Advisor to the
Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department
Asian Development Bank
About Jesus Felipe
I am Advisor to the Chief Economist, in the Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, Philippines, where I have worked since 1996. My main functions are to advise ADB’s Chief Economist on development issues at large and, specifically, on their implications for both ADB’s operations and for policy dialogue with the Bank’s developing member countries; and to lead the work program on “Asia’s Economic Transformation”. I have travelled extensively throughout Asia and participated in many policy discussions with Governments and provided advice on the design of development plans.
I have held academic positions with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology(Hong Kong, PRC) during 1995-1996, and with the Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, USA), during 1999-2002 (while I was on leave from ADB). I undertook my undergraduate studies in Spain at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. I hold M.A. degrees from the International University of Japan and from the University of Pennsylvania, and a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.
Between 1996 and 2007, I was Economist, Senior Economist, and Principal Economist in the Economics and Research Department. There, I was involved in different projects on macroeconomics issues as well as in ADB’s annual flagship publication, Asian Development Outlook. Between 2007 and 2011, I was Principal and Lead Economist in the Central and West Asia Department. During these four years, I coordinated all economic analyses on the ex-Soviet Republics, and Pakistan. This included contributions to the Asian Development Outlook on the Central Asian economies, growth diagnostics exercises, impact evaluation analyses, and Country Partnership Strategies. I also led the design of long-term development plans for energy, transport, and urban services for Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan; and industrialization and structural change programs in Pakistan and Central Asia (the latter are transition economies, landlocked, dependent on natural resources, with problems to diversify their economic structures, and which display low scores in trade facilitation).
In 2015, I became Managing Editor of the Asian Development Review. Also, I have been a member of the Editorial Board of Metroeconomica since 2008; and belong to the International Advisory Board of Revista de Economía Crítica.
My research interests spread across areas such as long-run growth in Asia (especially the debate on the sources of growth), the dynamics of structural change, industrial policy, inclusive growth and full employment, the impact of technology on employment, productivity, technological progress, the functional distribution of income, business cycles, and the path of profit rates.
Currently, I am working on a series of projects on the so-called Middle-Income Trap, and Structural Transformation and Industrialization (see the Special Chapter on “Asia’s Economic Transformation: Where to, How, and How Fast?” in the Key Indicators of Asia and the Pacific 2013, and the Special Chapter on “Growth Amid Change” in the Asian Development Outlook 2007), and Asia’s Potential Growth.
My most recent book is entitled Development and Modern Industrial Policy in Practice: Issues and Country Experiences (Edward Elgar, 2015). Previously, I published a book on the (lack of) theoretical foundations of the aggregate production function (the aggregation problem), and implications for empirical analyses (for example in the fields of growth or employment), entitled The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change: ‘Not Even Wrong’ (Edward Elgar, 2013). In 2009, I published Inclusive Growth, Full Employment and Structural Change. Implications and Policies for Developing Asia (Anthem Press, 2009). And I have also co-authored and co-edited a book entitled Labor Markets in Asia: Issues and Perspectives (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). This book was selected in 2006 by Princeton University as one of the Noteworthy Books in Industrial Relations and Labor Economics.
I have published over 70 research articles in (among others) Applied Economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Eastern Economic Journal, Economics of Education Review, International Review of Applied Economics, Japan and the World Economy, Journal of Comparative Economics, Journal of Development Studies, Journal of Income Distribution, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Metroeconomica, Oxford Development Studies, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, and World Development.
I received my undergraduate degree in Economics from the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 1979-1984 (Madrid, Spain). I studied Economics during the political transition of Spain to democracy. It was a very interesting and convoluted period, which coincided with the second oil crisis, the end of the world economic order established after WWII with the collapse of the Bretton Woods System (a few years earlier), the rise of unemployment and inflation, years of stagnation, and the negotiations between Spain and the European Community. It was also the period of the debt crises (the Latin American “lost decade”); and the years of President R. Reagan in the U.S. and Primer Minister M. Thatcher in the U.K. PCs arrived the year I graduated, so I typed my papers the old style, and submitted a few handwritten. I received an education of which I am very proud, and I am grateful to all my Professors during my University years, especially to Antonio Pulido, who taught me econometrics; and to Paloma Sánchez, who taught me how to do research, and asked me to read “Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina” (“Open Veins of Latin America“) by Eduardo Galeano.
I undertook my graduate studies at the International University of Japan (IUJ) , 1989-1991 and at the University of Pennsylvania, 1991-1995. From the latter I received my Ph.D. in Regional Science in 1995. I am also highly indebted to all my Professors at IUJ and to the Japanese Ministry of Education for providing me with the opportunity to study in Japan through a very generous scholarship (Monbusho). At U. Penn. I received an outstanding education. I am more than thankful and indebted for life to Gerry Adams, my mentor and advisor. Gerry, together with Howard Pack, Masa Fujita, Ron Miller, Roberto Mariano, William Ethier, and Hashem Pesaran (who visited U. Penn while I was there), among others, taught me Economics. At U. Penn I had the chance to meet Professor Lawrence R. Klein, Nobel Prize winner in Economics (1980). The International Centre for the Study of East Asian Development (ICSEAD) (Kitakyushu, Japan) provided me with a generous scholarship that allowed me to study in the US. Overall, my life as a student was a very rewarding period and an invaluable experience.
In the mid-1990s, I began exploring the classical models, and became familiar with the efforts that Anwar Shaikh (New School University) has made to revitalize the works of the classical economists (e.g., Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx). The classical economists of the 18th and early 19th century were mostly concerned with the analysis and implications of long-run growth, its causes and consequences. Anwar has been a constant source of inspiration for years.
I also became familiar with the work of Franklin M. Fisher at MIT on aggregation in production functions. Frank is the “grandfather” of the aggregation problem. He knows it all! His work has profoundly influenced me. Our Metroeconomica (2003) survey on the topic was a rewarding exercise in discovering some lies my teachers had told me. The aggregate production function is arguably one of the pillars of neoclassical macroeconomics. However, this construct does not have a sound theoretical basis. Aggregate production functions with neoclassical properties (i.e., a well-behaved production function) can be derived theoretically only under very stringent conditions, which actual economies cannot satisfy. Much of standard macroeconomics (growth theory in particular) stands on shaky foundations.
The other important strand of the literature that has crucial implications for the notion of an aggregate production function is the Cambridge-Cambridge debates (see Harcourt 1972 and Cohen and Harcourt 2003 for detailed discussions).
These fundamental results led me to questions such as the following: what do economists obtain (if it is not a production function because it does not exist) when they estimate a regression of aggregate output on aggregate labor and aggregate capital?; do the policy implications of the neoclassical (both old and endogenous) growth models have any relevance?; how much do we really know about why some countries are richer than others?; what implications does this work have for important debates such as that of the sources of growth in East Asia?; or for the discussions about the empirical relevance of the endogenous growth models (e.g., the existence of increasing returns, externalities and market imperfections)?
With this background, John S.L. McCombie at the University of Cambridge and I started working on a research project entitled “The Empirical Foundations of the Aggregate Production Function”. John and I began corresponding in 1994 while I was finishing my dissertation, and since then, our partnership has been most fruitful and has led to a number of publications. I am thankful to John for all he has taught me. The essence of the argument we put forward, extensively discussed in our published papers and in our 2013 book, is as follows: all aggregate production functions do is to approximate the income accounting identity according to which output equals the sum of the wage bill plus total profits. Hence, fitted aggregate production functions tell us very little about the underlying economic processes. Incidentally, this line of work goes back to Anwar Shaik’s 1974 and 1980 papers on the ‘HUMBUG’ production function. Growth accounting exercises suffer from similar problems and the “Solow residual” (total factor productivity growth) is not a measure of technological progress the way it is understood in the neoclassical growth model. All in all, we argue that this model consists of a series of non-refutable propositions (thus, useless), and hence it is inadequate to explain the reality. To study growth we propose to conduct microeconomic work analyzing firms (the source of wealth-creation in capitalist economies); case studies and historical analyses at the country level; and to think of growth as a process of structural change. Frank Fisher and I concluded our survey on aggregation as follows:
“Macroeconomists should pause before continuing to do applied work with no sound foundation and dedicate some time to studying other approaches to value, distribution, employment, growth, technical progress etc., in order to understand which questions can legitimately be posed to the empirical aggregate data” (Felipe and Fisher 2003, Metroeconomica).
I believe all this work has profound implications at both the theoretical and empirical levels for a correct understanding of one of the most important questions that economists have been trying to answer since the days of Adam Smith: why do some countries grow and develop while others fail to do it?
Get in touch
Want to contact us? Fill out the form below and we’ll respond right away.