Tyler Cowen evaluates New Zealand's economic reforms.
I'm not so sure that the distance and size explanations for slower-than-desired growth despite the reforms is entirely persuasive, but perhaps that's my wishful thinking.
Posted by robe0419 at November 22, 2004 10:19 AM | TrackBackI was in NZ in the Fall of 2000 and again in February of 2004. The changes during that time were amazing. The biggest noticeable difference to a tourist is that the US dollar is much weaker in 2004. In 2000 I stayed in 4 star hotel suites for US$100/night. In 2004 that bought me a mid-level hotel room.
Aside from the weaker dollar, NZ also had dramatic changes in immigration. After September 11, a lot of professional expats decided to come back to safe New Zealand. According to a guidebook I looked at there, they had a small but steady outflow of citizens throughout the 90s, but that trend dramatically reversed post-9/11. As a result, housing prices in Auckland soared. Maybe some of those former expats started companies too, but I didn't see any statistics for that.
Posted by: Derek Scruggs at November 22, 2004 10:28 AMInterestingly, we've had much more impressive growth since the demise of the "reform" policies. This can be attributed to them being a bad idea (certainly its very difficult to see the good in a conscious policy of tanking the economy whenever unemployment got "too low" (approached 6%)) - or it can be attributed to a return of stability and certainty.
Posted by: Idiot/Savant at November 24, 2004 03:59 AM