacion auspiciado for el fmi,@ in Alicia Giron y Genovena Roldan, eds. Mexico: Presente, Pasado y Futuro (Mexico, D.F.: Editorial Cambio XXI, 1997) which examines Mexico=s private macroeconomic imbalance between spending in excess of domestically generated income during the Salinas de Gortari administration (1988-94) and the current IMF-sponsored stabilization program.
3. Service to the College: I have served on the Library Committee, the Committee on Fraternities and Sororities, the Faculty Research Committee, the Admissions and Financial Aid Committee, as well as on a special committee established by former President Tom Gerety to investigate an incident on campus involving a confrontation between Trinity students and members of the Fruit of Islam.
In addition to my committee work, I have been the coordinator of the major in Latin American Studies and participated in developing an interdisciplinary minor in Latin American Studies at the College (for which I am currently the coordinator). I have also participated in six major College-wide searches: one for the Director of International Programs during the spring of 1997, another for the Director of the Mathematics Center during the Spring of 1987, one for the Assistant Director of the Mather Center during the Fall of 1986, a search for a Latin American historian for the Area Studies Program (1990), and a search for a computer services consultant in the social sciences (1995).
Insofar as departmental service is concerned, I have regularly attended departmental meetings, participated in a number of searches, tenure and promotion decisions, and represented, on numerous occasions, the Department during Parents' Week. I also have been responsible with Professors Egan and Curran for the honors theses program. Finally, I offered a freshman seminar during the fall of 1997.
During the past 14 years at Trinity I have supervised 30 exploratory internships, as well as served as major advisor to a number of economics and Latin American studies majors, supervised several Masters theses, sixteen undergraduate honors theses, eight of which have been voted the best economics essay in the Department. Also, I have served as a faculty advisor to AIESEC, been an official representative of the College to the Spanish Merchants Association of Hartford, and I am currently serving as the official representative of the College to the World Affairs Council and the Institute of World Affairs. Finally, I have delivered a number of public talks (see curriculum vitae) to Trinity students, College organizations such as La Voz Latina, faculty, and the local community.