Trade Diversification, Income, and Growth: What Do We Know?

Cadot, Olivier; Carrère, Céline; Strauss‐Kahn, Vanessa

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00719.x

Cited by 157 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 160 publications

(235 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples include Amurgo Pacheco (2006), Kohler (2006, 2010), Feenstra and Kee (2007), Dutt et al (2011) and Dennis and Shepherd (2011). Cadot et al (2012) offer an excellent overview of the literature.…”

Section: Generalized System Of Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

Persson

Wilhelmsson

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractSince at least the 1960s, the European Union (EU) has offered various kinds of non-reciprocal trade preferences for developing countries. Originally, these trade preferences had at least two policy goals: (i) to increase export volumes for developing countries and thereby boost their export earnings, and (ii) to facilitate export diversification. While extensive research has confirmed that the first of these goals is typically met, the second goal seems to have been largely forgotten by researchers as well as in policy circles. The aim of this paper is therefore to analyse the impact of the EU's non-reciprocal trade preferences for developing countries on export diversification. Our estimation results suggest that some trade preference programs, such as the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), are associated with increasing ranges of export products. By contrast, preferences offered to Mediterranean countries typically have no significant effects, and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) preferences actually have negative effects toward the end of our time period, suggesting that ACP countries may respond to preferences by specializing into fewer goods.

show abstract

Section: Generalized System Of Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

Persson

Wilhelmsson

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We try to find support for this conjecture by interacting the network effect with Rajan and Zingales' measure of financial dependence at the product level (Rajan and Zingales 1998). 12 We construct our r p variable at the product level by assigning to each product the Rajan-Zingales index of the ISIC code to which that product belong, using concordance tables between HS6 and ISIC3. We indeed find that the interaction term r p × ln n pdt has a positive and significant coefficient.…”

Section: Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Success and Failure of African Exporters

Cadot¹,

Iacovone²,

Pierola³

et al. 2011

Policy Research Working Papers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a novel dataset with transaction-level level exports from Malawi, Mali, Senegal and Tanzania, we explore the determinants of the survival of firm-product-destination combinations past the first year after entry on export markets. We find that survival correlates with diversification (or experience) at the extensive margin: a firm-productdestination combination is more likely to survive if the firm ships more * This paper is part of a World Bank research project initiated by Paul Brenton and Denisse Pierola. Financial support from the BNPP Trust Fund on Improving the Survival of African Exports is gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to the Malawi Revenue Authority, the Direction Générale des Douanes du Mali, the Direction Générale des Douanes du Sénégal, and the Tanzania Revenue Authority for their cooperation and willingness to share data. We also thank Frances Aidoo, William Baah-Boateng, Sidiki Guindo, Anthony Mveyange and Nelson Nsiku for their assistance in the collection of the customs data used in this paper. products to that destination, or if it ships that product to more destinations, suggesting synergies within the firm. Most strikingly, we find significant evidence of cross-firm synergies: a firm-product-destination is more likely to survive, the more firms from the same country export the same product to the same destination. These results may suggest a case for export promotion at the national level.

show abstract

“…The impact of trade liberalization on export diversification in the previous studies have not been conclusive (Cadot et al 2013). Some studies have found that trade openness leads to specialization instead of diversification as countries trade in the products in which they have comparative advantage (Ferdous 2011) while other studies have shown that trade liberalization increases export opportunities by increasing the number of trade partners, therefore increasing volume and diversity of demand for its products, resulting in increased export diversification (Agosin et al 2012).…”

Section: Foreign Direct Investment and Trade Opennessmentioning

confidence: 96%

Determinants of Related and Unrelated Export Diversification

Ali¹

2017

Economies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the literature on determinants of the export diversification by introducing related variety (RV) and unrelated variety (UV) in the analysis in addition to the traditional entropy based measure at three-digit Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) level, overall variety (OV). RV measures variety in cognitively related industries, while UV measures variety in industries that are unrelated to each other. Studies on RV and UV have shown that the dynamics of their relationship with economic growth and innovation may differ and one would expect that the determinants of RV and UV may also be different. Therefore, using data on manufacturing sector exports for 130 countries from 1996 to 2011, this paper identifies the determinants of export diversification with primary focus on foreign direct investment as an external source of knowledge and a stimulus to entrepreneurship and human capital as a measure of productive capabilities. Considering the concern of endogeneity bias, estimations of the econometric models were performed using generalized method of moments. Findings show that some of the determinants of diversification affect RV, UV and OV differently. For instance, foreign direct investment (FDI) negatively affects RV while it has no significant relationship with OV and UV. Moreover, interaction of human capital with FDI appears to be positive and significant for UV and RV while interaction of human capital with trade openness is significant and positive for RV only, showing the importance of knowledge through external sources in the process of related diversification.

show abstract

Trade Diversification, Income, and Growth: What Do We Know?

Cited by 157 publications

References 160 publications

EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

Success and Failure of African Exporters

Determinants of Related and Unrelated Export Diversification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About