Does democracy cause trade policy liberalisation? Unpacking the black box of trade policy

Chen, Chao; Li, Andrew X.

doi:10.1057/s41268-017-0092-2

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is in line with apriori expectation because political stability triggers economic growth (Alper 2018). The result of the study was consistent with Chen and Li's (2018) who examined the effects of democracy on tariff barrier, trade facilitation and trade openness using panel data of about 150 developed and developing countries in the period from 1974 to 2014. Result showed no evidence that de- , 61-(1-3): 1-5 (2019) mocracy increases a country's trade openness.…”

Section: Results S and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Challenges in English Language Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century

Khubchandani¹

2019

JSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental factors' influence on the exchange of goods and services across countries cannot be quantified. The study examined the effect of environmental factors on international trade by viewing of political, economic, social, and technological forces on global trade flow in Nigeria. The uniqueness of the study was the concentration on the trend of political factors such as tariff and government expenditure, economic factors such as exchange rate and inflation rate, social factors such as population rate and education level and technological elements such as electricity consumption and their impact on international trade in Nigerian economy from the period of 1997 to 2017. This quantitative method was adopted using secondary data and Regression Analysis, and Granger Causality Walds Test was used to explore the relationship among identifiable. At a significance level of 0.05, the F-statistics is 8.18 while the p-value of the F-statistics is 0.0002, which is less than 0.05. This implies that the combination of the independent variables significantly influences the balance of payment.

show abstract

Section: Results S and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Challenges in English Language Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century

Khubchandani¹

2019

JSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We next examine the extent to which liberalizing political institutions are associated with economic liberalizations that make economies more competitive through, for example, the removal of barriers to entry or trade (Chen and Li 2018; De Haan and Sturm 2003; Djankov et al 2002; Fidrmuc 2003; Méon and Sekkat 2016; Rode and Gwartney 2012). Increased entrepreneurial opportunities may allow for some new high incomes to be created, increasing inequality, especially in economies where opportunities for income growth and the resulting income inequality were suppressed by egalitarian populist policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democratization and the Conditional Dynamics of Income Distribution

Dorsch

Maarek

2019

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite strong theoretical reasons to expect that democratization equalizes income distributions, existing empirical studies do not find a statistically significant effect of democratization on measures of income inequality. This paper starts from the simple observation that autocracies are heterogeneous and govern quite extreme distributional outcomes (also egalitarian). Democratization may drive extreme income distributions to a “middle ground.” We thus examine the extent to which initial inequality levels determine the path of distributional dynamics following democratization. Using fixed-effects and instrumental variable regressions, we demonstrate that egalitarian autocracies become more unequal following democratization, whereas democratization has an equalizing effect in highly unequal autocracies. The effect appears to be driven by changes in gross (market) inequality, suggesting that democratization has led, on average, to redistribution of market opportunities, rather than to direct fiscal redistribution. We then investigate which kinds of (heterogeneous) reforms are at work following democratizations that may rationalize our findings.

show abstract

“…Dalam prosesnya, Tiongkok menjadi pedagang terbesar di dunia. Chen & Li (2018) menemukan bahwa sistem demokrasi mengurangi hambatan perdagangan dan bisa memfasilitasi perdagangan, namun tidak serta-merta membuat ekonomi lebih tergantung pada perdagangan.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

“…Mengingat sifat multidimensi fasilitasi perdagangan, LPI dipilih karena indeks yang paling komprehensif yang mencakup berbagai domain variabel, dan memberikan informasi berharga tentang situasi di setiap negara. LPI menggabungkan langkah kualitatif dan kuantitatif dalam mengevaluasi logistik suatu negara, yang mencakup bidang-bidang seperti efisiensi bea cukai, infrastruktur, kualitas layanan logistik, dan prosedur perbatasan dan ketepatan waktu (Chen & Li, 2018). Kekuatan LPI adalah cakupan yang komprehensif dan validitas, sedangkan kelemahannya adalah bahwa data hanya tersedia untuk sejumlah kecil tahun mulai dari 2007.…”

Section: Spesifikasi Modelunclassified

“…Lalu, dalam kondisi apa demokrasi berdampak positif, negatif atau netral dalam perdagangan? Menurut Chen & Li (2018), ekonomi yang sangat terbuka untuk perdagangan, seperti Hong Kong dan Singapura, mungkin memiliki volume perdagangan tiga hingga empat kali lebih besar dari PDB. Pada tahun 2012, misalnya, rasio perdagangan/PDB Hong Kong adalah 360,1 dan 400,2 untuk Singapura.…”

Section: Demokrasi Dan Perdaganganunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dampak Demokrasi terhadap Perdagangan di Negara-Negara Berpendapatan Menengah dan Tinggi Asia [Impacts of Democracy on Trade Activity in Asia's Middle and High Income Countries]

Tambunan

2020

j. ekonomi & kebijak. publik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A democratic system is a way as the basis for supporting the trade process among countries. Increased international trade can generate economic growth. But some parties claim that democracy actually would hinder or even threatens the trade flows. That dynamic situation is increasingly apparent in middle and high-income countries. This study aims to determine whether democracy impacts on trade, especially in Asia. Using the Gravity Model, this study focuses on 11 countries divided by their income from period 2009 to 2018. The high-income countries chosen in this study are Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Brunei Darussalam, and middleincome countries are China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, and India. Using the panel data regression method, the results of this study states that democracy in the Asia Countries affected trade significantly. It was also found that trade in high-income countries was not affected by democracy, while trade in low-income countries was strongly influenced by democracy.

show abstract

Does democracy cause trade policy liberalisation? Unpacking the black box of trade policy

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Challenges in English Language Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century

Challenges in English Language Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century

Democratization and the Conditional Dynamics of Income Distribution

Dampak Demokrasi terhadap Perdagangan di Negara-Negara Berpendapatan Menengah dan Tinggi Asia [Impacts of Democracy on Trade Activity in Asia's Middle and High Income Countries]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About