No abstract

No abstract

We investigate the effect of trade openness on economic growth in transition countries using a transparent statistical methodology that leads to data-driven case studies. In particular, we employ synthetic control methods in a panel of transition economies and compare GDP growth in treated (that is, open) countries with growth in a convex combination of similar but untreated (that is, closed) countries. We find that trade liberalization tends to have a positive effect on the pattern of real GDP per capita. One of our most robust results shows that making the transition without opening up to trade considerably hampers growth.

This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. This paper investigates various output gap measures in a simple inflation forecasting framework. Reflecting the cyclical position of an economy, an (unobservable) output gap has important implications for economic analysis. I construct and compare common output gap measures for five European countries. Since output above potential reflects domestic inflationary pressures, including a gap could improve the accuracy of autoregressive inflation forecasting. This assertion is tested in a simple simulated out-of-sample forecasting exercise for the period 1990-2002. The main conclusions are that an output gap rarely provides useful information and that there is no single best output gap measure across countries.

This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. Studies of the impact of trade openness on growth are based either on crosscountry analysis-which lacks transparency-or case studies-which lack statistical rigor. We apply transparent econometric methods drawn from the treatment evaluation literature to make the comparison between treated (i.e., open) and control (i.e., closed) countries explicit while remaining within a unified statistical framework. First, matching estimators highlight the rather far-fetched country comparisons underlying common crosscountry results. When appropriately restricting the sample, we confirm a positive and significant effect of openness on growth. Second, we apply synthetic control methods-which account for endogeneity due to unobservable heterogeneity-to countries that liberalized their trade regime, and we show that trade liberalization has often had a positive effect on growth.