1996
DOI: 10.1016/0304-3878(95)00042-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries

Abstract: This paper draws together a variety of openness measures to test the association between openness and growth. Although the correlation across different types of openness is not always strong, there is generally a positive association between growth and different measures of openness. The strength of the association depends on whether the specification uses cross-section or panel data (which combines cross-section and time series). For industrializing countries, which have exhibited significant fluctuations in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

20
373
2
21

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 824 publications
(416 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
20
373
2
21
Order By: Relevance
“…This result is consistent with several theoretical predictions and empirical findings in the literature: see, for example, Dollar (1992), Ben-David (1993), Sachs and Warner (1995), Harrison (1996), Edwards (1998), Frankel and Romer (1999), Easterly and Levine (2001), Irwin and Tervio (2002), Dollar and Kraay (2003), etc., and is a reflection of the favorable effects of policies encouraging trade liberalization and globalization pursued by many of these countries, as well as issues linking trade with technology transfers, institutional quality and geographical factors. In the short-run, trade exhibits a negative but insignificant impact on growth for all MIC and UMIC, except in one case as shown in Table 5, where the trade coefficient appears to be negative and significant for the LMIC.…”
Section: Sufficient Condition For a Quadratic Relationshipsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This result is consistent with several theoretical predictions and empirical findings in the literature: see, for example, Dollar (1992), Ben-David (1993), Sachs and Warner (1995), Harrison (1996), Edwards (1998), Frankel and Romer (1999), Easterly and Levine (2001), Irwin and Tervio (2002), Dollar and Kraay (2003), etc., and is a reflection of the favorable effects of policies encouraging trade liberalization and globalization pursued by many of these countries, as well as issues linking trade with technology transfers, institutional quality and geographical factors. In the short-run, trade exhibits a negative but insignificant impact on growth for all MIC and UMIC, except in one case as shown in Table 5, where the trade coefficient appears to be negative and significant for the LMIC.…”
Section: Sufficient Condition For a Quadratic Relationshipsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The logarithm of per capita real gross domestic product (GDP) represents the level of economic growth (EG). For trade openness (TO), the logarithm of the sum of exports and imports to real GDP is used because this measure is a simple and common indicator of TO as suggested by Harrison (1996). The data were taken from the World Bank's World Development Indicators (WDI) database.…”
Section: A Variables and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 Examples include Dollar (1992), Edwards (1992Edwards ( , 1998, Lee (1993), Sachs and Warner (1995), Harrison (1996), Vamvakidis (1999), Frankel and Romer (1999), Greenaway et al (2002), Yanikkaya (2003), Lee et al (2004), Aksoy and Salinas (2006), Foster (2008), Kneller et al (2008), Wacziarg and Welch (2008), Chang et al (2009), Kim (2011). also during 1960s and it is more likely that their trade policy measures did not change substantially over the period .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%