IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/103779.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The politics of export restrictions: a panel data analysis of African commodity processing industries

Author

Listed:
  • Schulz, Nicolai

Abstract

This paper sets out to answer the question why African governments aiming to industrialize their economies introduce export bans on some processable commodities and not on others. It forwards the hypothesis that governments fear restricting the export of commodities produced by a larger share of the population, as their producers tend to possess significant potential to endanger the political survival of rulers. Importantly, the paper argues that large producer groups can unleash this potential because export bans have an extremely severe and visible imp act on them and that equally affected (yet wealthier and better-organized) traders have the incentives and means to inform producers about the government's responsibility and organize their protest against it. Yet, while the same holds for high export taxes, it does not for low export taxes. Low export taxes are less severe and visible in their impact, and traders are less agitated given that it is easier for them to pass on price distortions to producers. Producer mobilization is thus less likely and imposing low export taxes even on larger groups poses no significant risk to policy-makers. To test the argument against competing explanations, I conduct a large-N analysis based on an original dataset covering all export bans and taxes employed in 36 African states in the last three decades and find robust support for the core hypothesis: the larger the share of the population producing a commodity, the less likely governments will impose export bans on them. As expected, this also holds for high but not for low export taxes. Overall, these findings provide new insights into the critical role politics plays in industrial policy-making in Africa and shows that African mass producer groups can overcome usual Olsonian collective action problems to oppose policies adverse to their interests in certain circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Schulz, Nicolai, 2020. "The politics of export restrictions: a panel data analysis of African commodity processing industries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103779, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:103779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103779/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mushtaq H. Khan, 2013. "Technology Policies and Learning with Imperfect Governance," International Economic Association Series, in: Joseph E. Stiglitz & Justin Yifu Lin (ed.), The Industrial Policy Revolution I, chapter 2, pages 79-115, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    3. Justin Lin & Ha-Joon Chang, 2009. "Should Industrial Policy in Developing Countries Conform to Comparative Advantage or Defy it? A Debate Between Justin Lin and Ha-Joon Chang," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 27(5), pages 483-502, September.
    4. Keefer, Philip & Khemani, Stuti, 2003. "Democracy, public expenditures, and the poor," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3164, The World Bank.
    5. Batley, Richard & Mcloughlin, Claire, 2015. "The Politics of Public Services: A Service Characteristics Approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 275-285.
    6. Andrew Bell & Malcolm Fairbrother & Kelvyn Jones, 2019. "Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 1051-1074, March.
    7. Whitfield,Lindsay & Therkildsen,Ole & Buur,Lars & Kjær,Anne Mette, 2015. "The Politics of African Industrial Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107105317.
    8. Brooks, Jonathan & Croppenstedt, Andre & Aggrey-Fynn, Emmanuel, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Ghana," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48523, World Bank.
    9. Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
    10. Hillman, Arye L, 1982. "Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1180-1187, December.
    11. Mani, Anandi & Mukand, Sharun, 2007. "Democracy, visibility and public good provision," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 506-529, July.
    12. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 2001. "Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water: A Comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 487-495, April.
    13. Radetzki,Marian, 2008. "A Handbook of Primary Commodities in the Global Economy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521880206, Junio.
    14. Doner, Richard F. & Ritchie, Bryan K. & Slater, Dan, 2005. "Systemic Vulnerability and the Origins of Developmental States: Northeast and Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 327-361, April.
    15. Carter, David B. & Signorino, Curtis S., 2010. "Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 271-292, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Bianchi & Pablo Galaso & Sergio Palomeque, 2021. "The tradeoffs of brokerage in innovation networks: a study of Latin American cities," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 21-21, Instituto de Economía - IECON.

    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. Schulz, Nicolai, 2020. "The politics of export restrictions: A panel data analysis of African commodity processing industries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Richard E. Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2007. "Entry and Asymmetric Lobbying: Why Governments Pick Losers," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(5), pages 1064-1093, September.
    3. Cole, Matthew T. & Lake, James & Zissimos, Ben, 2021. "Contesting an international trade agreement," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    4. Giacomo Ponzetto, 2008. "Asymmetric information and trade policy," Economics Working Papers 1253, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Oct 2010.
    5. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2013. "Import protection, business cycles, and exchange rates: Evidence from the Great Recession," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 50-64.
    6. Wei Jiang & Yaqin Wang & Tao Wang, 2023. "The Political Economy of American Exchange Rate Bill Voting: From the Perspective of RMB Appreciation," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 13(1), pages 1-3.
    7. Theo S Eicher & Thomas Osang, 2000. "Politics and Trade Policy: An Empirical Investigation"," Working Papers 0004, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    8. Grumiller, Jan & Raza, Werner G., 2019. "Towards an institutional setup for industrial policy in late industrialization in the 21st century," Working Papers 61, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE).
    9. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Protection for sale or surge protection?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 675-688, August.
    10. Saha, Amrita, 2019. "Trade policy & lobbying effectiveness: Theory and evidence for India," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 165-192.
    11. Ethier, Wilfred J., 2007. "The theory of trade policy and trade agreements: A critique," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 605-623, September.
    12. Cassing, James H. & Long, Ngo Van, 2021. "Trade in trash: A political economy approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Bombardini, Matilde & Trebbi, Francesco, 2012. "Competition and political organization: Together or alone in lobbying for trade policy?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 18-26.
    14. Barbara Annicchiarico & Enrico Marvasi, 2018. "Protection for Sale with Price Interactions and Incomplete Pass-Through," Working Papers LuissLab 18141, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    15. Nuno Limão & Arvind Panagariya, 2003. "Why is there an Anti-trade Bias in Trade Policy?," International Trade 0310003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Eicher, Theo & Kang, Jong Woo, 2005. "Trade, foreign direct investment or acquisition: Optimal entry modes for multinationals," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 207-228, June.
    17. Kishore Gawande & Pravin Krishna & Michael J. Robbins, 2006. "Foreign Lobbies and U.S. Trade Policy," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 563-571, August.
    18. Martimort, David, 2019. ""When Olson Meets Dahl": From Inefficient Groups Formation to Inefficient Policy-Making," CEPR Discussion Papers 13843, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Wilfred J. Ethier, 2006. "Selling Protection for Sale," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-014, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Jun 2006.
    20. Wilfred J. Ethier, 2011. "The Political-Support View of Protection," PIER Working Paper Archive 11-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cross-group coalitions; Export bans and taxes; Group size and collective action; Policy attribution; Politics of industrial policy; Sub-Saharan Africa;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ehl:lserod:103779. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.