Economic Prosperity With Environmental Preservation

This book explores the complex and rapidly evolving urbanization of Amazonia, a vast, diverse, and ecologically critical region undergoing a profound transformation. Amazonia is now home to nearly 41 million urban residents across 895 settlements — and yet its urbanization remains poorly understood, underestimated in scale, fragmented in form, and frequently overlooked in policy.

Through multidisciplinary perspectives and contributions from more than 50 experts, this book examines how urban growth intersects with environmental degradation, social inequality, and gaps in governance. Despite these challenges, cities in Amazonia are also places of promising innovations, from tailored healthcare services and environmental monitoring to community-led planning and cross-border cooperation.

Rooted in both local insight and regional coordination frameworks, including the Amazonia Forever program, this work offers a holistic and evidence-based understanding of urbanization in Amazonia. It argues for urgent, coordinated action to guide sustainable, inclusive development — before current urbanization trajectories lead to irreversible ecological and social consequences. The book invites researchers, policymakers and practitioners to recognize Amazonia’s cities not only as sites of vulnerability but as key agents in shaping the region’s — and the planet’s — future.

Chapter four highlights successful practices and innovative approaches that address this region’s urban challenges. Some focus on people, improving healthcare, and mapping needs for riverine communities. Others emphasize environmental care, with cities leading sustainability efforts, nature-based solutions, partnerships and ecosystem restoration to boost resilience. It also stresses the importance of increasing prosperity by finding opportunities even under difficult, cross-border conditions

Keywords: urbanization, cities, urban areas, sustainability, climate, productivity, well-being, infrastructure, Amazonia, urban development

JEL Codes: R11; R12; O18; R58; J24; R42; Q54; Z13

Una historia de la economía de dos Amazonias: Lecciones sobre generar prosperidad compartida mientras se protege la selva en Perú y Colombia

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 Connectivity Trap: Stuck between the Forest and Shared Prosperity in the Colombian Amazon

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.

La trampa de conectividad: cómo la Amazonía colombiana está atrapada entre la selva y la prosperidad compartida

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.

La Diversidad Económica Faltante en la Amazonía Colombiana

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. 

Seeing the Forest for More than the Trees: A Policy Strategy to Curb Deforestation and Advance Shared Prosperity in the Colombian Amazon

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.

Development in a Complex World: The Case of Ethiopia

This research compendium provides an explanation of Ethiopia’s fundamental economic challenge of slowing economic growth after an exceptional growth acceleration — a challenge that has been compounded by COVID-19, conflict, and climate change impacts. Ethiopia has experienced exceptional growth since the early 2000s but began to see a slowdown in the capacity of the economy to grow, export, and produce jobs since roughly 2015. This intensified a set of macroeconomic challenges, including high, volatile, and escalating inflation. This compendium identifies a path forward for more sustainable and inclusive growth that builds on the government’s Homegrown Economic Reform strategy. It includes growth diagnostics and economic complexity research as well as applications to unpack interacting macroeconomic distortions and inform diversification strategies. Drawing on lessons from past success in Ethiopia and new constraints, this compendium offers insights into what the Government of Ethiopia and the international community must do to unlock resilient, post-conflict economic recovery across Ethiopia.

The research across the chapters of this compendium was developed during the Growth Lab’s research project in Ethiopia from 2019 to 2022, supported through a grant by the United States Agency of International Development (USAID). This research effort, which was at times conducted in close collaboration with government and non-government researchers in Ethiopia, pushed the boundaries of Growth Lab research. The project team worked to understand to intensive shocks faced by the country and enable local capability building in the context of limited government resources in a very low-income country. Given the value of this learning, this compendium not only discusses challenges and opportunities in Ethiopia in significant detail but also describes how various tools of diagnostic work and economic strategy-building were used in practice. As such, it aims to serve as a teaching resource for how economic tools can be applied to unique development contexts. The compendium reveals lessons for Ethiopian policymakers regarding the country’s development path as well as numerous lessons that the development community and development practitioners can learn from Ethiopia.

The Devil’s in the Dance: Elements of a Growth Diagnostic in Bolivia

Bolivia’s economy stands at a crossroads. Weakened by the fiscal and external imbalances triggered by the 2014 fall in gas prices and exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the country faces a complex challenge: how to reignite economic growth while restoring macroeconomic stability. This paper applies the Growth Diagnostic methodology to identify the most binding constraints to growth in Bolivia and proposes pathways forward for policy reform.

The paper presents Bolivia’s growth syndrome as “La Diablada” or the dance of the devil—a dance between opposing priorities. On one side lies the need for fiscal consolidation to address mounting imbalances; on the other, an urgent need to stimulate demand and support recovery after the COVID-19 shock. This collision of policy needs creates a situation where missteps in either direction could be highly disruptive, risking either prolonged stagnation or macroeconomic crisis.

The paper finds that Bolivia’s current growth model—heavily reliant on commodity-led rents and public sector-led investment—has reached its limits. The economic challenge is that the historical engine of growth in Bolivia—net government spending fueled by rising gas prices—cannot drive growth in the current period. Even a short-run recovery in gas prices belies the structural challenges in demand for gas exports in Argentina and Brazil, along with the supply of gas, in the lack of investments in new discovery. Structural weaknesses also include a rising wage bill dominated by public employment, the lack of foreign investment, and a lack of economic diversification into higher complexity sectors. Political uncertainty and institutional inefficiencies, especially among state-owned enterprises (SOEs), further erode the country’s fiscal space and growth potential.

To manage current macroeconomic imbalances and lay the groundwork for inclusive growth, the government must prioritize the sequencing of actions across four key policy fronts:

1. Fiscal Response: Focus on increasing fiscal space to allow for stimulus to drive economic recovery, including smart fiscal consolidation, cutting unproductive spending—especially in loss-making SOEs and an inflated wage bill, while guarding against the recessionary pressures of fiscal consolidation.
2. External Finance Response: Maximize access to external finance while balancing debt sustainability. Foreign reserves risk not being able to cover medium-term debt obligations, if no action is taken.
3. Monetary Response: Restore confidence in monetary policy by preparing for a gradual move toward a more flexible exchange rate regime, supported by stronger institutions and clearer communication. Not addressing the overvalued boliviano risks a currency crisis, a balance of payments crisis, or both.
4. Private Sector Response: Shift the growth model by enabling private sector-led diversification, removing investment bottlenecks, and targeting support to export-oriented, higher-complexity sectors.

At stake is whether Bolivia can shift from managing crises to enabling a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future.

Last updated on 05/20/2025

Finance as the Binding Constraint to Growth

Finance forms a necessary input for production, one so central that it was placed atop the decision tree in the original Growth Diagnostics framework. As we argue, one of the thorniest findings from more than a decade of practice in conducting Growth Diagnostics has been that it is often more difficult to disprove a finance constraint than it is to prove one. Finance has often earned more attention than deserved when considering the many complementary inputs that must be present for production to take place and investments to be profitable. The challenge is in getting the diagnostic right, starting with the use of sound evidence to test for signals.

This paper revisits the starting question of the Growth Diagnostic framework: what does it mean for finance to be a constraint to economic growth? We provide an updated, detailed decision tree for finance, including a rethink of other sources of finance constraints, such as insufficient equity, that were not fully considered in the original decision tree. Our starting point to test for the presence of a finance constraint is to recognize that every financial system suffers from asymmetric information. While information is important for almost all assets in economic transactions, in financial markets, information is the asset. The inherent nature of information asymmetries to financial markets is, in part, what makes finance a focal point for constraint analysis, as greater size and sophistication of financial systems do not make a country immune to finance constraints.

We present three reasons that finance may be constrained: a) insufficient aggregate savings, due to a both inadequate domestic savings and restricted access to foreign borrowing, resulting in not enough loanable funds to finance good projects; b) inadequate institutions and tools for assessing and mitigating risk, that are unable to resolve information asymmetries, preventing markets’ access to savings; and c) problems in financial intermediation, where intermediation itself may be high-risk, monopolistic, or otherwise inefficient to result in insufficient bank lending, or may face borrowers who lack sufficient equity. The paper aims to share lessons learned in testing whether finance is constrained – or not, as well as the policy space to address a finance constraint. The policy discussion emphasizes the risk of misclassifying finance as a constraint when it is not binding on production, as the alternate response of overregulating financial markets can create new intermediation failures to the trust between savers and borrowers. Ultimately, we conclude that policy responses to a finance constraint must be as context specific as the syndrome presented by the diagnosis, where creating functional financial markets lies in preserving the delicate balance of trust between savers and borrowers.

This publication is part of the Mindbook Paper Series.

Last updated on 06/12/2025

Coordination Failures in Adopting New Technological Capabilities as the Binding Constraint to Growth

The process of structural transformation that has accompanied economic success stories requires an expansion of the technological capabilities held in society. Adding new technological capabilities faces several constraints related to coordination failures, information failures, and the asymmetric nature of technology itself. Although these coordination failures were included in the original Growth Diagnostics framework, practitioners have often found them challenging to analyze. This paper aims to provide a systematic framework and analytic techniques that bring clarity and rigor to the examination of potential constraints in this branch. We posit four different strategic approaches that countries face in the process of structural transformation, centering on two factors: are existing technological capabilities sufficient for growth? And: how easy is it to add the new technological capabilities required to develop new productive sectors? Countries that lack sufficient existing capabilities and must add several capabilities at once in order to enter higher-productivity sectors may be constrained by a capability trap resulting from coordination failures. Even for places where promising opportunities exist, they may be constrained by “low jumpiness” related to information externalities in the process of self-discovery. Diagnostic tests are detailed that can identify the necessary strategic approach. The paper also reflects on the policy space for addressing coordination constraints and outlines the central role of the public sector in enabling coordination of technological capabilities. Both public-private coordination as well as underappreciated elements of public-public coordination in the provision of public goods are addressed. 

This publication is part of the Mindbook Paper Series.

Last updated on 05/30/2025