Advertisement

Trade Patterns and Endogenous Institutions: Global Evidence

  • Stephan Huber
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Abstract

We propose a novel way to measure the rule of law intensity of exports at the goods level based on nearly 100 million disaggregated bilateral trade flows around the globe. We categorize goods into three groups: fragmented, primary, and other. The theoretical literature on hold-up problems connected to incomplete or incompletely enforceable contracts or property rights predicts that goods resulting from fragmented production processes should be the most rule of law intensive. However, we find that the rule of law intensity of other goods is, on average, only slightly lower than that of fragmented goods. We examine how exogenous variation in countries’ trade patterns influences the quality of institutions. Our regressions show that trade flows generated by fragmented and other processes of production improve rule of law, while trade flows generated by primary production do not.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Nauro Campos, Jarko Fidrmuc, Michal Pilc and Eric Verhoogen and seminar participants at the VfS Wien, FIW Wien, DGO Berlin, Higher School of Economics (Moscow), IOS Regensburg, Roma Tre University and University of Perugia for helpful comments. Roman Horváth and Stephan Huber acknowledge support from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (grant P402/12/G097). Richard Frensch gratefully acknowledges support from the Bavarian Ministry of Science ForChange research network.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2008) Persistence of power, elites, and institutions. Am Econ Rev 98(1):267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2001) The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1369–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2005a) Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 1A, chap 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 385–472Google Scholar
  4. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2005b) The rise of Europe: atlantic trade, institutional change, and economic growth. Am Econ Rev 95(3):546–579Google Scholar
  5. Alexeev M, Conrad R (2009) The elusive curse of oil. Rev Econ Stat 91(3):586–598Google Scholar
  6. Anderson JE, Marcouiller D (2002) Insecurity and the pattern of trade: an empirical investigation. Rev Econ Stat 84(2):342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck T, Laeven L (2006) Institution building and growth in transition economies. J Econ Growth 11(2):157–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharyya S, Hodler R (2010) Natural resources, democracy and corruption. Eur Econ Rev 54(4):608–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulte EH, Damania R, Deacon RT (2005) Resource intensity, institutions, and development. World Dev 33(7):1029–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caballero RJ (2007) Specificity and the macroeconomics of restructuring. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Caballero RJ, Cowan KN, Engel EM, Micco A (2013) Effective labor regulation and microeconomic flexibility. J Dev Econ 101:92–104Google Scholar
  12. CEPII (2016) Base Pour L’Analyse Du Commerce International (BACI). Database, Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII). www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/baci.htm
  13. Cheptea A (2007) Trade liberalization and institutional reforms. Econ Transit 15(2):211–255Google Scholar
  14. Chor D (2010) Unpacking sources of comparative advantage: a quantitative approach. J Int Econ 82(2):152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costinot A (2009) On the origins of comparative advantage. J Int Econ 77(2):255–264Google Scholar
  16. Davies RB, Vadlamannati KC (2013) A race to the bottom in labor standards? An empirical investigation. J Dev Econ 103(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis DR (1995) Intra-industry trade: a Heckscher-Ohlin-Ricardo approach. J Int Econ 39(3):201–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Do QT, Levchenko AA (2009) Trade, inequality, and the political economy of institutions. J Econ Theory 144(4):1489–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Estevadeordal A, Taylor AM (2013) Is the Washington Consensus dead? Growth, openness, and the great liberalization: 1970s–2000s. Rev Econ Stat 95(5):1669–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feenstra RC, Inklaar R, Timmer MP (2015) The next generation of the Penn World Table. Am Econ Rev 105(10):3150–3182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankel JA, Romer D (1999) Does trade cause growth? Am Econ Rev 89(3):379–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frensch R, Hanousek J, Kocenda E (2015) Incomplete specialization and offshoring across Europe. CEPR Discussion Papers 10932, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)Google Scholar
  23. Frensch R, Horváth R, Huber S (2016) Trade patterns and endogenous institutions: global evidence. IOS Working Paper 358, Institute of East and Southeast European Studies (IOS), RegensburgGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaulier G, Zignago S (2012) BACI: international trade database at the product-level (the 1994–2007 version). CEPII Working Paper 23, Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII)Google Scholar
  25. Giavazzi F, Tabellini G (2005) Economic and political liberalizations. J Monet Econ 52(7):1297–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grossman SJ, Hart OD (1986) The costs and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration. J Polit Econ 94(4):691–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gylfason T (2001) Natural resources, education, and economic development. Eur Econ Rev 45(4):847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart O, Moore J (1990) Property rights and the nature of the firm. J Polit Econ 98(6):1119–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hausmann R, Hwang J, Rodrik D (2007) What you export matters. J Econ Growth 12(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (2012) Penn world table version 7.1. Technical report, Center for international comparisons of production, income and prices at the University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoff K, Stiglitz JE (2004) After the big bang? Obstacles to the emergence of the rule of law in post-communist societies. Am Econ Rev 94(3):753–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huber S (2017) PRODY: Stata module to calculate factor intensity and sophistication indicators. Statistical Software Components S458329, Boston College Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2005) Governance Matters VIII: aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2004. Technical Report 4978. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Kimura F, Takahashi Y, Hayakawa K (2007) Fragmentation and parts and components trade: comparison between East Asia and Europe. North Am J Econ Finance 18(1):23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kimura F, Hayakawa K, Ji Z (2008) Does international fragmentation occur in sectors other than machinery? Asian Econ J 22(4):343–358Google Scholar
  36. Kornai J (1992) The socialist system: the political economy of communism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. La Porta R, López-De-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106(6):1113–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levchenko AA (2007) Institutional quality and international trade. Rev Econ Stud 74(3):791–819Google Scholar
  39. Levchenko AA (2013) International trade and institutional change. J Law Econ Org 29(5):1145–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall MG, Gurr TR, Jaggers K (2016) Polity IV project, political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2015. Dataset users’ manual, Center for Systemic Peace. www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html
  41. Matsuyama K (1992) Agricultural productivity, comparative advantage, and economic growth. J Econ Theory 58(2):317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayer T, Zignago S (2011) Notes on CEPII’s distances measures: the GeoDist database. CEPII Working paper 2011–25, Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII)Google Scholar
  43. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Nunn N (2007) Relationship specificity, incomplete contracts and the pattern of trade. Q J Econ 122(2):569–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potrafke N (2013) Globalization and labor market institutions: international empirical evidence. J Comp Econ 41(3):829–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rauch JE (1999) Networks versus markets in international trade. J Int Econ 48(1):7–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rigobon R, Rodrik D (2005) Rule of law, democracy, openness, and income: estimating the interrelationships. Econ Transit 13(3):533–564Google Scholar
  48. Rodrik D (2002) Trade policy reform as institutional reform. In: Hoekman BM, Mattoo A, English P (eds) Development, trade and the WTO: a handbook, vol 1. The World Bank, Washington, p 261–325Google Scholar
  49. Rodrik D, Subramanian A, Trebbi F (2004) Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. J Econ Growth 9(2):131–165Google Scholar
  50. Romalis J (2004) Factor proportions and the structure of commodity trade. Am Econ Rev 94(1):67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sachs JD, Warner AM (1995) Economic reform and the process of global integration. Brook Pap Econ Act 1:1–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sachs JD, Warner AM (1997) Natural resource abundance and economic growth. Updated and extended version of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper 5398 (October 1995) with the same title 5398, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  53. Sokoloff KL, Engerman SL (2000) Institutions, factor endowments, and paths of development in the new world. J Econ Perspect 14(3):217–232Google Scholar
  54. Teorell J, Samanni M, Holmberg S, Rothstein B (2015) The quality of government standard dataset (version January 2015). Database, University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute. http://qog.pol.gu.se/data/datadownloads/qogstandarddata
  55. United Nations (2016) Comtrade. Database, United Nations commodity trade statistics. http://comtrade.un.org
  56. Wacziarg R, Welch KH (2008) Trade liberalization and growth: new evidence. World Bank Econ Rev 22(2):187–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism. Firms, markets, relational contracting. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Huber
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich WirtschaftswissenschaftUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations