IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/330913.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying Winners and Losers in Southern Africa from Global Trade Policy Reform: Integrating Findings From GTAP and Poverty Case Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, David

Abstract

The IFI's rely on twin propositions that poverty alleviation is best pursued through increased growth, and that trade liberalisation encourages growth and thereby poverty alleviation. These aggregate propositions are not disputed in this paper. Rather, the argument is made for disaggregation to identify the winners and losers among the poor in the short and medium run from further trade policy liberalisation, both between and within countries. Disaggregation is important on both equity grounds, especially when the losers are among the poor. It is also important on efficiency grounds particularly when designing policies to help poor losers realise the opportunities for gain from trade policy liberalisation in the longer run. Two methodologies are frequently employed to assess the linkages between trade and poverty. Country and sector case studies dominate the literature. The key difficulty with case studies is that it is not possible to deploy their rich descriptive data in a consistent analytical framework. It is usually not possible to construct a quantitative counterfactual situation, for example the impact of a trade policy change on the poor. Obtaining a counterfactual through general equilibrium trade models has its own catalogue of difficulties arising from data availability, model assumptions and interpretation of results. The two methodologies lie at extreme ends of a spectrum, but insights from both can be mutually reinforcing. This paper uses Zambia as an 'example' country to explore the possibility of combining the rich poverty case study material available for that country with the results for Zambia of a multilateral trade model based on the GTAP dataset and modelling software. It describes some of the salient features of case studies of poverty in Zambia. A common thread runs through all the case studies, that trade policy reform in Zambia is likely to be pro-poor. This key proposition is tested using the GTAP dataset and modelling software. The GTAP database for 1997 is described including an extension for Zambia to permit the analysis of poverty impacts for four classes of households together with the modelling strategy adopted for this exploratory study. It then reports on the poverty impacts of a series of trade policy experiments using the 1996 LCMS Survey for Zambia to estimate headcount changes from: • Unilateral trade policy reforms in Southern Africa that took place from 1992-4 up to 1997. • A seven-country version of the SADC FTA. • A 'suppose' WTO Round. • A 'suppose' effective extension of the EU/South Africa FTA into an EU/SADC7 FTA through Least Developed Country access into the EU through negotiations about to begin. Zambian households are disaggregated into four groups so that GTAP aggregate household results can be disaggregated to real post-tax income changes in each of the four household groups in post simulation calculations. A key finding is that regionally ii based trade policy reforms have a neutral or adverse impact on household income distribution compared with possible major trade policy reforms under the WTO. However, the final headcount poverty impacts of the international trade policy reforms are offset by the lower income responsiveness of the poverty impacts in the poorest rural households. Whilst these findings are suggestive, the research strategy on the modelling side using both the GTAP dataset and runGTAP as computing software has a number of important limitations. On the data side, for Southern Africa applications, the standardised GTAP dataset throws away too much useful information for trade and poverty analysis that is available in the underlying MERRISA SAMs upon which the Southern Africa dataset for GTAP was built. This is most notable for household aggregation, factor aggregation at the low income or subsistence end, margins aggregation, rudimentary treatment of government income and expenditure. On the runGTAP modelling side, satisfactory resolution of the database problems poses serious programming problems. The above suggests an alternative trade and poverty research strategy in which the CGE model and country case study interface is first explored with country models without the constraints of the standard GTAP dataset aggregation. An obvious choice for a starting model is the standard model Loefgren, Harris and Robinson (2001). At a later point, such country models could be tied into a global model using the GTAP dataset for scenario calculations using a common sectoral classification to complete the bottom-up strategy for the analysis of trade and poverty impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, David, 2001. "Identifying Winners and Losers in Southern Africa from Global Trade Policy Reform: Integrating Findings From GTAP and Poverty Case Studies," Conference papers 330913, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:330913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/330913/files/2532.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antoine Bouët & Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2004. "A Consistent, Ad-Valorem Equivalent Measure of Applied Protection Across the World: The MAcMap-HS6 Database," Working Papers 2004-22, CEPII research center.
    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. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    2. Thomas L. Vollrath & Mark J. Gehlhar & Charles B. Hallahan, 2009. "Bilateral Import Protection, Free Trade Agreements, and Other Factors Influencing Trade Flows in Agriculture and Clothing," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 298-317, June.
    3. Arne Melchior, 2006. "The Most and the Least Favoured Nations: Norway's Trade Policy in Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1329-1346, October.
    4. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas & Pelkmans-Balaoing, Annette, 2008. "Endogenous Protection in General Equilibrium: Estimating Political Weights in the EU," CEPR Discussion Papers 6979, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2006. "Binding Overhang and Tariff-Cutting Formulas," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(2), pages 207-232, July.
    6. Jensen, Hans G. & Yu, Wusheng, 2006. "Reforming Agricultural Domestic Support of the EU in the Doha Round: Measurement, Feasibility, and Consequences," Conference papers 331491, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Alexander Hijzen & Holger Görg & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and the role of trade costs," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 242, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    8. Lofgren, Hans & Diaz-Bonilla, Carolina, 2006. "Economywide Simulations of Ethiopian MDG Strategies," Conference papers 331488, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Houssein Guimbard & David Laborde Debucquet & Cristina Mitaritonna, 2009. "A Picture of Tariff Protection Across the World in 2004 MAcMap-HS6, Version 2," Working Papers 2009-22, CEPII research center.
    10. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    11. Hewitt, Joanna, 2008. "Impact evaluation of research by the International Food Policy Research Institute on agricultural trade liberalization, developing countries, and WTO's Doha negotiations:," Impact assessments 28, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Cardamone, Paola, 2007. "A Survey of the Assessments of the Effectiveness of Preferential Trade Agreements using Gravity Models," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 60(4), pages 421-473.
    13. Agnès Bénassy-Quéré & Véronique Salins, 2005. "Impact de l’ouverture financière sur les inégalités internes dans les pays émergents," Working Papers 2005-11, CEPII research center.
    14. Burrell, Alison M. & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mallado, Aida Gonzalez & Michalek, Jerzy, 2012. "EU market access for agricultural products in the Doha Development Round: A sensitive issue," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126950, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Michel Fouquin, 2008. "Regionalization in East Asia," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 289-313, December.
    16. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    17. Lionel Fontagné & Thierry Mayer & Soledad Zignago, 2005. "Trade in the Triad: how easy is the access to large markets?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1401-1430, November.
    18. Fabien Candau & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "What Are EU Trade Preferences Worth for Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Developing Countries?," Working Papers 2005-19, CEPII research center.
    19. Persson, Maria, 2008. "Trade Facilitation and the Extensive and Intensive Margins of Trade," Working Papers 2008:13, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    20. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin & Carlos A. Primo Braga, 2009. "Trade Preference Erosion : Measurement and Policy Response," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 9437, December.

    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:330913. 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.