Trade, Politics, and the Poor: Is Sen Right and Bhagwati Wrong?

Article

Abstract

The current debate between two of the world’s finest economists—Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati—has not only roiled India but also attracted global attention. Is trade liberalization associated with improved welfare outcomes for the poor, as Bhagwati contends? Or is Sen correct that policymakers in liberalizing economies need to change their governance priorities to focus on redistribution? This analysis draws on existing literature to develop testable hypotheses that attempt to resolve the Sen–Bhagwati divide. Using fixed effect panel regressions and simultaneous equation models, we find that although there is empirical support for both arguments, the results on balance favor Sen: The positive relationship between trade and improved poverty is conditional upon more equitable distributions of income. In effect, Bhagwati’s predictions about the beneficial impacts of openness on social welfare occur only in a subset of developing nations, findings which have very different implications for the poor in developing countries.

Keywords

Income inequality Health Trade International political economy 

Supplementary material

12116_2016_9231_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson J. Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown Business; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. Economics versus politics: pitfalls of policy advice. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Working Paper Series; 2013.Google Scholar
  3. Aisbett E. Why are the critics so convinced that globalization is bad for the poor? In: Harrison A, editor. Globalization and poverty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007. p. 33–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alesina A, Baqir R, Easterly W. Public goods and ethnic divisions. Q J Econ. 1999;114:1243–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alesina A, Devleeschauwer A, Easterly W, Kurlat S, Wacziarg R. Fractionalization. J Econ Growth. 2003;8:155–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amiti M, Davis DR. Trade, firms, and wages: theory of evidence. Review of Economic Studies. 2012;79:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barro RJ, Lee JW. International data on educational attainment: updates and implications. Manuscript: Harvard University; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum, C.F., M.E. Schaffer and S. Stillman. Ivreg2: State module for extended instrumental variables /2SLS, GMM and AC/HAC, LIML, and k-class regression. Boston College Department of Economics, Statistical Software Components S425401. Downloadable from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s425401.html; 2007.
  9. Bell A, Jones K. Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods. 2015;3:133–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergh, A & Nilsson, T. Globalization and absolute poverty: a panel data study. IFN Working Paper; 2011.Google Scholar
  11. Bhagwati J, Panagariya A. Why growth matters: how economic growth in India reduced poverty and the lessons for other developing countries. New York: Public Affair; 2013.Google Scholar
  12. Blouin C, Heymann J, Drager N, editors. Negotiating across boundaries: promoting health in a globalized world, vol. 20. Montrreal, CA: McGill-Queens UP; 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Brambor T, Clark WR, Golder M. Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Polit Anal. 2006;14:63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bussmann M. The effect of trade openness on women’s welfare and work life. World Dev. 2009;37:1027–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caldwell JC. Education as a factor in mortality decline: an examination of Nigerian data. Popul Stud. 1979;33:395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castilho M, Menéndez M, Sztulman A. Trade liberalization, inequality, and poverty in Brazilian states. World Dev. 2012;40:821–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chandra R. Trade in health services. Bulletin of world health. Organization. 2002;80:158–63.Google Scholar
  18. Cornia GA. Globalization and health: results and options. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:83.Google Scholar
  19. Davis DR, Mishra P. Stolper-Samuelson is dead: and other crimes of both theory and data. In: Harrison A, editor. Globalization and poverty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007. p. 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deininger KW, Squire LA. New data set measuring income inequality. The. World Bank Econ Rev. 1996;10:565–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dollar D, Kraay A. Trade, growth, and poverty. Econ J. 2004;114:F22–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dreze J, Sen A. An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions. Princeton UP: Princeton; 2013.Google Scholar
  23. Easterly W. Inequality does cause underdevelopment: insights from a new instrument. J Dev Econ. 2007;84:755–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Easterly W, Ritzan J, Woolcock M. Social cohesion, institutions, and growth. Econ Polit. 2006;18:103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engerman, S. L. and Sokoloff, K. L Factor endowments, inequality, and paths of development among new world economies. NBER Working Paper. 2002;9259.Google Scholar
  26. Figini P, Santarelli E. Openness, economic reforms, and poverty: globalization in developing countries. The Journal of Developing Areas. 2006;39:129–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Filmer D, Hammer JS, Pritchett LH. Weak links in the chain: a diagnosis of health policy in poor countries. The World Bank Research Observer. 2000;15:99–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fukuda-Parr S, Lawson-Remer T, Randolph S. An index of economic and social rights fulfillment: concept and methodology. Journal of Human Rights. 2009;8:195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldberg PK, Pavcnik N. The response of the informal sector to trade liberalization. J Dev Econ. 2003;72:463–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldberg, P. K., & Pavcnik, N. Trade, inequality, and poverty: what do we know? Evidence from recent trade liberalization episodes in developing countries (No. w10593). Natl Bur Econ Res; 2004.Google Scholar
  31. Harrison, A. Globalization and poverty. No. w12347. Natl Bur Econ Res; 2006.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison A, Hanson G. Who gains from trade reform? Some remaining puzzles. J Dev Econ. 1999;59:25–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hasan R, Mitra D, Ural BP. Trade liberalization, labor-market institutions and poverty reduction: evidence from Indian states. In India Policy Forum. 2007;3:71–122.Google Scholar
  34. Heston, A, Summers, R. and Allen, B. Penn World Table Version 7.1, Center for international comparisons of production, income and prices at the University of Pennsylvania; 2012.Google Scholar
  35. Hobcraft J. Women’s education, child welfare, and child survival: a review of the evidence. Health Transition Review. 1993;3:159–75.Google Scholar
  36. Hoekman, B. and Winters, A. H. Trade and employment: stylized facts and research findings. World Bank Publications; 2005.Google Scholar
  37. Jamison E, Jamison D, Hanushek E. The effects of education quality on income growth and mortality decline. Econ Educ Rev. 2007;26:771–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kovak, B. Overestimating the effect of complementarity on skill demand. B.E. J Econ Anal Policy. 2011;11.Google Scholar
  39. Lake DA, Baum MA. The invisible hand of democracy political control and the provision of public services. Comparative Political Studies. 2001;34:587–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leung CS, Meisen P. How electricity consumption affects social and economic development by comparing low, medium and high human development countries. GENI: San Diego, CA; 2005.Google Scholar
  41. Levine DI, Rothman D. Does trade affect child health? J Health Econ. 2006;25:538–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacDonald, R. and Majeed, M.T.. Distributional and poverty consequences of globalization: a dynamic comparative analysis for developing countries; 2010.Google Scholar
  43. Maertens, M, Liesbeth, C., and Swinnen, J. F. M. Globalisation and poverty in Senegal: a worst case scenario? Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2011;jbq053.Google Scholar
  44. Marshall, M. G. & Jaggers, K. Polity IV Data Set. [Computer file] College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland; 2002. Available from http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/data/
  45. Martens P, Akin SM, Maud H, Mohsin R. Is globalization healthy: a statistical indicator analysis of the impacts of globalization on health. Glob Health. 2010;6.Google Scholar
  46. McGuire, J. W.Wealth, health, and democracy in East Asia and Latin America. Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  47. Mukherjee N, Kriekhaus J. Globalization and human wellbeing. International Political Science Review. 2011;33:150–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. North DC, Wallis JJ, Weingast BR. Violence and social orders. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 2013.Google Scholar
  49. Nussbaum M, Sen A. The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford UP; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Owen, A. L. & Wu, S. Is trade good for your health? Review of International Economics. 2007;15:660–682.Google Scholar
  51. Payne JE. A survey of the electricity consumption-growth literature. Appl Energy. 2010;87:723–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perotti R. Political equilibrium, income distribution, and growth. Review of Economic Studies. 1993;60:755–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Perotti R. Growth, income distribution, and democracy: what the data say. J Econ Growth. 1996;1:149–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Piketty T. About capital in the twenty-first century. Am Econ Rev. 2015;105:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Porto GG. Using survey data to assess the distributional effects of trade policy. J Int Econ. 2006;70:140–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Randolph S, Fukuda-Parr S, Lawson-Remer T. Economic and social rights fulfillment index: country scores and rankings. Journal of Human Rights. 2001;9:230–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodriguez, F., & Rodrik, D. Trade policy and economic growth: a skeptic’s guide to cross-national evidence. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual. MIT Press. 2001;15:261–338.Google Scholar
  58. Rodrik D. Where did all the growth go? External shocks, social conflict, and growth collapses. J Econ Growth. 1999;4:385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roeder, P.G. Ethnolinguistic fractionalization (ELF) indices, 1961 and 1985. Available from http//:weber.ucsd.edu/-proeder/elf.htm; 2001.Google Scholar
  60. Ross M. Is democracy good for the poor? Am J Polit Sci. 2006;50:860–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rueda D, Pontusson J. Wage inequality and varieties of capitalism. World Politics. 2000;52:350–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Savun B, Tirone DC. Foreign aid, democratization and civil conflict: how does democracy aid affect civil conflict? Am J Polit Sci. 2011;55:233–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sen A. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford UP; 1999.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, R., Blouin, C. and Drager, N. International trade in health services and the GATS. World Bank Group; 2006.Google Scholar
  65. Tsai MC. Economic and non-economic determinants of poverty in developing countries: competing theories and empirical evidence. Canadian Journal of Development Studies. 2006;27:267–85.Google Scholar
  66. Verhoogen E. Trade, quality upgrading and wage inequality in the Mexican manufacturing sector. Q J Econ. 2008;123:489–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Waldmann RJ. Income distribution and infant mortality. Q J Econ. 1992;107:1283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wood A. Openness and wage inequality in developing countries: the Latin American challenge to east Asian conventional wisdom. World Economic Review. 1997;11:35–57.Google Scholar
  69. World Health Organization. Primary health care: now more than ever. World health report. http://www.who.int/whr/2008/whr08_en.pdf; 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GovernmentGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations