Trade-Induced Changes in Economic Inequality: Assessment Issues and Policy Implications for Developing Countries (original) (raw)
Related papers
Penelitian-penelitian yang menganalisis hubungan antara liberalisasi perdagangan, kemiskinan, dan pemerataan berujung pada perdebatan. Dampak dari pasar terbuka dan pengurangan kemiskinan menghasilkan pandangan yang pro (Anderson, Jha et al., dan Bhattasali et al.). dan kontra (Coller and Dollar, Twyford, Medeley, and Abbotts) secara tajam. Di sisi lain, dampak pasar terbuka terhadap distribusi pendapat bersifat lebih konklusif. Kesimpulan ini berlaku juga untuk kasus Indonesia. Dua kelompok kebijakan disintesa dari studi ini yang mencoba mensinergikan liberalisasi perdagangan dan pertumbuhan dengan kemiskinan dan pemerataan untuk wilayah Asia dan Pacific. Kelompok kebijakan pertama adalah liberalisasi perdagangan yang berpihak pada pengurangan kemiskinan yaitu 1) mengoreksi ketidak-seimbangan; 2) meninjau ulang tentang timbal-balik kebijakan; 3) perlakuan yang spesial dan berbeda serta fleksibelitas; dan 4) isu-isu perdagangan yang menjadi kepentingan khusus negara berkembang. Kelompok kebijakan kedua berkaitan dengan kebijakan domestik yang berpihak kepada orang miskin yaitu 1) memperbaiki ketidak-seimbangan penguasaan asset/lahan; 2) perbaikan infrastruktur di pedesaan; 3) menciptakan iklim investasi yang kondusif; 4) mendorong penciptaan lapangan kerja yang berpihak pada orang miskin; dan v) meningkatkan penelitian dan pengembangan bidang pertanian.
Trade Liberalization, Poverty, and Income Inequality: An Overview
Since GATT has been created in 1947, the world entered era of trade liberalization. Developing countries themselves began to open their economy in the 1980s and 1990s in order to increase economic growth which expected to the reduction of poverty and income inequality. However, although some developing countries, such as Brazil, India and China, experienced rapid economic growth over the past two decades, but the poverty only decrease slightly while income inequality became higher. This paper therefore examines the effect of trade liberalization on poverty and income inequality based on empirical studies in Brazil, India, and China, where liberalization were concentrated. The study tries to summarize experiences and drawn some relevant conclusion for further policy intervention.
Globalisation and Inequality: the Effects of Trade Liberalisation on Developing Countries
2000
This article deals with the impact of trade on wage dispersion in developing countries and its effects on welfare distribution. The attention is focused on two selected East Asian countries, and two Latin American countries. Section one introduces the work and describes the guidelines of the paper. Section two presents a review of the most recent relevant literature.
Trade Liberalization and Fight Against Poverty
International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 2013
The struggle against poverty and social inequality is one of the biggest challenges for developing countries. These countries should adapt themselves to a new economic world order characterized by trade liberalization and based on a desire to make globalization work for poorer people. Most empirical studies on the relationship between trade, inequality and poverty assume that trade contributes to increasing wage inequality in developing countries. In this paper, we studied the impact of trade liberalization on poverty on a sample of 106 developing countries during the period 1980-2010. The results indicate that trade is not the main factor affecting inequality and poverty persistence.
Trade Liberalization and the Structure of Poverty in Developing Countries
2003
Globalization increases poverty" is a common assertion made by critic s of globalization. The proliferation of low-wage jobs and higher food prices are some of the arguments brought forward in support of this argument. One of the hallmarks of globalization is the systematic dismantling of barriers to trade. Advocates of trade liberalization -particularly industrialized country agriculture reform -argue that the ensuing rise in world prices for agriculture products will boost rural incomes, thereby reducing poverty in the poorest countries, where the bulk of world poverty resides. Who is right? The goal of this paper is take a systematic look at the structure of poverty across a range of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and explore how national poverty rates in some of the poorest countries in the world are likely to be affected by global trade liberalization.
Inequality, Trade and Development: Evidence from Developing Countries
2013
This study analyzes the impact of trade on crosscountry inequality using a panel data set from 65 developing counties over a long period 1970-2008. This study differs from the existing literature on distributional impact of trade by explicitly noting the importance of development stage in shaping the link. The analysis shows that the effect of trade on inequality depends upon the level of development of a trade integrating economy. Economies that have a high level of economic development acquire a favourable effect of trade while underdeveloped economies suffer from international economic integration. In sum, trade accentuates not ameliorate inequality in countries with low level of economic development.
Trade Liberalization, Growth, Poverty, and Equity: Some Empirical Evidences and Policy Options
Trade liberalization, economic/agricultural growth, poverty, and equity have been and will still be the main issues in international forums and organizations. Therefore, many studies have been done to assess the links between these variables. This report tries to review various studies that assess the links. By doing this, a better pictures and more precise information about the magnitudes and the direction of these links (relationship) can be mapped. Several studies assessing the link between trade liberalization and poverty came up with a very much debatable result. Open markets are neither inherently good nor inherently bad for poverty reduction. With this divergence results of the studies, however, we can classify into two main groups, namely, (i) those of supporting the of poverty alleviation effect of trade liberalization and (ii) those questioning the role of trade liberalization on poverty alleviation. On the contrary, the link between trade liberalization on equity is more conclusive. Some studies found that the impact on equity is ambiguous, but most study indicated that the impact is worsening the equity, especially equity across countries. More robust relationships were found between economic and agricultural growth and poverty reduction. Most studies found that there is a positive link between economic/agricultural growth and poverty, although the estimates of strength of the relationship are varied. For the case in Asia and the Pacific, growth of 1 per cent is associated with a 1.5 per cent decline in the incidence of 1−a−daypovertyonaverage.Recentresearchshowsthataonepercentincreaseinagriculturalyieldsreducesthepercentageofpeoplelivingonlessthan1-a-day poverty on average. Recent research shows that a one per cent increase in agricultural yields reduces the percentage of people living on less than 1−a−daypovertyonaverage.Recentresearchshowsthataonepercentincreaseinagriculturalyieldsreducesthepercentageofpeoplelivingonlessthan1 per day by between 0.6 and 1.2 per cent. A study in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Vietnam indicates a significant contribution of productivity improvement on poverty. The estimated elasticity of poverty reduction with respect to the crop productivity performance varies across countries from –0.15 to –4.42 with the average of –0.29. This implies that one per cent increase in productivity reduces poverty incidence from 0.15 to 4.42 per cent.
Trade liberalization and poverty: Lessons from Asia and Africa
Manuscript. Université Laval, 2006
We bring together the lessons drawn from the computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the impacts of trade liberalization on poverty in seven Asian and African countries: Bangladesh, Benin, India, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines and Senegal. We compare and contrast the results in these countries, explaining where there are similarities and why there are differences. Particular attention is paid to identifying how the specific characteristics of each country -initial tariff structure, trade patterns, relative factor endowments, production patterns, income sources and consumption patterns of the poor, etc. -modify the results. Conclusions are then drawn with respect to the key factors in managing trade liberalization and designing appropriate accompanying measures. Results show that trade liberalization has little but positive impact on welfare and poverty. Overall, industrial sectors benefit -relatively to agriculture -from trade liberalization and so are urban households relatively to their rural counterparts.
Trade liberalization, inequality and poverty reduction in Latin America
Annual World Bank Conference on …, 2007
Trade liberalization in the late eighties and early nineties in Latin America was accompanied by increases in skill premiums and wage inequality, and in several countries in overall income inequality, a result unexpected by many. Further, as shown in the paper, observed effects on poverty varied widely across countries where wage and income inequality increased or remained essentially unchanged. This paper argues that this was mainly the result of four factors: (1) relative factor endowments, as most Latin American countries are rich in natural resources (which, are in general complementary with capital and skills) and were more capital abundant than other developing countries with large pools of unskilled labor, such as China and India, that were already integrating into the world economy by the time of Latin American trade liberalization; (2) dynamic effects of trade that led to an acceleration of skill-biased technical change and Schumpeterian creative destruction, which led to an increase in demand for skills in most industries; (3) initial conditions and contemporary events that make predictions based on a simple factor abundance model difficult to generalize; for example the pre-reform structure of protection was biased towards unskilled intensive sectors in most LAC countries and tariff reductions naturally led to a relative increase in demand for skills, but differences in consumption bundles across income groups and exchange rate policies also complicate predictions; (4) the impact that trade reform had on imperfectly functioning labor markets, such as potential transitions in and out of unemployment, informality, as well as income volatility are likely to affect and sometimes change the direction of the impact of trade reforms on income inequality and poverty. Finally, the paper shows that the effect of trade on poverty (and income inequality) depends largely on other policies being implemented simultaneously, and that the impact of trade on poverty reduction can be significantly enhanced (and the effects on inequality mitigated) by policies that increase the provision and access to skills and other productive assets for the poor. * We are greatly indebted to