Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper examines the relationship between openness and within-country regional inequality across 28 countries over the period 1975-2005, paying special attention to whether increases in global trade affect the developed and developing world differently. Using a combination of static and dynamic panel data analysis, we find that while increases in trade per se do not lead to greater territorial polarization, in combination with certain country-specific conditions, trade has a positive and significant association with regional inequality. In particular, states with higher inter-regional differences in sector endowments, a lower share of government expenditure, and a combination of high internal transaction costs with a higher degree of coincidence between the regional income distribution and regional foreign market access positions have experienced the greatest rise in territorial inequality when exposed to greater trade flows. This means that changes in trade regimes have had a more polarizing effect in low and middle-income countries, whose structural features tend to potentiate the trade effect and whose levels of internal spatial inequality are, on average, significantly higher than in high-income countries.

Agriculture --- Comparative advantage --- Comparative advantages --- Competitiveness --- Dynamic analysis --- Econometric analysis --- Economic geography --- Economic growth --- Economic integration --- Economic Theory & Research --- Emerging Markets --- Exports --- Free Trade --- GDP --- GDP per capita --- Human capital --- Income --- International Economics and Trade --- International trade --- Macroeconomic policies --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Middle income countries --- Private Sector Development --- Purchasing power --- Real GDP --- Regional Economic Development --- Rent seeking --- Trade Policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper examines the relationship between openness and within-country regional inequality across 28 countries over the period 1975-2005, paying special attention to whether increases in global trade affect the developed and developing world differently. Using a combination of static and dynamic panel data analysis, we find that while increases in trade per se do not lead to greater territorial polarization, in combination with certain country-specific conditions, trade has a positive and significant association with regional inequality. In particular, states with higher inter-regional differences in sector endowments, a lower share of government expenditure, and a combination of high internal transaction costs with a higher degree of coincidence between the regional income distribution and regional foreign market access positions have experienced the greatest rise in territorial inequality when exposed to greater trade flows. This means that changes in trade regimes have had a more polarizing effect in low and middle-income countries, whose structural features tend to potentiate the trade effect and whose levels of internal spatial inequality are, on average, significantly higher than in high-income countries.

Agriculture --- Comparative advantage --- Comparative advantages --- Competitiveness --- Dynamic analysis --- Econometric analysis --- Economic geography --- Economic growth --- Economic integration --- Economic Theory & Research --- Emerging Markets --- Exports --- Free Trade --- GDP --- GDP per capita --- Human capital --- Income --- International Economics and Trade --- International trade --- Macroeconomic policies --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Middle income countries --- Private Sector Development --- Purchasing power --- Real GDP --- Regional Economic Development --- Rent seeking --- Trade Policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

A notable contrast in modern economic history has been the rapid economic growth of China and the slower and volatile economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. As the engagement between the two continues to grows, there will be a greater cross-fertilization of experiences. Total factor productivity comparisons suggest that capital accumulation in China coupled with more efficient factor usage explains the differential with Africa. Although the two have similar populations and patterns of inequality, their growth trajectories have been divergent. What can Africa learn from China? Although the lessons vary depending on country location and resource endowment, seven basic lessons are visible. First, the political economy of Chinese reforms and the shared gains between political elites and the private sector can be partially transplanted to the African context. Second, the Chinese used diaspora capital and knowledge in the early reform years. Third, rural reforms in China helped accelerate economic takeoff through a restructuring of property rights and a boost to both savings rates and output. Fourth, Chinese growth has taken place in the context of a competitive exchange rate. Five, port governance in China has been exemplary, and African landlocked economies can benefit significantly from port reform in the coastal countries. Six, China has experimented with a degree of decentralization that could yield benefits for many Sub-Saharan African countries. Seventh, Africa can learn from China's policies toward autonomous areas and ethnic minorities to stave off conflict. Africa can learn from China's experiences and conduct developmental experiments for poverty alleviation goals.

Access to Finance --- Agriculture --- Banks & Banking Reform --- Centrally planned economy --- Debt Markets --- Decentralization --- Development strategy --- Economic expansion --- Economic growth --- Economic history --- Economic takeoff --- Economic Theory & Research --- Emerging Markets --- Exports --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- GDP --- GDP per capita --- Growth rate --- International trade --- Living standards --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Natural resources --- Political economy --- Private Sector Development --- Property rights --- Real GDP --- Savings --- Total factor productivity

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Countries are increasingly being ranked by some new "mashup index of development," defined as a composite index for which existing theory and practice provides little or no guidance to its design. Thus the index has an unusually large number of moving parts, which the producer is essentially free to set. The parsimony of these indices is often appealing - collapsing multiple dimensions into just one, yielding unambiguous country rankings, and possibly reducing concerns about measurement errors in the component series. But the meaning, interpretation and robustness of these indices are often unclear. If they are to be properly understood and used, more attention needs to be given to their conceptual foundations, the tradeoffs they embody, the contextual factors relevant to country performance, and the sensitivity of the implied rankings to changing the data and weights. In short, clearer warning signs are needed for users. But even then, nagging doubts remain about the value-added of mashup indices, and their policy relevance, relative to the "dashboard" alternative of monitoring the components separately. Future progress in devising useful new composite indices of development will require that theory catches up with measurement practice.

Agriculture --- Air pollution --- Competitive markets --- Decision making --- Development policy --- Economic competitiveness --- Economic resources --- Economic Theory & Research --- GDP --- GDP per capita --- Governance --- Governance Indicators --- Income --- Inflation rate --- Information and Communication Technologies --- Information Security & Privacy --- Living standards --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- National income --- Poverty Reduction --- Property rights --- Purchasing power --- Regional Economic Development --- Rural Poverty Reduction --- Shadow prices --- Tradeoffs --- Unemployment --- Unemployment rate --- Wealth

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Argentinean export growth was impressive during the recent economic boom (2003-2007). However, decomposing export growth reveals that the extensive margin (increases in exports of existing products to existing markets) dominates, while the intensive margin (increases in exports of new products or new markets) contributes little to export growth. Argentina's trade product concentration has increased in the past 10 years, and the main export products remain overwhelmingly natural-resource intensive. The little diversification of non-primary exports limits the country's ability to weather a decline in export commodity prices. The country has had some success finding new export markets, especially in Latin America, but should seek to develop deeper trade relationships with high GDP export destinations such as the European Union and the United States. Another challenge going forward is the relatively low sophistication of exports and limited integration into the global production chains, falling behind regional competitors such as Brazil. This calls for policy measures to improve the ability of existing firms to innovate and compete successfully in global markets.

Agriculture --- Consumers --- Devaluation --- Economic boom --- Economic Theory & Research --- Emerging Markets --- Export growth --- Exports --- Free Trade --- GDP --- GDP per capita --- Growth rate --- Income --- International Economics and Trade --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Natural resources --- Per capita income --- Private Sector Development --- Profit margins --- Tariff barriers --- Trade balance --- Trade liberalization --- Trade Policy --- Transport --- Transport Economics Policy & Planning --- Undervaluation --- Value added --- WTO