There are few empirical studies assessing the effectiveness of aid for trade as regards trade performance. Furthermore, existing work does not test which are the channels through which aid for trade has an impact on trade performance. We address this question using a two-step empirical analysis. Relying on an export performance model, we first test whether institutions and infrastructure, our two potential channels of transmission, are significant determinants of export performance. Second, we test the impact of aid for trade sectoral flows on the previously detected determinants of export performance. We show, as part of the first step, that the infrastructure channel is a highly significant determinant of export performance, whereas the institutional channel turns out to have a limited positive impact on developing countries’ export performance. Furthermore, we show, from the second step, that aid for infrastructure, once instrumented, has a strong and positive impact on the infrastructure level. As a result, we find that a ten per cent increase in aid for infrastructure commitments per capita in developing countries leads to an average 2.34 per cent increase in the exports over GDP ratio. It is also equivalent to a 2.71 per cent reduction in tariff and nontariff barriers. These results highlight the high potential impact of aid for trade on developing countries’ export performance throughout the infrastructure channel

Empirical results on the links between trade openness and economic growth often suggest that, in the long run, more outward‐oriented countries register better economic growth. However, a similar level of trade openness can hide different types of trade structures. The aim of this paper was to enrich the way of measuring trade openness taking into account two different dimensions of countries’ integration in world trade: export quality and export variety. Based on the estimation of an endogenous growth model on a panel of 169 countries between 1988 and 2014 using a generalised method of moments estimator, our results confirm that countries exporting higher quality products and new varieties grow more rapidly. More importantly, we find a non‐linear pattern between the export ratio and the quality of the export basket, suggesting that openness to trade may impact growth negatively for countries which are specialised in low‐quality products. A non‐linear relationship between export variety, the export ratio and growth is also found, suggesting that countries increasing their exports will grow more rapidly after reaching a certain degree of the extensive margin of exports.

Barriers to trade in Environmental Goods (EGs) and Environmental Services (ESs) are documented for a large sample of countries and compared with barriers to trade in other goods and other services. Some progress at reduction in barriers has occurred at the national, regional and sectoral levels but not at the multilateral level, where countries have been unable to agree on an approach to reduce barriers to trade. For EGs, tariffs and NTBs are highest for low-income countries and low for high-income countries. First-order estimates of the import response to a 50% reduction in tariffs for low-income countries suggest an increase in imports of around 4%. For ESs, estimates draw on the comparison of an Environment Services Liberalization index calculated across modes and services subsectors. The limitations of this ordinal index coupled with the inadequacy of the UN CPC list where services are defined in an exclusionary manner so that they cannot appear on two lists, casts greater uncertainty as to the informational content of the commitment measures presented here which, at best, indicate bindings on market access and national treatment rather than actual policies. It would appear nonetheless that at least as great, and probably greater commitments took place in the environmental sectors (as defined by the CPC) both multilaterally and regionally than for 'other' services with the same pattern across income groups: greater commitments observed for HIC than for MICs and LICs although it is widely recognized that GATS commitments by HICs largely amounted to consolidated members' unilateral services policies. North-South Regional Trade Agreements resulted mostly in commitments by the Southern partners indicating greater prospects for reducing barriers to trade in a regional than in a multilateral context.

Developing countries are increasingly using regional integration as a main policy lever when pursuing a trade‐led growth strategy, and today, ‘deep’ preferential trade agreements go beyond trade policy negotiations and cover trade facilitation issues. Since aid for trade (AfT) has been recognised as a powerful instrument for increasing developing countries' trade capacity by targeting internal trade costs, this article tests whether complementarities exist between this type of aid and economic integration using a gravity model on panel data for the period 1995–2005. Results indicate that AfT, when combined with economic integration, has been effective in increasing trade flows. Both South–South and North–South trade flows have benefited, and the combination of the two instruments has been particularly effective in expanding the South's exports to the North. Finally, when breaking down AfT into categories, assistance to trade‐related institutions seems to generate the strongest complementarities with economic integration.

Books in this series are published to communicate the results of Bank research, analysis, and operational experience with the least possible delay. The extent of language editing varies from book to book. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.