Explaining Agricultural Distortion Patterns : The Roles of Ideology, Inequality, Lobbying and Public Finance

In this paper, we examine the political economy drivers of the variation in agricultural protection, both across countries and within countries over time. The paper starts by listing the key insights provided by both the theoretical and empirical literature on the political economy of trade policy formulation. We then set out a basic framework that allows us to put forth various testable hypotheses on the variation and evolution of agricultural protection. We find that both the political ideology of the government and the degree of income inequality are important determinants of agricultural protection. Thus, both the political-support-function approach as well as the median-voter approach can be used in explaining the variation in agricultural protection across countries and within countries over time. The results are consistent with the predictions of a model that assumes that labor is specialized and sector-specific in nature. Some aspects of protection also seem to be consistent with predictions of a lobbying model in that agricultural protection is negatively related to agricultural employment and positively related to agricultural productivity. Public finance aspects of protection also seem to be empirically important.Distorted incentives, agricultural and trade policy reforms, national agricultural development, Agricultural protection, political economy, Agricultural and Food Policy, International Relations/Trade, F13, F14, Q17, Q18, D72, D78, F11,

Inequality and the Instability of Polity and Policy

In this paper, we create alternative measures of political instability, which capture movements only from dictatorship to democracy and vice versa (consistent with the recent theoretical work by Acemoglu and Robinson) but, unlike older, well known measures do not capture government changes that preserve the democratic or dictatorial structure of the country. Our empirical work clearly shows that inequality is positively correlated with our measures of political instability as well as with a well-known measure (used by Alesina and Perotti), but the impact of inequality on the latter is only through components of political instability as captured in our measures. We also find that our measure of political instability has significant policy implications - it increases the volatility of both trade and fiscal policies. Furthermore, policy volatility exercises a debilitating influence by intensifying the volatility of output. Output volatility is affected by political instability but only through its effect on policy volatility. We find strong evidence of a channel that starts from inequality, which then affects political instability (as measured by us), which in turn affects policy volatility and then output volatility. Finally, we examine and find that the instability of policy and polity has adverse effects on both investment and economic growth

International Trade and Unemployment: Theory and Cross-National Evidence

In this paper, we present two alternative models of trade and unemployment, in which unemployment is generated through a search mechanism. The basic framework of the first model is Ricardian in that the only factor of production is labor and trade is based on relative technological differences. The second model has a Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) framework with two factors of production, namely labor and capital that are intersectorally mobile. Using cross-country data on various measures of trade policy, unemployment and a variety of controls, we find strong evidence for the Ricardian prediction that unemployment and trade openness are negatively related (protection and unemployment are positively related). We do not find any support for the H-O prediction that this relation between trade openness and unemployment changes from negative to positive as we move from labor-abundant to capital-abundant countries. Our results are robust to the inclusion of controls for labor market institutions and macroeconomic distortions. They hold for both ordinary least squares and instrumental-variables approaches, where the latter accounts for the endogeneity of trade policy to unemployment and possible measurement errors in trade policy variables

Trade protection and bureaucratic corruption: an empirical investigation

We examine whether protectionist trade policies lead to increased bureaucratic corruption. Using multiple measures of corruption and trade policies, we find strong evidence that corruption is significantly higher in countries with protectionist trade policies. These results are robust to endogeneity concerns. Next, a panel-data-based GMM methodology is used to estimate a dynamic model of corruption. This estimator controls for country-specific effects, potential endogeneity of trade policy, and existence of measurement errors afflicting the corruption data. The paper strengthens the case for trade liberalization and argues that trade reforms may lead to improvements in governance.

Corruption and tariffs as barriers to imports

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Explaining Agricultural Distortion Patterns : The Roles of Ideology, Inequality, Lobbying and Public Finance

In this paper, we examine the political economy drivers of the variation in agricultural protection, both across countries and within countries over time. The paper starts by listing the key insights provided by both the theoretical and empirical literature on the political economy of trade policy formulation. We then set out a basic framework that allows us to put forth various testable hypotheses on the variation and evolution of agricultural protection. We find that both the political ideology of the government and the degree of income inequality are important determinants of agricultural protection. Thus, both the political-support-function approach as well as the median-voter approach can be used in explaining the variation in agricultural protection across countries and within countries over time. The results are consistent with the predictions of a model that assumes that labor is specialized and sector-specific in nature. Some aspects of protection also seem to be consistent with predictions of a lobbying model in that agricultural protection is negatively related to agricultural employment and positively related to agricultural productivity. Public finance aspects of protection also seem to be empirically important