Publication: Can Trade Reduce Poverty in Africa?
Loading...
Date
2013-04
ISSN
Published
2013-04
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
While most economists accept that, in the long run, open economies fare better in aggregate than closed ones, many fears that trade could harm the poor. African countries, for example, have realized significant improvements in trade liberalization in recent decades, yet Africa remains the poorest continent in the world. It seems that the large gains expected from opening up to international economic forces have been limited in Africa, especially for poor people. Drawing on the findings of a recently published working paper (Le Goff and Singh 2013), this note argues that the benefits of trade are not automatic, but rather depend on accompanying policies aimed at developing the financial sector, promoting primary education, and improving governance. This accompanying policy agenda allows people to take advantage of the opportunities offered by freer trade, by reallocating resources away from less productive activities to more promising ones. Trade liberalization therefore should not be implemented on its own, but with the necessary complementing policies.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“Le Goff, Maëlan; Singh, Rajun Jan. 2013. Can Trade Reduce Poverty in Africa?. Economic Premise;No. 114. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/16123 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Citations
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Does Trade Reduce Poverty? A View from Africa(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2013-01)Although trade liberalization is being actively promoted as a key component in development strategies, theoretically, the impact of trade openness on poverty reduction is ambiguous. A more liberalized trade regime is argued to change relative factor prices in favor of the more abundant factor. If poverty and relative low income stem from abundance of labor, greater trade openness should lead to higher labor prices and a decrease in poverty. However, should the re-allocation of factors be hampered, the expected benefits from freer trade may not materialize. The theoretical ambiguity on the effects of openness is reflected in the available empirical evidence. This paper examines how the effect of trade openness on poverty may depend on complementary reforms that help a country take advantage of international competition. Using a non-linear regression specification that interacts a proxy of trade openness with proxies of various country structural specificities and a panel of 30 African countries over the period 1981-2010, the analysis finds that trade openness tends to reduce poverty in countries where financial sectors are deep, education levels high and governance strong.Publication Analyzing the Distributional Impact of Reforms : A Practitioner’s Guide to Pension, Health, Labor Markets, Public Sector Downsizing, Taxation, Decentralization, and Macroeconomic Modeling, Volume 2(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006)The analysis of the distributional impact of policy reforms on the well-being or welfare of different stakeholder groups, particularly on the poor and vulnerable, has an important role in the elaboration and implementation of poverty reduction strategies in developing countries. In recent years this type of work has been labeled as Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) and is increasingly implemented to promote evidence-based policy choices and foster debate on policy reform options.Publication Analyzing the Distributional Impact of Reforms : A Practioner's Guide to Trade, Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy, Utility Provision, Agricultural Markets, Land Policy and Education, Volume 1(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005)The analysis of the distributional impact of policy reforms on the well-being or welfare of different stakeholder groups, particularly on the poor and vulnerable, has an important role in the elaboration and implementation of poverty reduction strategies in developing countries. In recent years this type of work has been labeled as Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) and is increasingly implemented to promote evidence-based policy choices and foster debate on policy reform options.Publication Would Freeing Up World Trade Reduce Poverty and Inequality? The Vexed Role of Agricultural Distortions(2011-03-01)Trade policy reforms in recent decades have sharply reduced the distortions that were harming agriculture in developing countries, yet global trade in farm products continues to be far more distorted than trade in nonfarm goods. Those distortions reduce some forms of poverty and inequality but worsen others, so the net effects are unclear without empirical modeling. This paper summarizes a series of new economy-wide global and national empirical studies that focus on the net effects of the remaining distortions to world merchandise trade on poverty and inequality globally and in various developing countries. The global LINKAGE model results suggest that removing those remaining distortions would reduce international inequality, largely by boosting net farm incomes and raising real wages for unskilled workers in developing countries, and would reduce the number of poor people worldwide by 3 percent. The analysis based on the Global Trade Analysis Project model for a sample of 15 countries, and nine stand-alone national case studies, all point to larger reductions in poverty, especially if only the non-poor are subjected to increased income taxation to compensate for the loss of trade tax revenue.Publication Reducing Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: Progress, Pitfalls and Prospects(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2006-12)Most of the world's poorest people depend on farming for their livelihood. Earnings from farming in low-income countries are depressed partly due to a pro-urban bias in own-country policies, and partly because richer countries (including some developing countries) favor their farmers with import barriers and subsidies. Both sets of policies reduce national and global economic growth and add to inequality and poverty in developing countries. Acknowledgement of that since the 1980s has given rise to greater pressures for reform, both internal and external. Over the past two decades numerous developing country governments have reduced their sectoral and trade policy distortions, while many high-income countries continue with protectionist policies that harm developing country exports of farm products. Recent research suggests that the agricultural protectionist policies of high-income countries reduce welfare in many developing countries. Most of those studies also suggest that full global liberalization of merchandise trade would raise value added in agriculture in developing country regions, and that much of the benefit from global reform would come not just from reform in high-income countries but also from liberalization among developing countries, including in many cases own-country reform. These findings raise three key questions that are addressed in this paper: To what extent have the reforms of the past two decades succeeded in reducing distortions to agricultural incentives? Do current policy distortions still discriminate against farmers in low-income countries? And what are the prospects for further reform in the next decade or so?
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.