Green Growth

Alarming rates of forest loss in the Colombian Amazon have created a perceived trade-off that the only means of achieving economic prosperity is by sacrificing the forest. This study finds little evidence of this trade-off; rather, we find that economic development and forest protection are not an either-or choice. Forest clearing is driven by extensive cattle-ranching as a means to secure land titles. In essence, the loss of some of the world’s richest biodiversity is the result of some of the least economically complex activities that fail to achieve economic prosperity in the region. If anything, the acceleration in deforestation has accompanied a period of economic stagnation.

The existing economic model in the Amazon – centered on agrarian colonization and mineral extraction – has not generated prosperity for the people, all while failing the forest. The exceptional diversity of the Amazon’s biome is not reflected in the region’s economy. The Amazonian economy is best characterized by its low diversity and low complexity. A significant proportion of employment is linked to public administration – more than in other departments of the country. Very little of the production in the departments is destined to be consumed outside the departments ("exported").

This study seeks to define an alternative economic model for the Colombian Amazon from the perspective of economic complexity with environmental sustainability. Economic complexity research finds that the productive potential of places depends not only on the soil or natural resources, but on the productive capabilities—or knowhow—held by its people. This research finds that the Colombian Amazon will not become rich by adding value to its raw materials or by specializing in one economic activity. Rather, economic development is best described as a process of expanding the set of capabilities present to be able to produce a more diverse set of goods, of increasingly greater complexity. This model starts from the base of understanding the existing productive capabilities in Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo, to identify high-potential economic sectors that build off those capabilities to achieve new, sustainable pathways to shared prosperity.

Achieving shared prosperity in the Amazon depends on the connectivity and opportunity in its urban areas. The primary drivers of greater economic complexity – and prosperity – are the cities in the Amazon. Even in the remote areas of the Amazon, the majority of people in Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo live in urban areas. The low prosperity in the Colombian Amazon is driven by the lack of prosperous cities. The report finds that Amazonian cities are affected by the lack of connectivity to major Colombian cities that limit their ability to ‘export’ things outside the department to then expand the capacity to ‘import’ the things that are not produced locally as a means to improve well-being.

It is painfully clear that South Africa is performing poorly, exacerbating problems such as inequality and exclusion. The economy’s ability to create jobs is slowing, worsening South Africa’s extreme levels of unemployment and inequality. South Africans are deeply disappointed with social progress and dislike the direction where the country seems to be heading. Despite its enviable productive capabilities, the national economy is losing international competitiveness. As the economy staggers, South Africa faces deteriorating social indicators and declining levels of public satisfaction with the status quo. After 15 years, attempts to stimulate the economy through fiscal policy and to address exclusion through social grants have failed to achieve their goals. Instead, they have sacrificed the country's investment grade, increasing the cost of capital to the whole economy, with little social progress to show for it. The underlying capabilities to achieve sustained growth by leveraging the full capability of its people, companies, assets, and knowhow remain underutilized. Three decades after the end of apartheid, the economy is defined by stagnation and exclusion, and current strategies are not achieving inclusion and empowerment in practice.

This report asks the question of why. Why is the economy growing far slower than any reasonable comparator countries? Why is exclusion so extraordinarily high, even after decades of various policies that have aimed to support socio-economic transformation? What would it take for South Africa to include more of its people, capabilities, assets, and ideas in the functioning of the economy, and why aren’t such actions being undertaken already? The Growth Lab has completed a deep diagnostic of potential causes of South Africa’s prolonged underperformance over a two-year research project. Building on the findings of nine papers and widespread collaboration with government, academics, business and NGOs, this report documents the project’s central findings. Bluntly speaking, the report finds that South Africa is not accomplishing its goals of inclusion, empowerment and transformation, and new strategies and instruments will be needed to do so. We found two broad classes of problems that undermine inclusive growth in the Rainbow Nation: collapsing state capacity and spatial exclusion.

Learn more about the Growth Lab's research engagement, Growth Through Inclusion in South Africa.

Industrial policy has for a long time raised difficult questions for policymakers to unpick. What justifications are there for government intervention in market mechanisms, and how and to what extent should governments intervene? What are the pros and cons of picking ‘winners’ for support? These questions have made a powerful return in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical uncertainty, and because of the pressing need to move to net-zero emission economies. In addition, the European Union is reviving its industrial policy in the context of support given to companies in the United States under the US Inflation Reduction Act. This volume, produced with financial support from the European Climate Foundation, assesses what must be done to implement industrial policy in a way that will achieve overarching goals while minimising distortions.

A menudo se piensa que alcanzar la prosperidad económica en la selva amazónica es incompatible con la protección del ambiente. Los investigadores ambientales suelen advertir, con razón, que la velocidad de la deforestación actual está llevando a la Amazonía a un potencial punto de quiebre a partir del cual la selva no podrá dejar de deteriorarse hasta convertirse en una sábana herbácea. Pero se habla menos de lo que hay que hacer para generar prosperidad compartida en las comunidades amazónicas. La deforestación suele tratarse como algo inevitable a la hora de atender las necesidades humanas, locales y globales. Este reporte sintetiza los hallazgos de dos proyectos del Laboratorio de Crecimiento de Harvard University, que estudian la naturaleza del crecimiento económico en dos contextos amazónicos: el departamento de Loreto, en Perú, y los departamentos de Caquetá, Guaviare y Putumayo, en Colombia. La meta de estas colaboraciones es valerse de la investigación de alcance global que ha hecho el Growth Lab sobre la naturaleza del crecimiento económico para aplicar esos métodos al reto único de desarrollar rutas hacia la prosperidad en la Amazonía, de manera que no se perjudique a la selva. Este reporte compara y contrasta los hallazgos en la Amazonía peruana y colombiana para evaluar hasta qué punto hay lecciones que se puedan generalizar sobre la relación entre crecimiento económico y protección del bosque en la Amazonía. 

The Colombian Amazon faces the dual challenge of low economic growth and high deforestation. High rates of deforestation in Colombia have led to a perceived trade-off between economic development and protecting the forest. However, we find little evidence of this trade-off: rising deforestation is not associated with higher economic growth. In fact, the forces of deforestation of some of the world’s most complex biodiversity are driven by some of the least complex economic activities, like cattle-ranching, whose subsistence-level incomes are unable to meet the economic ambitions for the region. All the while, the majority of the Amazonian departments’ population works in non-forested cities and towns, at a distance from the agriculture frontier that forms the “arc of deforestation.” The relative urbanization of the Amazonian departments, despite the vast land mass available, recognizes that prosperity is achieved through close social-economic interactions to expand the knowledge set available to be able to produce more, and more complex activities. Achieving economic goals therefore relies on creating new productive opportunities in non-forested, urban areas.

The risk of deforestation reduces incentives to improve the connectivity of Amazonian departments with major cities and export markets. The remoteness of these departments increases the cost of ‘exporting’ goods to markets outside the departments. Poor connectivity contributes to the low economic complexity of the departments. In turn, the low complexity reduces incentives to coordinate new investments that would generate returns to greater connectivity. Coordination failures, which occur when a group of economic actors (e.g., firms, workers) could achieve a better outcome but fail to do so because they do not coordinate their actions, are widespread in all three of the Amazonian departments studied. This limits the creation of new capabilities and productive diversification to generate new jobs and higher incomes.

We posit that economic growth in the Colombian Amazonian is limited by a “connectivity trap” whereby the lack of external market connectivity restricts economic complexity, and, in turn, the low complexity fosters the coordination failures that limit returns to new diversification. Ultimately, low returns to diversification further reduce incentives to improve connectivity. Underpinning the connectivity trap is the belief that limiting the connectivity of Amazonian departments with large Colombian cities and the broader global economy will limit incentives for deforestation. Yet, deforestation has accelerated in recent years, despite the continued poor connectivity. We argue that Colombia must create a new national law to curb deforestation by eliminating the financial incentives for land speculation. Reclassifying forested lands under the control of national protection systems with severe restrictions on economic activities and strengthened enforcement, as detailed in an accompanying report, provides the needed legal clarity regarding land formalization. Within the law to eliminate incentives for deforestation, the national government should create a new development approach for the Colombian Amazon. This approach must move beyond a natural resource-based approach to the region, to center on the productive potential of its urban areas, and the carbon markets and tourism potential of its forested areas. One pillar of this approach is to build new public sector capabilities to coordinate investments into new, targeted productive sectors to create new national-local mechanisms of investment promotion. A second pillar is to improve connectivity to external markets through road and air investments between Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo and major cities and ports.

Las alarmantes tasas de pérdida de bosques en la Amazonia colombiana han creado la percepción de que el único medio para lograr la prosperidad económica es sacrificar el bosque. Este estudio encuentra poca evidencia de esta percepción; más bien, encontramos que el desarrollo económico y la protección de los bosques no son una opción entre uno u otro. La tala de bosques está impulsada por la ganadería extensiva como medio para asegurar títulos de propiedad de la tierra. En esencia, la pérdida de una de las biodiversidades más ricas del mundo es el resultado de algunas de las actividades económicamente menos complejas que no permiten lograr la prosperidad económica en la región. En todo caso, la aceleración de la deforestación ha ido acompañada de un período de estancamiento económico.

El modelo económico existente en la Amazonía—centrado en la colonización agraria y la extracción de minerales—no ha generado prosperidad para la gente y le ha fallado al bosque. La excepcional diversidad del bioma amazónico no se refleja en la economía de la región. La economía amazónica se caracteriza mejor por su baja diversidad y complejidad. Una proporción significativa del empleo está vinculada a la administración pública, más que en otros departamentos del país. Muy poca de la producción de los departamentos se destina a ser consumida fuera de los departamentos ("exportada").

Este estudio busca definir un modelo económico alternativo para la Amazonía colombiana desde la perspectiva de la complejidad económica con la sostenibilidad ambiental. La investigación sobre la complejidad económica encuentra que el potencial productivo de los lugares depende no sólo del suelo o los recursos naturales, sino también de las capacidades productivas (o conocimientos técnicos) de su gente. Esta investigación encuentra que la Amazonía colombiana no se enriquecerá agregando valor a sus materias primas o especializándose en una sola actividad económica. Más bien, el desarrollo económico se describe mejor como un proceso de expansión del conjunto de capacidades presentes para poder producir un conjunto cada vez más diverso y complejo. Este modelo parte de la base de comprender las capacidades productivas existentes en Caquetá, Guaviare y Putumayo, para identificar sectores económicos de alto potencial que aprovechen esas capacidades para lograr caminos nuevos y sostenibles hacia la prosperidad compartida.

Lograr una prosperidad compartida en la Amazonía depende de la conectividad y las oportunidades en sus áreas urbanas. Los principales impulsores de una mayor complejidad económica—y prosperidad— son las ciudades de la Amazonía. Incluso en las zonas remotas de la Amazonía, la mayoría de la población de Caquetá, Guaviare y Putumayo vive en zonas urbanas. La baja prosperidad en la Amazonía colombiana se debe a la falta de ciudades prósperas. El informe encuentra que las ciudades amazónicas se ven afectadas por la falta de conectividad con las principales ciudades colombianas que limitan su capacidad de 'exportar' cosas fuera del departamento para luego ampliar la capacidad de 'importar' las cosas que no se producen localmente como medio para mejorar el bienestar. 

La Amazonía colombiana enfrenta un desafío doble: bajo crecimiento económico y alta deforestación. Las altas tasas de deforestación en Colombia han llevado a que se crea que el desarrollo económico no puede tener lugar si se protege la selva. Nosotros no encontramos evidencia que sustente esa dicotomía: el aumento de la deforestación no está asociado a un mayor crecimiento económico. Las fuerzas detrás de la deforestación de una de las áreas con mayor biodiversidad en el planeta se sustentan en algunas de las actividades económicas menos complejas, como la ganadería extensiva, cuyos ingresos son incapaces de cumplir con las ambiciones económicas de la región. Al mismo tiempo, la mayoría de la población de los departamentos amazónicos trabaja en ciudades y pueblos desprovistos de selva, lejos de la frontera agropecuaria que forma el “arco de deforestación”. La relativa urbanización de los departamentos amazónicos, pese a la gran masa de tierra disponible, constituye un reconocimiento de que la prosperidad solo se logra mediante interacciones socioeconómicas que expanden el conjunto de conocimientos disponible para que se pueda producir más, y mediante actividades más complejas. Por lo tanto, para alcanzar las metas económicas hay que crear nuevas oportunidades productivas en las áreas urbanas sin selva.

El riesgo de deforestación reduce los incentivos para mejorar la conectividad de los departamentos amazónicos con las grandes ciudades y los mercados de exportación. El carácter remoto de estos departamentos aumenta el costo de “exportar” bienes a mercados que están fuera de estos departamentos. La conectividad precaria de la región contribuye a su baja complejidad económica, que a su vez reduce los incentivos para coordinar nuevas inversiones que podrían generar retornos a partir de una mayor conectividad. Las fallas de coordinación - que ocurren cuando un grupo de actores económicos (como empresas y trabajadores) podrían lograr un mejor resultado, pero no logran hacerlo pues no coordinan sus acciones respectivas - son extendidas en los tres departamentos amazónicos bajo estudio. Esto limita la creación de nuevas capacidades y la diversificación productiva que podrían generar nuevos empleos y mayores ingresos.

Planteamos que el crecimiento económico en la Amazonía colombiana está siendo limitado por una “trampa de conectividad” donde la falta de conectividad con los mercados externos restringe la complejidad económica, y a su vez la baja complejidad alienta las fallas de coordinación que limitan los retornos de una nueva diversificación. A fin de cuentas, los bajos retornos de la diversificación reducen aún más los incentivos para mejorar la conectividad. Como trasfondo de la trampa de conectividad está la creencia de que limitar la conectividad de los departamentos amazónicos con las grandes ciudades colombianas y el resto de la economía global limitará también los incentivos para la deforestación. Pero la deforestación se ha acelerado en los últimos años, mientras que la conectividad sigue siendo muy mala. Nosotros argumentamos que Colombia debe crear una nueva ley nacional para frenar la deforestación que elimine los incentivos financieros de la especulación con tierras, al reclasificar las áreas selváticas bajo control de los sistemas nacionales de protección para que tengan severas restricciones sobre las actividades que se puedan emprender en ellas, y se refuercen las labores de cumplimiento de la ley, como se comenta en detalle en el reporte siguiente. Con una ley que elimine los incentivos para la deforestación, el gobierno nacional debe crear un nuevo enfoque del desarrollo para la Amazonía colombiana. Este enfoque debe trascender el basado en los recursos naturales y centrarse en el potencial productivo de las áreas urbanas, así como en los mercados de carbono y el potencial turístico de las áreas selváticas. Un pilar de este enfoque es la construcción de nuevas capacidades en el sector público, que le permitan coordinar inversiones en nuevos sectores productivos específicos, para crear nuevos mecanismos locales y nacionales de promoción de inversiones. Un segundo pilar es la mejora de la conectividad con los mercados externos, mediante inversiones en carreteras y transporte aéreo entre Caquetá, Guaviare y Putumayo, y las grandes ciudades y los puertos.

¿Hay que sacrificar la selva para traer prosperidad económica a la Amazonía colombiana? Según este compendio de investigación compuesto por una serie de estudios sobre esa región, la respuesta es “no”: la percepción que hay un dilema entre crecimiento económico y protección de la selva es una falsa dicotomía. Los factores que impulsan la deforestación y la prosperidad son distinguibles entre sí, y tienen lugar en sitios diferentes. La deforestación ocurre en la frontera agropecuaria, donde uno de los entornos con mayor complejidad biológica del mundo está siendo destruido por algunas de las actividades económicas menos complejas, en particular la ganadería extensiva. En cambio, los motores económicos de la Amazonía son sus áreas urbanas, que en su mayoría están ubicadas lejos del borde de la selva, como es el caso de las áreas localizadas en el piedemonte y que no cuentan con un bosque denso. Estas ciudades ofrecen mayor complejidad económica con su acceso a un rango más amplio de capacidades productivas en actividades de mayores ingresos, con poca presencia de las actividades que favorecen la deforestación. Tal vez la cara menos notoria de la vida en cada una de las tres regiones amazónicas estudiadas, Caquetá, Guaviare y Putumayo, es que la mayoría de la gente vive en áreas urbanas. Este hecho dice mucho sobre la geografía económica de esos lugares: incluso en las partes más remotas de la Amazonía, la gente quiere vivir cerca de los demás, en áreas densamente pobladas. Esto además corrobora los hallazgos de nuestra investigación global en las últimas dos décadas: para traer prosperidad hay que expandir las capacidades productivas disponibles a nivel local y así diversificar la producción de ese lugar hacia más actividades y que posean mayor complejidad.  

This report sets out to understand if the economy of the State of Wyoming is positioned to grow into the future. To do this, the report begins by investigating the past. To know where the state economy could be headed, and how that direction may be improved, it is critical to understand how the state developed the economic structure and drivers that it has today. Thus, Wyoming’s economic trajectory is explored over the long, medium, and short term. From this investigation, we find that Wyoming faces an overall growth problem, but we also find a high degree of variation in economic engines and growth prospects across the state. The problem that this report identifies is that the composition of economic activities is not positioned to sustain a high quality of life across all parts of the state.

“Across all parts of the state” is an essential part of the problem statement for Wyoming. While some local and regional economies in the state are growing and bumping up against identifiable constraints, other local and regional economies are experiencing sustained contractions and will require new sources of growth in order to retain (or expand) population and high quality of life. Since economic dynamics vary significantly across the state, analysis is conducted in as much geographic detail as possible. By combining historical and geographic dimensions of growth, this report aims to inform pathways for sustained and inclusive prosperity across the of Wyoming.

Related project: Pathways to Prosperity in Wyoming

Does economic prosperity in the Colombian Amazon require sacrificing the forest? This research compendium of a series of studies on the Colombian Amazon finds the answer to this question is no: the perceived trade-off between economic growth and forest protection is a false dichotomy. The drivers of deforestation and prosperity are distinct – as they happen in different places. Deforestation occurs at the agricultural frontier, in destroying some of the world’s most complex biodiversity by some of the least economically complex activities, particularly cattle-ranching. By contrast, the economic drivers in the Amazon are its urban areas often located far from the forest edge, including in non-forested piedmont regions. These cities offer greater economic complexity by accessing a wider range of productive capabilities in higher-income activities with little presence of those activities driving deforestation. Perhaps the most underappreciated facet of life in each of the three Amazonian regions studied, Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo, is that the majority of people live in urban areas. This is a telling fact of economic geography: that even in the remote parts of the Amazon, people want to come together to live in densely populated areas. This corroborates the findings of our global research over the past two decades that prosperity results from expanding the productive capabilities available locally to diversify production to do more, and more complex, activities.

Achieving economic prosperity in the Amazon rainforest is often seen as incompatible with protecting the forest. Environmental researchers rightly warn that rapid deforestation is pushing the Amazon close to a potential tipping point of forest dieback into grassy savanna. Less has been said about what is required to generate shared prosperity in Amazonian communities. Deforestation is often treated as inevitable to serve human needs, local and global. This report synthesizes the findings of two engagements by the Growth Lab at Harvard University that study the nature of economic growth in two Amazonian contexts: Loreto in Peru, and Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo, in Colombia. The aim of these engagements is to leverage the Growth Lab's global research into the nature of economic growth to apply those methods to the unique challenge of developing paths to prosperity in the Amazon in ways that do not harm the forest. This report compares and contrasts the findings from the Peruvian and Colombian Amazon to assess the extent to which there are generalizable lessons on the relationship between economic growth and forest protection in the Amazon.

Loreto is a place full of contrasts. Although it is the largest department in Peru, it is one of the least populated in the country. Its capital, Iquitos, is closer to Brazil and Colombia’s border states than it is to the capitals of its neighboring regions in Peru - San Martin and Ucayali. Iquitos can only be reached by air or river, making it one of the largest cities in the world without road access. Since its foundation, Loreto's economy has depended on the exploitation of natural resources: from the Amazon rubber boom at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, to the oil extraction and exploitation of forest resources that predominate today. This model has brought with it significant environmental damage and has produced a pattern of slow and volatile growth, which has opened an ever-widening gap between the economy of the region and that of the rest of the country. Between 1980 and 2018, Loreto grew at an average compound annual growth rate four times lower than the rest of Peru. Otherwise stated, while the rest of Peru has tripled the size of its economy, Loreto increased it by just under one-third.

Within the last decade (2008-2018), the region has distanced itself from its Amazonian peers in the country (Ucayali, San Martín, and Madre de Dios), which have grown at an average annual growth rate five times higher. Loreto’s average per capita income fell from three-quarters of the national average in 2008 to less than half of it by 2018. In addition to - or perhaps as a consequence of - its economic challenges, Loreto is also among the departments with the worst indicators of social development, including the highest levels of anemia and child malnutrition in Peru.

In this context, the Growth Lab at Harvard University partnered with the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to develop a research study that would provide inputs and policy recommendations to boost the development of the region and foster sustainable prosperity.

Picture yourself as finance minister of a developing economy. An eager environmentalist tries to convince you of the moral imperative of cutting your country's greenhouse gas emissions. You soon become bored because you’ve heard it all before, and your mind moves to more pressing matters. Your country is full of problems, from economic instability and inflation to challenges funding public services. Reducing emissions is not a priority.

Even if you were to succeed, your impact on the climate would be minuscule. Countries as populous as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Egypt each represent less than 1 percent of the world‘s emissions. Your country’s emissions—even cumulative since the industrial revolution—are infinitesimally small. Eliminating them all would have no material impact on the climate: you would have incurred costs and forgone opportunities to deliver economic prosperity with little to show for it.

Yet it would be a grave mistake not to consider climate change as an important aspect of your job. Change is sweeping across the global economy as countries recognize that the world must slash emissions to prevent a climate catastrophe. Decarbonization will reduce demand for dirty goods and services and increase demand for those that are cleaner and greener. The question is not what you can do to reduce your country’s emissions but how you can supercharge your country’s development by breaking into fast-growing industries that will help the world reduce its emissions and reach net zero.

Your country‘s history has been fundamentally shaped by the development of the few products it is able to make at home and sell abroad. Successful economies in east Asia and eastern Europe have sustained decades of high growth by upgrading their areas of comparative advantage, from garments to electronics to machinery and chemicals. They did not remain stuck in industries bequeathed by the past. If your country is to create jobs that pay higher wages, it will have to find new industries that can grow and export competitively even with higher wages.

Pessimists say that opportunities may have been there in the past for countries like Japan, Korea, or China, but those paths to development are now closed. Decarbonization will, however, create new opportunities—especially for those that move fast. The paths that are opening up have not been trod by many predecessors. Some are still virgin. Decarbonization will require significant greenfield investments, and plants will have to find new places to locate. This could be a great opportunity for your country, but to assess it, you must understand the changing landscape.

We do not know what technologies will power the low-carbon global economy or what materials and manufacturing capabilities they will need—nor what regulatory regimes the world will adopt, let alone what kind of cooperation or conflict will characterize relations between the largest emitters. These uncertainties will be resolved by those countries that play an active role and master the capabilities that will underpin their future comparative advantage. Keep in mind these six themes as you explore and exploit the opportunities and threats.

Is there a tradeoff between environmental sustainability and economic development? If there is a place where that question can be approximated, that is Loreto. Located on the western flank of the Amazon jungle, Loreto is Peru’s largest state and the one with the lowest population density. Its capital, Iquitos, is the largest city without road access in the world. For three decades, the region’s income and development has diverged from that of Peru and its other Amazonian peers by orders of magnitude. And yet, despite plummeting contributions from natural resources – that predominate in the policy discussion in and on the state – Loreto has developed a more complex productive ecosystem than one would expect, given its geographical isolation. As a result, it has a stock of productive capabilities that can be redeployed in economic activities with higher value-added, able to sustain higher wages and better living standards.

We deployed a thorough Growth Diagnostic of Loreto to identify the most binding constraints preventing private investment and development in sustainable economic activities. In the process, we relied on domestic databases available to the public in Peru and international datasets, combining and validating our analytical insights with extensive field visits to the Peruvian Amazonia and lengthy interviews with policymakers, private businesses, and academia. Improving fluvial connectivity, developing the capacity to sort out coordination failures associated with the process of self-discovery, and substituting oil for solar energy, are the three policy goals that would deliver the largest bang for the reform buck. The latter presents an opportunity for environmental organizations – subsidizing solar – to move away from their status quo of preventing bad things from happening, to a more constructive one that entails enabling good things and sustainable industries to happen.

Project page: Economic Growth and Structural Transformation in Loreto, Peru

This report aims to answer the critical but difficult question: "What will it take for Jordan to grow?" Though Jordan has numerous active growth and reform strategies in place, they do not clearly answer this fundamental question. The Jordanian economy has experienced more than a decade of slow growth. Per capita income today is lower than it was prior to the Global Financial Crisis as Jordan has experienced a refugee-driven population increase. Jordan’s comparative advantages have narrowed over time as external shocks and responses to these shocks have changed the productive structure of Jordan’s economy. This was a problem well before the country faced the COVID-19 pandemic. The Jordanian economy has lost productivity, market access, and, critically, the ability to afford high levels of imports as a share of GDP. Significant efforts toward fiscal consolidation have further constrained aggregate demand, which has slowed non-tradable activity and the ability of the economy to create jobs. Labor market outcomes have worsened over time and are especially bad for women and youth. Looking ahead, this report identifies clear and significant opportunities for Jordan to strengthen new engines of export growth that would enable better overall job creation and resilience, even amidst the continued unpredictability of the pandemic. This report argues that there is need for a paradigm shift in Jordan’s growth strategy to focus more direct attention and resources on activating “agents of change” to accelerate the emergence of key growth opportunities, and that there are novel roles that donor countries can play in support of this.

The Growth Lab at Harvard University, with funding provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, has undertaken this investigation with the aim of identifying the existing productive capacities in Loreto, as well as the economic activities with potential to drive the structural transformation of its economy. This paper is part of a broader investigation – Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Structural Transformation in the Amazon Region of Loreto, Peru – which seeks to contribute with context-specific inputs for the development of national and sub-national public policies that promote productive development and prosperity in this Peruvian state.