Does multilateral trade liberalization help reduce poverty in developing countries?

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sena Kimm Gnangnon
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sena Kimm Gnangnon

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine empirically whether the impact of multilateral trade liberalization on export performance and export performance convergence in developing countries depends on the amount of Aid for Trade (AfT) flows that accrue to these countries. Export performance is measured by export of goods and services to gross domestic product ratio, whereas export performance convergence refers to the process whereby a developing country’s export performance catches up with the world’s average export performance.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis has used an unbalanced panel data set covering a sample of 97 developing countries, over the period 2002 to 2015. The two-step system generalized methods of moments has been used to address the question empirically.FindingsEmpirical results show that multilateral trade liberalization generates higher export performance and convergence in export performance in developing countries only when it is accompanied by higher AfT flows to developing countries, with a view of helping these countries enhance their trade capacity and reap the opportunities offered by multilateral trade liberalization in the international trade market.Research limitations/implicationsThese findings indicate that greater access to the international trade market is not sufficient to promote developing countries’ export performance and convergence in export performance. Such a promotion could materialize if multilateral trade liberalization is accompanied by higher AfT flows (to enhance these countries’ capacity to trade). The findings therefore indicate that the current context of escalation of trade tensions would likely result in lower degree of multilateral trade liberalization, and eventually lower AfT flows to recipient-countries, and ultimately hamper developing countries’ export performance and convergence in export performance.Practical implicationsThe findings therefore indicate that the current context of escalation of trade tensions would likely result in lower degree of multilateral trade liberalization, and eventually lower AfT flows to recipient-countries, and ultimately hamper developing countries’ export performance and convergence in export performance. An avenue for future research could be to perform the same analysis when data would be available over a longer time period. Future studies on the matter could also investigate whether the findings obtained apply to components of export performance, including for example manufactured exports and non-manufactured exports.Originality/valueMany papers related to the AfT effectiveness have looked at the effect of AfT inflows on recipient-countries’ export performance. However, little attention has been paid to the effect of multilateral trade liberalization on developing countries’ export performance and export performance convergence and particularly to whether this effect would depend on the amounts of AfT that would accrue to developing countries to help them develop their trade capacity. To the best of our knowledge, no previous paper has addressed this issue.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-450
Author(s):  
KENT JONES ◽  
YUNWEI GAI

AbstractThis paper sets out to examine the pattern of WTO committee chair appointments by nationality since the WTO's founding in 1995. Chairs of the General Council (GC), subsidiary and negotiating committees play important roles in the outcome of trade negotiations and in administrative and implementation issues in Geneva. The GC selects most committee chairs, and must consider the balance of member representation and the quality of the candidates in its choices. Regression results indicate that the selection of a chair by nationality generally reflects the country's mission size in Geneva, the country's years of experience as a WTO member, and its economic interests in trade. The experience of individuals and continuity in committee leadership also appear to play important roles. Among developing countries, emerging markets (EMs) tend to have the largest proportional representation. The GC thus appears to follow a human capital model of chair selection, geographical constraints and especially development status balance considerations. Continued investments among all WTO members, but especially EM and other developing countries, in WTO representation and leadership capacity will be required in order to promote multilateral trade liberalization in the future.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 496-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sena Kimm Gnangnon

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of multilateral trade policy (MTP) liberalization on developing countries’ economic exposure to shocks. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is conducted on a panel data set comprising 120 countries over the period 1996–2013 and uses the within fixed effects estimator. Findings The empirical results suggest that over the entire sample as well as sub-samples of least developed countries (LDCs) and non-LDCs, multilateral trade liberalization have a negative and significant impact on economic exposure to shocks. Interestingly, LDCs appear to experience the highest magnitude of the reducing impact of multilateral trade liberalization on countries’ economic exposure to shocks. Research limitations/implications These findings suggest that a greater cooperation among countries in the world, including among WTO members to further liberalize trade would surely contribute to reducing developing countries’ economic exposure to shocks. Practical implications The current study shows that the current backlash against trade and the consequent strong appeal for domestic trade protectionist measures would likely to undermine the likelihood of further multilateral trade liberalization. One implication of this could be a rise in countries’ economic exposure to shocks. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is first the study on this matter.


2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 896-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Limão

Most countries are members of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). The effect of these agreements has attracted much interest and raised the question of whether PTAs promote or slow multilateral trade liberalization, i.e., whether they are a “building block” or “stumbling block” to multilateral liberalization. Despite this long-standing concern with PTAs and the lack of theoretical consensus, there is no systematic evidence on whether they are actually a stumbling block to multilateral liberalization. We use detailed data on U.S. multilateral tariffs to provide the first systematic evidence that the direct effect of PTAs was to generate a stumbling block to its MTL. We also provide evidence of reciprocity in multilateral tariff reductions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-168
Author(s):  
Yinan Liu

Abstract As the importance of tariffs in international trade has declined with the reduction of tariff rates under the GATT/WTO programs of multilateral trade liberalization, most governments prefer to protect domestic industries from foreign competitors through a variety of non-tariff barriers. Antidumping actions have recently become the world's biggest trade impediment due to their specific features and the antidumping activity of new users. Since China has become the major engine of world trade growth in recent years, it also has become the largest anti-dumping target in the world. However, the present world competition situation implies that world trade liberalization might arouse regional trade friction. The objective of this research is to identify whether China's WTO accession changed China's situation with regard to EU antidumping actions. The research analysis empirically proved that trade liberalization could partly affect the EU's antidumping actions against Chinese exports and the higher degree of industrial concentricity becomes a motive to increase the EU's antidumping activities against China.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document