IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331415.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Network Structures, Growth and Poverty

Author

Listed:
  • Parris, Brett

Abstract

While investors are advised to diversify in order to manage risk, developing countries are advised instead to liberalise their trade regimes and specialise according to their current comparative advantage. This study uses 67 regions of the GTAP database to investigate the effects of unilateral liberalisation and its impacts on countries’ economic structures and the extent to which this affects countries’ vulnerability to an economic shock. While liberalisation resulted in improvements in GDP and welfare on average, there were significant variations. A number of countries experienced contractions in their GPDs and declines in welfare. While there was no evidence of a relationship between the percentage change in GDP and the initial export or output concentration, there was a positive relationship between the percentage change in GDP and the percentage change in export and output concentrations. On average, increases in GDP following liberalisation were associated with increases in concentration in both the export sector and in overall industrial output and also reductions in the fraction of unskilled labour employed by the main export sector. Initial GDP per capita has no significant effect, implying that once concentration measures and the fraction of costs in the main export are accounted for, the per capita income levels of a country show no systematic effects on the percentage change in GDP induced by the liberalisation. For developing countries undergoing unilateral liberalisation, the results imply that they are likely to experience an increase in GDP, but an increase accompanied by more highly concentrated industrial output and exports, and also a lower fraction of main export costs due to unskilled labour. Following liberalisation, the responses of liberalised and non-liberalised versions of the region’s economies to a shock were compared. The rest of the world’s productivity in the country’s main export was increased by 10%, with the liberalised economies faring marginally worse on average in welfare and terms of trade effects, but slightly better on GDP effects. When the net effects of the initial liberalisation and subsequent technology shock were compared, countries were better off on average if they had liberalised. But this average masked important sectoral differences. Countries specialising in sectors with high proportions of own-commodity inputs in their main export’s total cost, such as manufacturing, did best, while those specialising in food tended to suffer welfare declines. Higher levels of export and output concentration also tended to reduce welfare. This suggests that increased concentration does indeed make countries more vulnerable to certain economic shocks. Finally, the economic network structures of the two extreme cases, Tanzania and Vietnam are compared visually as an aid to interpretation.

Suggested Citation

  • Parris, Brett, 2005. "Economic Network Structures, Growth and Poverty," Conference papers 331415, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331415/files/2118.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dixon, P.B. & Parmenter, B.R. & Sutton, J., 1978. "Spatial Disaggregation of Orani Results: A Preliminary Analysis of the Impact of Protection at the State Level," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 35-86.
    2. Hanoch, Giora, 1975. "Production and Demand Models with Direct or Indirect Implicit Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 395-419, May.
    3. Das, Gouranga G. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Carter, Douglas R. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2005. "Regional impacts of environmental regulations and technical change in the US forestry sector: a multiregional CGE analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 25-38, January.
    4. Canning, Patrick N. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2000. "Regionalism, Federalism, and Taxation: A Food and Farm Perspective," Technical Bulletins 33585, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Hanoch, Giora, 1978. "Polar Functions with Constant Two Factors - One Price Elasticities," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.),Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, volume 1, chapter 6, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    6. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hess, Sebastian & Surry, Yves R., 2011. "The CDET Profit Function: Could it generate a Parsimonious Agricultural Sector Model?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114539, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Yu, Wusheng & Hertel, Thomas W. & Preckel, Paul V. & Eales, James S., 2004. "Projecting world food demand using alternative demand systems," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-129, January.
    3. Ivanic, Maros & Martin, Will & Zaman, Hassan, 2012. "Estimating the Short-Run Poverty Impacts of the 2010–11 Surge in Food Prices," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(11), pages 2302-2317.
    4. Standardi, Gabriele & Cai, Yiyong & Yeh, Sonia, 2017. "Sensitivity of modeling results to technological and regional details: The case of Italy's carbon mitigation policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 116-128.
    5. Aguiar, Angel & Corong, Erwin & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2020. "The GTAP Recursive Dynamic (GTAP-RD) Model: Version 1.0," Conference papers 333133, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. Kriengsak CHAREONWONGSAK, 2010. "Impact Assessment of Thailand’s Promotion of Strategic Export Industries: A Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGE) Approach," EcoMod2004 330600037, EcoMod.
    7. Preckel, Paul V. & Cranfield, John A.L. & Hertel, Thomas W., 2005. "Implicit Additive Preferences: A Further Generalization Of The Ces," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19373, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Francesco Bosello & Lorenza Campagnolo & Raffaello Cervigni & Fabio Eboli, 2018. "Climate Change and Adaptation: The Case of Nigerian Agriculture," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(4), pages 787-810, April.
    9. Yu, Wusheng & Hertel, Thomas W. & Preckel, Paul V. & Eales, James S., 2004. "Projecting world food demand using alternative demand systems," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-129, January.
    10. Mun Ho & Wolfgang Britz & Ruth Delzeit & Florian Leblanc & Roberto Roson & Franziska Schuenemann & Matthias Weitzel, 2020. "Modelling Consumption and Constructing Long-Term Baselines in Final Demand," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 63-108, June.
    11. Zhai, Fan, 2008. "Armington Meets Melitz: Introducing Firm Heterogeneity in a Global CGE Model of Trade," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 23, pages 575-604.
    12. Antimiani, Alessandro & Conforti, Piero & Salvatici, Luca, 2005. "Alternative Market Access Scenarios in the Agriculture Trade Negotiations of the Doha Round," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23.
    13. Bruno Lanz & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2016. "GTAPINGAMS, version 9: Multiregional and small open economy models with alternative demand systems," IRENE Working Papers 16-08, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    14. Peter B. Dixon & Maureen T. Rimmer, 2004. "Disaggregation of results from a detailed general equilibrium model of the US to the State level," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-145, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    15. Chebbi, Houssem Eddine & Lachaal, Lassaad, 2006. "What Role for The Agricultural Sector in the Process Of Economic Growth of Tunisia? Evidence from Multivariate Cointegration," Conference papers 331513, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    16. Ivanic, Maros & Martin, William J., 2010. "Promoting global agricultural growth and poverty reduction," 114th Seminar, April 15-16, 2010, Berlin, Germany 61098, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Elbehri, Aziz, 2004. "MFA Quota Removal and Global Textile and Cotton Trade: Estimating Quota Trade Restrictiveness and Quantifying Post-MFA Trade Patterns," Conference papers 331295, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. World Bank, "undated". "South Asia Economic Focus, June 2011 : Food Inflation," World Bank Publications - Reports 12662, The World Bank Group.
    19. Johnson, Justin Andrew & Baldos, Uris Lantz & Hertel, Thomas & Nootenboom, Chris & Polasky, Stephen & Roxburgh, Toby, 2020. "Global Futures: Modelling the global economic impacts of environmental change to support policy-making," Technical Papers 323944, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    20. Eickhout, B. & Meijl, H. van & Tabeau, A. & Zeijts, H. van, 2004. "Between Liberalization and Protection: Four Long-term Scenarios for Trade, Poverty and the Environment," Conference papers 331268, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.