the determinants of economic growth in namibia:€¦ · web viewodada and godana (2002) identified...

DETERMINANTS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IN NAMIBIA

Samuel Nakale

AbstractThe Namibian economy has grown by an average 4.3 percent over the last 26 years, with an episode of slow growth followed by somewhat accelerated growth. Using the growth accounting methodology, economic growth is attributed to factor accumulation and productivity. Empirical results suggest that factor accumulation has been the key driver of economic growth, with total factor productivity growth contracting during the transitional period (the 1990’s) and again during the 2006-2010 period. Some of the factors that can potentially explain the trend in total factor productivity growth include the relatively low quality of labour, slow change and development in the industrial structure, high level of government expenditure and debt driven mainly by unproductive spending as well as the institutional and regulatory barriers.

NPC-01/2016

1. IntroductionThe pursuit of high and sustainable economic growth is certainly the primary macroeconomic objective for any economy. In Namibia, the objectives of the various national development plans have been similar, with enhancing economic growth seemingly the overarching goal. However, in spite of moderate real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate averaging 4.3 percent and translating into real GDP per capita growth of about 2.3 percent per year since 1990, this has not sufficiently translated into substantial reduction in poverty, income inequality and unemployment (Sherbourne, 2013)1.

McAuliffe, Saxena and Yabara (2012) argue that “there is no consensus on what determines growth – both initiating and sustaining the process.” They further posit that growth determinants vary from country to country and over time, making it a challenge for slow growing economies to replicate policies that worked in faster growing economies. This point to the complexity of the growth process and the challenge in identifying and implementing successful growth enhancing interventions as there is no precise formula to high and sustained growth. The growth accounting framework has been applied in most International Monetary Fund (IMF) cross-country studies including IMF (2014), Loko and Diouf (2009) and Senhadji (2000). Kumar and Pacheco (2012) applied the technique in a country case study of Kenya. In an attempt to explain long-term growth in Namibia over the period 1971 to 2005, Eita and Du Toit (2009) included some analysis on growth accounting. This framework decomposes output growth, attributing it to factor accumulation and factor productivity. Senhadji (2000) emphasizes the importance of total factor productivity and its growth, arguing that factor accumulation alone cannot sustain long term economic growth. Hence, some studies have gone a step further than the growth accounting exercise by attempting to identify the determinants of total factor productivity and its growth. Isaksson (2007) provides a comprehensive review of the conventional determinants of total factor productivity. This research draws on the literature and considers the potential determinants of total factor productivity and economic growth identified therein. In particular the research objective is to understand Namibia’s growth performance post-1990 by offering insights to key economic variables enhancing or inhibiting economic growth potential.

The paper is structured in the following way; Section two outlines the growth performance of the Namibian economy since independence (1990 to 2015). Section three focuses on the growth accounting framework and its application to Namibian data. In Section four the results from section three are put in context by offering insight into some of the key potential determinants of total factor productivity and economic growth, in general and in the Namibian economy. The conclusion and policy implications are drawn in Section five.

1 The focus in this study is on the growth determinants with limited discussion on inclusivity of growth which is a topic on its own.

1 | P a g eDeterminants of Economic Growth in Namibia

2. Overview of the economy’s growth performanceThere was slow growth in the 1990s, the transitional period after independence, with GDP growth and per capita GDP growth averaging 3.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. However, there is somewhat evidence of accelerated per capita growth for the period 2000-2015, with output growth averaging 4.8 percent and per capita GDP growth averaging 3.1 percent. Unfortunately, this still falls short of the 4.0 percent average per capita real GDP growth required to escape from the middle income trap (IMF, 2014). Due to the relatively short period under review, the sustainability of the accelerated growth cannot be established2.

Figure 1: Growth rates of real GDP and real per capita GDP

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

-6.0-4.0-2.00.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.0

Real GDP growth rate Growth rate of real GDP per capita

Perc

enta

ge

Source: Namibia Statistics Agency.

The mining sector, and diamond mining in particular, has been one of the largest contributors to growth over the years. The accelerated growth in the early to mid-2000’s can be attributed to the boom in the mining sector which resulted from relatively higher prices and increased volumes from the mining production (see figures 4 and 5 in the appendix). The mining sector has also attracted significant Foreign Direct Investment.

The relatively slow growth and marginal decline of the manufacturing sector’s share in GDP over the last eight years reflects the impact of the slowdown in primary industries which provides inputs for the manufacturing industry3. Unfavorable weather conditions due to change in climate remains the main risk to the growth performance of the agriculture sector.

The trend in the growth performance of the construction sector reflects the developmental nature state of the Namibian economy. The construction boom necessitated by the infrastructural

2 These observations are drawn from an analysis employing the Hausmann, Pritchett and Rodrik (HPR) methodology applied by McAuliffe et al (2012).3 Other than minerals beneficiation, meat and fish processing are the other two main activities in the manufacturing industry.


development and more specifically boosted by the expansionary fiscal policy stance following the 2008/2009 economic crisis boosted growth of the construction sector. This is further reflected by relatively high investment expenditure averaging about 23.7 percent of GDP for the period 2000-2015 compared to just about 14.0 percent for the period 1990-1999. The Targeted Intervention Program for Employment and Economic Growth (TIPEEG) aimed at accelerating infrastructural development was implemented over the 2011/12-2013/14 financial years at a cost of over N$ 14 billion. This program undoubtedly stimulated growth, as reflected by the 16.6 percent average growth in the construction sector during the period, with potential to indirectly stimulate growth in the long run.

The services industries remain the highest contributor to GDP with a share of over 50 percent and have increased marginally over the years. The public sector and wholesale and retail and trade sub-industries dominate the services industries, while the share of hotels and restaurant which is the proxy for tourism remains below 2.0 percent.

Table 1: Sectoral GDP shares and growth rates

Industry 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2007 2008 - 2015% share % growth % share % growth % share % growth

Agriculture and forestry 7.1 2.5 6.9 4.9 4.5 -2.4Fishing and fish processing on board 5.5 17.4 5.3 -4.7 2.9 4.0Mining and quarrying 9.5 2.9 10.5 11.8 10.3 1.1Primary industries 21.7 3.9 22.3 5.9 17.7 -0.3Manufacturing 12.8 3.4 12.6 4.9 11.3 1.1Electricity and water 3.7 1.9 2.6 3.5 1.9 -0.1Construction 2.4 5.2 2.7 13.7 4.4 16.6Secondary industries 18.8 2.8 17.9 5.5 17.6 4.9Wholesale and retail trade, repairs 8.7 5.2 10.6 6.5 11.7 7.3Hotels and restaurants 1.3 4.9 1.6 6.9 1.8 7.1Transport, and communication 2.6 5.4 3.4 10.8 5.1 7.8Financial intermediation 2.5 7.2 3.9 11.5 5.9 8.5Real estate and business services 9.0 3.1 8.8 4.0 8.5 4.7Community, social & personal services 3.8 2.2 3.2 2.8 2.4 -0.8Public administration and defence 12.0 3.1 10.7 4.9 10.8 5.5Education 9.6 3.1 7.6 3.2 7.7 5.9Health 5.6 3.1 4.0 -0.8 3.1 4.8Private household with employed persons

1.2 2.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 5.4

Tertiary industries 54.7 3.7 54.6 5.0 58.0 5.9Source: Namibia Statistics Agency.

For the years from 1990 until 2006 ores and minerals represent close to or above 50 percent of total exports, with diamond exports the dominant one. This has however declined to about a third post-2006, with manufacturing taking over. It is however important to note that on average, close to a third of manufacturing exports are made up of mining products with minimal value addition, limited to cutting and polishing of diamonds, copper and zinc refinery.


Figure 2: Decomposition of Exports

1990

1995

2005

2015

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ores and Minerals

Manufactured products

Services

Agricultural Products (unpro-cessed)

Fish Products (unprocessed)

Source: Namibia Statistics Agency.

It is important to emphasis that the ultimate goal of attaining high and sustained economic growth is to bring about an improvement in the socio-economic development through high income per capita, employment creation, equitable income distribution and poverty eradication. Economic growth has translated into moderate per capita GDP, resulting in Namibia being classified as an upper-middle income country in 20094. However, the highly uneven distribution of income reflected by the relatively high Gini coefficient of 0.59715 in 2009/10 mean that the average Namibian is not necessarily better off. The proportion of the population living below the poverty line has decreased by about 40.5 percentage points between 1993/94 and 2009/10, but with a third of the Namibian population still living in poverty, a lot more need to be done in the fight against poverty.

Furthermore, the level of unemployment remains high and stagnant6 with a third of the Namibian labour force unemployed. The youth age group which constitutes about half of the labour force have the highest level of unemployment in the country. Moreover, due to the highly unskilled labour force, the majority of the employed are limited to low paying jobs in the agricultural and the private households sectors. In addition, about a third of the employed population in 2014 was in vulnerable employment (NSA, 2015). While skills mismatch has been suggested by many as the cause of the unemployment crisis, the production structure also seems to be excluding majority from actively participating in economic activities. Namibia’s manufacturing base is somewhat small and limited and this is possibly one of the factors hindering economic and export diversification as well as sustainable economic and employment growth. The high level of

4 Other sub-Saharan countries with the same status include Angola, Botswana, Gabon, Mauritius and South Africa.5 Namibia is reported to be among the countries with the highest level of income inequality in the world.6 The unemployment rate in 1997 was 34.5 percent and in 2014 it is 28.1 percent.


imports particularly of food is one area that can be looked into for possible import substitution given the potential of the agriculture sector and the local demand.

Odada and Godana (2002) identified a number of factors hindering growth in Namibia, i.e., low level of diversification and small manufacturing base, skills deficiency and policy constraints7. Additionally, Seneviratne (2009) point out that insufficient level of investment, below 25 percent of GDP, has undermined the economy’s growth potential. Recently, a cross section sectional study of seven Sub-Saharan African countries by the International Monetary Fund (IMF, 2014) found that on average total factor productivity growth in Namibia was negative for the period 2006 to 2010, slowing down economic growth. They argue that this is possibly due to lack of economic diversification, skills deficiency, relatively large public sector and low level of quality public spending as well as exogenous shocks such as depressed commodity prices.

It is against this background that a country specific study (for example, Namibia) is conducted to further investigate the underlying factors for the observed trend in total factor productivity growth, based on the growth accounting framework.

3. Growth accounting

3.1 Production functionThe factors of production, in terms of accumulation and productivity, influence production and output level in the economy. Thus, in determining the sources of economic growth, it’s essential to attribute output growth to its inputs. This relationship is represented by an aggregate production function, with many studies in the growth literature applying the conventional Cobb-Douglas production function which takes the form8:

Y t=At K tα Lt

β

where Y t is output, K t is physical capital stock, Lt represents human capital or labour and At represents total factor productivity or technology/technical progress, a measure of the efficiency in the use of the factors of production. Total factor productivity is also referred to as the Solow residual in the literature, measuring the ignorance of the determinants of output growth (Kumar & Pacheco, 2012). The parameters α and β represent the elasticity of growth to capital stock and labour, respectively. It is common practice to assume constant returns to scale, that is α+β = 1.

Thus, given this production function form, it can be shown (see Senhadji (2000) and Eita and Du Toit (2009)) that output growth is equal to the sum of total factor productivity growth and the

7 They make reference to SACU and the fact that Namibia is highly integrated to the South African economy which is a more diversified and modern economy, thus suppressing the growth and development of local industries.8 Skills augmented production function has been considered in Kumar and Pacheco (2012). However, due to lack of data for Namibia, it cannot be applied here.


weighted sum of growth in physical capital and labour, with the estimated parameters α and β used as weights in decomposing output growth i.e.,

ΔY t

Y t=α

Δ K t

K t+β

Δ Lt

Lt+

Δ At

At.

In essence, this is the growth accounting equation. Empirical analysis based on this equation allows one to decompose output growth into components that can be attributed to the growth of factor accumulation and productivity (Kumar & Pacheco, 2012). This help in understanding what is driving economic growth, i.e., whether it is factor accumulation or their productivity.

3.2 Empirical resultsThe data used in the analysis covers the period 1980-2015, Namibian annual data. Data for Yt

(real gross domestic product, constant 2010 prices) and Kt (fixed capital stock, constant 2010 prices9) were obtained from the National Accounts whereas data on Lt (employment) were obtained from Eita (2014). For 2015, it is assumed that employment growth is equal to the average employment growth for the period 2008 to 2014.

For comparison purposes, the period 1980 to 2015 is divided into seven five-year episodes. The first two episodes, the 1980’s or pre-independence are included to give a picture of the growth performance before independence. The third and fourth, the 1990’s can be referred to as the transition period from independence and they are followed by the early to mid-2000 and just before the 2008/09 global financial crisis. Finally, the last two episodes cover the period during and after the recent global financial crisis up to 2015. The results of the growth accounting exercise for Namibia are summarized in Figure 3.

It is clear that there has been somewhat acceleration in output growth, from a growth averaging just about 1.1 percent pre-independence to growth hovering around 5.0 percent during the 2000 to 2007 period. However, output growth took a slight knock post-2007, slowing down to an average of about 4.5 percent. Without a doubt, this is a result of the slowdown in the global economy due to the 2008/09 global financial crisis.

9 Technical base year shifting was done on fixed capital stock because of the unavailability of data in 2010 constant prices for the whole period under review.


Figure 3 Decomposition of growth.

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-2000

2001-2005

2006-2010

2011-2015

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Labour

Capital

Total Factor Productivity

Output Growth

Ann

ual p

erce

nt

Source:Author’s calculations.

Most importantly, it is evident that factor accumulation has been and remains the main driver of output growth in Namibia, with total factor productivity growth contracting during the transitional period (the 1990’s) and again during the 2006-2010 period10. The observed trend in total factor productivity has undoubtedly hampered output growth and warrants investigation, because factor accumulation alone cannot sustain long term economic growth (Senhadji, 2000).

4. Potential determinants of total factor productivity and growthAccording to the IMF (2014), total factor productivity impacts on the resource allocation, innovation and productivity of the factors of production and it is therefore a key determinant of long term economic growth prospects. Therefore, in order to complement the results of the growth accounting exercise in the previous section, it is important to further understand and identify the potential determinants of total factor productivity in the Namibian economy. A study by Isaksson (2007) of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) provides a comprehensive review on the determinants of total factor productivity. Some of the factors identified in that study and others in the literature are discussed, with particular emphasis on the Namibian context.

10 According to Kalimbo (2015), based on its GDP per capita and share of minerals exports, Namibia is classified as an economy which is efficiency driven. However, based on the fact that factor accumulation is the driver of output growth, Namibia would perhaps fit to be classified as a factor driven economy. This of course has implications on Namibia’s Global Competitiveness Index and Ranking.


Quality of labour is important because this impacts on the efficiency with which the accumulated labour are utilized. The quality of the labor force is determined by formal education attainment and dependent on access but most importantly on the quality of the education system. Technological advancement comes with the need for a highly skilled labor force, therefore, technology-skill mismatch impacts negatively on total factor productivity. Hence, the education system should be skills-demand oriented in order to ensure that there is no mismatch between the skills demand and supply in the economy.

The health and primary education as well as the higher education and training pillars remain the weakest under basic requirements outcomes of the Global Competitiveness Report (Kalimbo, 2015). Thus, IMF (2014) notes that skills mismatch in the Namibian labor market has contributed to the persistently high level of structural unemployment of about 28 percent. Structural reforms are therefore required in order to ensure that skills development is enhanced in areas that are critical to the economic development if the labor productivity is to be strengthened, i.e. tailor-made courses and training that suit Namibia’s industrialization drive. One particular area that must be stressed is Vocational Education Training (VET)11 which can provide the necessary skills required to drive industrialization. A study by National Planning Commission (NPC, 2014) emphasizes the need to improve the standards of VET through strong partnerships with key industry role players. Moreover, the Tourism Growth Strategy (MET, 2016) stresses recognition of prior learning as key intervention to human resources development and training.

Sound macroeconomic environment are undoubtedly necessary conditions and provide a supportive environment conducive for productivity enhancement and sustainable economic growth. The rate of inflation is one of the commonly used measures of macroeconomic stability in empirical analysis, with high and volatile inflation rate indicating relatively greater macroeconomic instability (Loko and Diouf, 2009). Studies by the IMF (2014) and Kumar and Pacheco (2012) both found a negative and significant relationship between inflation and productivity growth. The other macroeconomic variable considered is the size of government, measured by general government final consumption expenditure. Loko and Diouf (2009) and the IMF (2014) both suggest a concave relationship between the size of government and total factor productivity. That is, while a certain level of government spending is necessary for the provision of public goods and infrastructural development, the inefficiencies and most often low quality of public spending allocation and composition has potential to impact negatively on factor productivity.

There has been significant reduction in the annual rate of inflation, from inflation rate averaging over 10 percent in the 1990’s to inflation rate around 5 to 6 percent over the last decade (excluding the years 2008 and 2009). However, despite this favourable trend in price stability, the rising level of government expenditure coupled with increasing debt level over the recent years pose a threat to the economy’s macroeconomic stability. The composition of public

11 The impact of the VET levy introduced in 2014 is yet to be assessed.


expenditure, dominated by recurrent expenditure, particularly the high wage bill (which is also the main driver of expenditure growth) remains a concern as it limits resources for investment and productive spending.

Industrial structure is another factor that influences productivity growth in any economy. Kucera and Roncolato (2012) argue that high and sustainable economic growth requires structural transformation through changes in sectoral composition of output. That is, a shift from low productivity economic activities and sectors to high productivity sectors. Furthermore, less diversified economies are more vulnerable to external shocks, which can undermine productivity growth (IMF, 2014).

Despite a stable political environment and relatively sound solid macroeconomic fundamentals, the seemingly slow pace of economic structural transformation as represented by the slow change in industrial structure in the Namibian economy has partly been a restraint to achieving high and sustainable growth. There have only been small changes in the shares of the industries in GDP over the years, with the services, dominated by government services, accounting for over 50 percent of the GDP, the primary industry representing about twenty percent of GDP and the secondary industry representing less than twenty percent of GDP. The growth in the primary industries shows the highest variability over the years, owing to the changes in climate conditions and fluctuations in the international commodity markets. Furthermore, the structure of the economy’s export is characterized by commodities (representing over a third of total exports) and manufactured products predominated by minerals products with low value addition, limited to mainly cutting and polishing of diamonds, copper and zinc refinery. All these point to an economy whose production capacity is limited, with a small and less diversified manufacturing sector. This has resulted in a situation where most of the locally produced goods are exported while much of the local consumption demand is met by imports.

Therefore, while being mindful of Namibia’s areas of comparative advantage, these must be complemented by competitive advantage i.e. adequate skills, cost competitive production; access to markets etc. for effective economic structural transformation (Chamber of Mines, 2016).

Openness to trade was identified by Kumar and Pacheco (2010) as the key determinant of TFP growth in Kenya. They suggest that openness impacts on productivity and growth through the exploitation of comparative advantage, technology transfer and diffusion of knowledge, increasing scale economies and exposure to competition. Export performance in Namibia has been hampered by the relatively slow pace of transformation of the structure of the economy over the last two and a half decades. Thus, exports remain relatively less diversified, relying heavily on ores and minerals, with low value addition to the manufactured exports. Consequently, exports remain highly vulnerable to external shocks, particularly the low commodity prices and low demand from the rest of the world.


Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows play a crucial role in the transfer of technology and knowledge spillovers to the domestic market (Loko and Diouf, 2009). Thus, the IMF (2014) emphasizes that FDI inflows in key sectors are important for stimulating productivity growth and raising the growth potential in small middle-income countries. The abundance of mineral resources in Namibia has attracted FDI inflow into the mining sector, thus stimulating total factor productivity growth. Industrialization and sustainable economic growth will however require Namibia to attract FDI in the manufacturing sector in order to promote value addition and beneficiation.

Institutional and regulatory factors enhance productivity growth by providing an institutional environment conducive for efficient resource allocation. Regulatory burdens and barriers to starting businesses have potential to discourage investment thus impacting negatively on productivity growth (Loko and Diouf, 2009). According to the Global Competitiveness Reports (GCR), the ease of doing business and regulatory burden on firms is one of the areas that have undermined Namibia’s competitiveness and thus potentially productivity growth. Therefore, regulatory reforms to increase the ease of doing business, improvement of access to finance and reforms to address administrative and other inefficiencies must be strengthened to enhance productivity.

Climate conditions and weather-related shocks are important for an economy like Namibia that is dependent on the agriculture sector. These conditions directly impact on productivity of the agricultural sector and due to the interlinkage of the agriculture sector to other sectors of the economy, these impacts on overall productivity. There have been a number of drought occurrences over the last two and a half decades and these have all impacted negatively on the economy.

Furthermore, as noted by Loko and Diouf (2009), it is important to realize that while these factors are all important, they need to complement each other in order to attain greater gains in productivity. For example, the macroeconomic environment plays an important role in determining FDI and trade performances. Adequate skills availability is another factor that attracts foreign investors and is also critical to successful economic structural transformation. Thus complementarity of the policies should be emphasized.

5. Conclusion and implicationsThis research note attempted to offer insight into the growth determinants in the Namibian economy over the period 1990 to 2015. There has been somewhat accelerated economic growth over the years, even though inclusivity of such growth remains a concern. Empirical results based on the growth accounting framework suggests that factor accumulation has been and remains the main driver of economic growth in the Namibian economy, with total factor productivity growth contracting during the transitional period (the 1990’s) and again during the 2006-2010 period. This is to say, economic growth in Namibia has mainly been driven by adding


increasing the inputs of production as opposed to enhancing their productivity. This is concerning because factor accumulation alone cannot sustain economic growth. Therefore, there is a need to enhance productivity growth in order to stimulate high and sustainable economic growth.

Some of the factors that need to be addressed in the Namibian economy in order to stimulate productivity growth, as identified here and elsewhere, include structural reforms to ensure that skills development is enhanced in areas that are critical to economic development. This will require strong partnerships between industries and training institutions. Furthermore, economic structural transformation focusing on areas of Namibia’s comparative advantage but most importantly driven by competitive advantage must be prioritized to drive industrialization. Fiscal reforms must be enforced to address the high level of government expenditure and debt which can pose a threat to macroeconomic stability. Lastly, regulatory reforms to increase the ease of doing business, improve access to finance and reforms to enhance administrative capacity must be strengthened to enhance productivity

6. References

Chamber of Mines. (2016). Chamber of Mines input on NDP5: Economic Structural Transformation. Chamber of Mines. Windhoek.

Eita, J.H. (2014). Supply Model data. Unpublished Econometrics training manual. Otjiwarongo.

Eita, J.H. & Du Toit C.B. (2009). Explaining long-term growth in Namibia. South African Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 12 (1), 48-62.

Seneviratne, A.S. (2009). Sources of Economic Growth: Employment creation, Poverty reduction and Accelerating Investment: Results driven input for informed policy and strategy formulation. National Planning Commission, Windhoek, Namibia.

Sherbourne, R. (2013). Guide to the Namibian Economy 2013/14. Institute for Public Policy Research.

International Monetary Fund. (2014). IMF Country Report No. 14/41. International Monetary Fund. Washington.

Isaksson, A. (2007). Determinants of total factor productivity: a literature review. United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. Vienna.

Ivanov, S. & Webster C. (2010). Decomposition of economic growth in Bulgaria by industry. Journal of Economic Studies, 37 (2), 219-227.


Ivanov, S. & Webster C. (2007). Measuring the impact of tourism on economic. Tourism Economics, 13 (3), 379-388.

Kalimbo, H.N. (2015). Namibia Competitiveness Ranking: Are we addressing the real issue? Policy brief 04/2015. National Planning Commission, Windhoek.

Kucera, D. & Roncolato, L. (2012). Structure Matters: Sectoral drivers of growth and the labour productivity-employment relationship. International Labour Office. Geneva.

Kumar, S. & Pacheco, G. (2012). What determines the long run growth rate in Kenya? Journal of policy modeling. 34, pp. 705-718.

Loko, B. & Diouf M.A. (2009). Revisiting the Determinants of Productivity Growth: What’s New? International Monetary Fund. Washington.

McAuliffe, C., Saxena, S. & Yabara, M. (2012). Sustaining Growth in the East African Community. In Davoodi, H.R. (editor). The East African Community Aftern Ten Years: Deepening Integration.

Ministry of Environment and Tourism. (2016). National Sustainable Tourism Growth and Investment Promotion Strategy 2016-2026. Windhoek.

National Planning Commission. (2014). Vocational Education Job Attachment Report. Windhoek.

National Statistics Agency. (various publications). Annual National Accounts. National Statistics Agency. Windhoek.

National Statistics Agency. (2015). National Labour Force Survey Report 2015. National Statistics Agency. Windhoek.

Odada, J. & Godana. T. (2002). Sources of Growth in Africa: A case study of Namibia. Namibia Economic Policy Research Unit. Windhoek.

Senhadji, A. (2000). Sources of Economic Growth: An Extensive Growth Accounting Exercise. Interntional Monetary Fund. Washington.


AppendixFigure 4a: Mining Sector Performance

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00

6000.00

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

GDP growth (RHS) Mining sector growth (RHS) Uranium (tonnes of Uranium oxide) Zinc (tonnes 00') Copper (tonnes 00') Lead (tonnes 00')

Source:National Statistics Agency and Chamber of Mines.

Figure 4b: Mining Sector Performance

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

GDP growth (RHS) Mining sector growth (RHS) Gold (Kg) Diamond (Carats 000')

Source:National Statistics Agency and Chamber of Mines.


Figure 5: Commodity prices

Jan-90

Feb-9

1

Mar-92

Apr-93

May-94

Jun-95

Jul-96

Aug-97

Sep-9

8Oct-

99

Nov-00

Dec-01

Jan-03

Feb-0

4

Mar-05

Apr-06

May-07

Jun-08

Jul-09

Aug-10

Sep-1

1Oct-

12

Nov-13

Dec-14

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Gold Price USD per Ounce Copper USD per TonZinc Price USD per Ton Uranium price USD per Pound (RHS)

Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities.


the determinants of economic growth in namibia:€¦ · web viewodada and godana (2002) identified...

Documents