Multilateral Trade Liberalization, Export Share in the International Trade Market and Aid for Trade

2017 ◽  
Vol 08 (03) ◽  
pp. 1750014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sèna Kimm Gnangnon

This paper adds to the existing literature on the macroeconomic determinants of Aid for Trade (AfT). It investigates the impact of both multilateral trade policy liberalization and the export share of AfT-recipient countries in global trade market on the AfT amounts that accrue to these countries. Using a panel dataset comprising 133 AfT-recipient-countries, over the period 1995–2015, the empirical analysis shows that both the impact of multilateral trade policy liberalization and of the recipient countries’ export share in the world trade market on AfT depend on recipient-countries’ level of development as well as on their domestic trade policy. Additionally, in the context of multilateral trade liberalization, donors tend to reward recipient-countries’ effort to secure a higher export share in the international trade market.

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 20170047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sèna Kimm Gnangnon

During recent years, the world has faced a growing anti-trade rhetoric, which has been translating in a strong appeal of domestic trade protectionist measures, situation that has been undermining trade multilateralization. The current paper examines the extent to which multilateral trade liberalization affects domestic trade policy liberalization. The analysis uses a panel dataset comprising 166 countries over the period 1995–2014. It suggests evidence that multilateral trade liberalization is strongly conducive to domestic trade policy liberalization. Moreover, as countries further develop, they experience a greater impact of multilateral trade liberalization on domestic trade policy liberalization. The take-home message of this analysis is that domestic protectionist trade policy measures would likely undermine the multilateralization of trade and prompt trading partners to react in the same way. This would ultimately result in trade wars, which would be damage for domestic economies and the world’s economic performance.


Economies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sena Gnangnon ◽  
Jean-François Brun

This paper investigates the impact of multilateral trade liberalization on resource revenue, using an unbalanced panel dataset comprising 57 countries, including both developed and developing countries, over the period 1995–2015. By means of the two-step system Generalized Methods of Moments (GMM) estimator, the empirical analysis suggests that multilateral trade liberalization exerts a negative effect on resource revenue, probably at the benefit of non-resource revenue. However, this effect over the full sample hides a positive effect of multilateral trade liberalization on resource revenue in poorest countries, and a negative effect of multilateral trade liberalization on resource revenue in non-poorest countries of the sample. Additionally, the negative effect of multilateral trade liberalization on resource revenue over the full sample appears to be dependent on the degree of domestic trade liberalization. In fact, multilateral trade liberalization genuinely induces a reducing effect on resource revenue only if countries liberalize their domestic trade regime beyond a minimum level.


2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (03) ◽  
pp. 1850007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sèna Kimm Gnangnon

The world has experienced in recent years a rising anti-trade and anti-globalization sentiment, which would likely jeopardize recent efforts by the international trade community, in particular Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), to promote multilateral trade liberalization (MTP). The current article investigates the impact of MTP on countries’ terms of trade volatility. Results based on a large panel dataset suggest that MTP exerts a significant reducing effect on countries’ terms of trade volatility. However, this impact appears to be dependent on countries’ development level. The take-home message is that greater cooperation on trade matters, including among WTO Members would help promote multilateral trade liberalization, which would surely contribute to reducing terms of trade volatility, for the benefits of all countries, in particular developing economies.


2003 ◽  
pp. 117-127
Author(s):  
S. Mikhnevich

The essence of the modern concept of multifunctionality of agriculture is analysed in the article. Three multifunctional aspects of agricultural sector, the influence of the concept of multifunctionality on the process of trade policy negotiations in the framework of the WTO, the impact of the said concept on the process of liberalization of the international trade of agricultural produce are considered.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 1950001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sena Kimm Gnangnon

This paper examines the issue of fiscal space for trade, proxied by countries’ public expenditure for the trade sector. It provides empirical evidence that improvement in countries’ overall fiscal space results in higher public expenditure for trade. Furthermore, by promoting multilateral trade liberalization, the international trade community (including the World Trade Organization, WTO) could help enhance countries’ overall fiscal space, which would in turn translate into greater fiscal space for trade. Thus, rising restrictive trade measures in the world would likely undermine the promotion of multilateral trade liberalization and affect countries’ capacity to fund the development of their trade sector.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document