IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/8753.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Trade Preferences a Panacea? : The African Growth and Opportunity Act and African Exports

Author

Listed:
  • Fernandes,Ana Margarida
  • Forero,Alejandro
  • Maemir,Hibret Belete
  • Mattoo,Aaditya

Abstract

Does"infant industry"preferential access durably boost export performance? This paper exploits significant trade policy changes in the United States around the turn of the 21st century to address this question. The expansion of Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) products for less developed countries in 1997 and the implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in 2001 is used to assess whether preferential access boosts exports of eligible products in general and apparel specifically. The phase-out of the Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA) in 2005 is used to assess whether any expansion in apparel exports survived the erosion of preferences. To find a causal impact of these changes on exports to the United States from a given beneficiary country, the analysis uses a triple-differences regression and 26 years of newly constructed trade and tariff data at the country-product-year level (1992-2017). The analysis finds that the AGOA boosted African apparel exports, and the expansion of the GSP increased African exports of other eligible products. While the marginal impacts on African apparel exports grew sharply in the first years of AGOA, the impacts leveled off after 2005, when the end of the MFA quotas unleashed competition from Asian countries. The illusion of sustained African apparel exports is created by three late-bloomers in East Africa offsetting the boom-bust pattern in Southern Africa and the never-significant response in Central and Western Africa. Firm-level customs data for selected countries reveal that even in East Africa, the recent export growth was driven by new entrants rather than by incumbent firms whose competitiveness might have been nurtured by the big preference margins during the early AGOA period. Understanding the heterogeneous response to trade preferences remains a challenge. However, preliminary evidence suggests that preferential access per se was not sufficient but needed to be complemented by specific domestic reforms: tariff liberalization, reduced regulatory burden, enhanced connectivity, and competitive exchange rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernandes,Ana Margarida & Forero,Alejandro & Maemir,Hibret Belete & Mattoo,Aaditya, 2019. "Are Trade Preferences a Panacea? : The African Growth and Opportunity Act and African Exports," Policy Research Working Paper Series 8753, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:8753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/685341550595914166/pdf/WPS8753.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garth Frazer & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2010. "Trade Growth under the African Growth and Opportunity Act," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 128-144, February.
    2. Paulo Guimarães & Pedro Portugal, 2010. "A simple feasible procedure to fit models with high-dimensional fixed effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(4), pages 628-649, December.
    3. Shushanik Hakobyan, 2015. "Accounting for underutilization of trade preference programs: The US generalized system of preferences," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 408-436, May.
    4. Emanuel Ornelas & Marcos Ritel, 2020. "The not‐so‐generalised effects of the Generalized System of Preferences," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1809-1840, July.
    5. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    6. Rotunno, Lorenzo & Vézina, Pierre-Louis & Wang, Zheng, 2013. "The rise and fall of (Chinese) African apparel exports," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 152-163.
    7. Zeng,Zhihua, 2015. "Global experiences with special economic zones : focus on China and Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7240, The World Bank.
    8. Irene Brambilla & Amit K. Khandelwal & Peter K. Schott, 2010. "China's Experience under the Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA) and the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC)," NBER Chapters, in: China's Growing Role in World Trade, pages 345-387, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Carol Newman & John Page, 2017. "Industrial clusters: The case for Special Economic Zones in Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series 015, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Carol Newman & John Page, 2017. "Industrial clusters: The case for Special Economic Zones in Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-15, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Fernandes, Ana M. & Freund, Caroline & Pierola, Martha Denisse, 2016. "Exporter behavior, country size and stage of development: Evidence from the exporter dynamics database," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 121-137.
    12. Mamo Mihretu & Gabriela Llobet, 2017. "Looking Beyond the Horizon," World Bank Publications - Reports 28334, The World Bank Group.
    13. Shushanik Hakobyan, 2015. "Accounting for underutilization of trade preference programs: The US generalized system of preferences," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 48(2), pages 408-436, May.
    14. Paul Collier & Anthony J. Venables, 2007. "Rethinking Trade Preferences: How Africa Can Diversify its Exports," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 1326-1345, August.
    15. Andrew K. Rose, 2004. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 98-114, March.
    16. Ozden, Caglar & Reinhardt, Eric, 2005. "The perversity of preferences: GSP and developing country trade policies, 1976-2000," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, October.
    17. Ricardo Mora & Iliana Reggio, 2019. "Alternative diff-in-diffs estimators with several pretreatment periods," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(5), pages 465-486, May.
    18. Oliver Morrissey & Ricardo Lopez & Kishor Sharma (ed.), 2015. "Handbook on Trade and Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14919.
    19. Alessandro Nicita, 2011. "Measuring The Relative Strength Of Preferential Market Access," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 47, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    20. Thomas Farole, 2011. "Special Economic Zones in Africa : Comparing Performance and Learning from Global Experience," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2268, December.
    21. Teti, Feodora & Felbermayr, Gabriel & Yalcin, Erdal, 2017. "Free Trade Agreements, Customs Unions In Disguise?," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168243, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    22. Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1802-1820, December.
    23. Sebastian Edwards & Simon Johnson & David N. Weil, 2016. "African Successes, Volume III: Modernization and Development," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number afri14-3, July.
    24. Jaime de Melo & Alberto Portugal-Perez, 2014. "Preferential Market Access Design: Evidence and Lessons from African Apparel Exports to the United States and the European Union," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 74-98.
    25. Gil-Pareja, Salvador & Llorca-Vivero, Rafael & Martínez-Serrano, José Antonio, 2014. "Do nonreciprocal preferential trade agreements increase beneficiaries' exports?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 291-304.
    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. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2022. "The Dark Matter of Bilateral Preferential Margins: An Assessment of the Effect of US Tariffs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Emanuel Ornelas & Marcos Ritel, 2020. "The not‐so‐generalised effects of the Generalized System of Preferences," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1809-1840, July.
    3. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the utilization of non-reciprocal trade preferences offered by the QUAD countries on beneficiary countries' economic complexity," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Majune Kraido Socrates & Eliud Moyi & Kamau Gathiaka, 2020. "Explaining Export Duration in Kenya," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 88(2), pages 204-224, June.
    5. Khorana, Sangeeta & Escaith, Hubert & Ali, Salamat & Kumari, Sushma & Do, Quynh, 2022. "The changing contours of global value chains post-COVID: Evidence from the Commonwealth," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 75-86.
    6. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2021. "Do Unilateral Trade Preferences Help Reduce Poverty in Beneficiary Countries?," EconStor Preprints 247346, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm & Iyer, Harish, 2021. "Effect of Aid for Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Inflows on the Utilization of Unilateral Trade Preferences offered by the QUAD countries," EconStor Preprints 238211, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Fabien Forge & Jason Garred & Kyae Lim Kwon, 2021. "When are Tariff Cuts Not Enough? Heterogeneous Effects of Trade Preferences for the Least Developed Countries," Working Papers 2106E, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.

    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. Fernandes, Ana M. & Forero, Alejandro & Maemir, Hibret & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2023. "Are trade preferences a Panacea? The export impact of the African growth and Opportunity Act," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm & Iyer, Harish, 2021. "Effect of Aid for Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Inflows on the Utilization of Unilateral Trade Preferences offered by the QUAD countries," EconStor Preprints 238211, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    3. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the utilization of non-reciprocal trade preferences offered by the QUAD countries on beneficiary countries' economic complexity," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    5. Khorana, Sangeeta & Caram, Santiago & Biagetti, Marco, 2021. "Developmental relevance of Everything but Arms: Implications for Bangladesh after LDC graduation," MPRA Paper 116258, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Andrés Rodríguez‐Pose & Federico Bartalucci & Susanne A. Frick & Amelia U. Santos‐Paulino & Richard Bolwijn, 2022. "The challenge of developing special economic zones in Africa: Evidence and lessons learnt," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 456-481, April.
    7. Fabien Forge & Jason Garred & Kyae Lim Kwon, 2021. "When are Tariff Cuts Not Enough? Heterogeneous Effects of Trade Preferences for the Least Developed Countries," Working Papers 2106E, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.
    8. Sytsma, Tobias, 2019. "Rules of Origin Liberalization with Multi-Product Firms: Theory and Evidence from Bangladeshi Apparel Exporters," MPRA Paper 95956, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. William W. Olney, 2022. "Intra-African trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 158(1), pages 25-51, February.
    10. Emanuel Ornelas & Marcos Ritel, 2020. "The not‐so‐generalised effects of the Generalized System of Preferences," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1809-1840, July.
    11. Rotunno, Lorenzo & Vézina, Pierre-Louis & Wang, Zheng, 2013. "The rise and fall of (Chinese) African apparel exports," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 152-163.
    12. Kazunobu Hayakawa, 2023. "Multiple preference regimes and rules of origin," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 159(3), pages 673-696, August.
    13. Salvador Gil-Pareja & Rafael Llorca-Vivero & José Antonio Martínez-Serrano, 2019. "Reciprocal vs nonreciprocal trade agreements: Which have been best to promote exports?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, February.
    14. Gebreeyesus M., 2013. "The End of the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA) and the Heterogeneous Performance of Quota-Constrained Countries," MERIT Working Papers 2013-035, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Tobias Sytsma, 2021. "Rules of origin and trade preference utilization among least developed countries," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 701-718, October.
    16. Rotunno, Lorenzo & Vézina, Pierre-Louis & Wang, Zheng, 2013. "The rise and fall of (Chinese) African apparel exports," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 152-163.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Trade and Trade Rules; Construction Industry; Common Carriers Industry; Food&Beverage Industry; Plastics&Rubber Industry; Business Cycles and Stabilization Policies; General Manufacturing; Pulp&Paper Industry; Textiles; Apparel&Leather Industry; Commodity Risk Management; Mining&Extractive Industry (Non-Energy);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • F68 - International Economics - - Economic Impacts of Globalization - - - Policy
    • O20 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - General
    • O55 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Africa

    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:wbk:wbrwps:8753. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.