Does reduced trade tax revenue affect government spending patterns?

  • Michael O. Moore
  • Maurizio ZanardiEmail author


Many skeptics of trade liberalization in the developing world argue that lowering trade taxes can cause significant fiscal pressures in countries particularly reliant on these taxes and result in a reallocation of resources away from important development goals. This paper evaluates whether there is evidence that central governments systematically change the composition of spending priorities in the wake of lowered trade tax revenues as a share of total government revenues. We find no systematic evidence for this concern in a sample of 51 developing countries for the 1991 through 2005 period.


Government expenditure Tariff revenue Trade liberalization 

JEL Classification

H7 F13 


  1. Attanasio, O., Goldberg, P., & Pavcnik, N. (2004). Trade reforms and wage inequality in Colombia. Journal of Development Economics, 74(2), 331–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baunsgaard, T., & Keen, M. (2010). Tax revenue and (or?) trade liberalization. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 563–577. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruno, G. S. F. (2005). Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel data models with a small number of individuals. Stata Journal, 5(4), 473–500. Google Scholar
  6. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 292–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Correlates of War project. Available at
  8. Cragg, M., & Epelbaum, M. (1996). Why has wage dispersion grown in Mexico? Is it the incidence of reforms or the growing demand for skills? Journal of Development Economics, 51(1), 99–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreher, A., Sturm, J.-E., & Ursprung, H. (2008). The impact of globalization on the composition of government expenditures: evidence from panel data. Public Choice, 134(3–4), 263–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emran, S., & Stiglitz, J. (2005). On selective indirect tax reform in developing countries. Journal of Public Economics, 89(4), 599–623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gemmell, N., Kneller, R., & Sanz, I. (2008). Foreign investment, international trade and the size and structure of public expenditures. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(1), 151–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jamaica (2004). Jamaica trade policy review (WT/TPR/G/139). Google Scholar
  13. Khattry, B., & Rao, M. (2002). Fiscal faux pas? An analysis of the revenue implications of trade liberalization. World Development, 30(8), 1431–1444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin, A., Lin, C.-F., & Chu, C.-S. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Monty, G. M., & Jaggers, K. (2002). Polity IV data set. [Computer file; version p4v2004] College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  16. Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger governments. Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 997–1032. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schulze, G., & Ursprung, H. (1999). Globalisation of the economy and the nation state. World Economy, 22(3), 295–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saint, K., & Nevis (2003). Statement by Mr Horatio Versailles of Permanent Secretary, Ministry of International Trade and CARICOM Affairs (WT/MIN(03)/ST/123). Google Scholar
  20. Schwert, W. G. (1989). Tests for unit roots: a Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 7(2), 147–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP/PRIO). Available at

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for International Economic Policy and Department of EconomicsGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.ECARESUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations