The Link Between Aid-for-Trade and Contingent Protection

IF 1.1 Q4 BUSINESS Foreign Trade Review Pub Date : 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1177/00157325231159240
N. Upadhayay
{"title":"The Link Between Aid-for-Trade and Contingent Protection","authors":"N. Upadhayay","doi":"10.1177/00157325231159240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Foreign aid, in theory, is expected to mitigate constraints that impede the economic development of recipient countries. At the same time that help is committed, donors are seemingly taking actions that are harmful to developing economies in obvious ways. An example is the tacit circumvention of the putative rules-based global trading system through contingent protection activities. In this article, it is postulated that, on one hand aid-for-trade (AfT) is expected to have positive impact on the exports of aid recipients by better integration into the global trading order, on the other hand, aid provider (donor) curtails access to its own markets by actuating contingent protection against the recipient (exporter). Using contingent protection cases data from 2003 to 2018 (a 15-year period) against 106 recipient countries of the United States of America’s AfT, this study finds a significant and positive impact of AfT on the surge in contingent protection activities. This effect is entirely driven by the aid for economic infrastructure and services, while the other main category of AfT- production sector, has no discernible effect on the rise in protection against the recipient. To examine the heterogeneity in donor decisions, this study is expanded to other traditional donors like Australia, Canada, the European Union (EU) and New Zealand. This article finds that Australia behaves similar to the USA; however, for Canada and the EU, the relationship between aid and market access is not statistically significant. JEL Codes: F1, F35, O19","PeriodicalId":29933,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Trade Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foreign Trade Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00157325231159240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Foreign aid, in theory, is expected to mitigate constraints that impede the economic development of recipient countries. At the same time that help is committed, donors are seemingly taking actions that are harmful to developing economies in obvious ways. An example is the tacit circumvention of the putative rules-based global trading system through contingent protection activities. In this article, it is postulated that, on one hand aid-for-trade (AfT) is expected to have positive impact on the exports of aid recipients by better integration into the global trading order, on the other hand, aid provider (donor) curtails access to its own markets by actuating contingent protection against the recipient (exporter). Using contingent protection cases data from 2003 to 2018 (a 15-year period) against 106 recipient countries of the United States of America’s AfT, this study finds a significant and positive impact of AfT on the surge in contingent protection activities. This effect is entirely driven by the aid for economic infrastructure and services, while the other main category of AfT- production sector, has no discernible effect on the rise in protection against the recipient. To examine the heterogeneity in donor decisions, this study is expanded to other traditional donors like Australia, Canada, the European Union (EU) and New Zealand. This article finds that Australia behaves similar to the USA; however, for Canada and the EU, the relationship between aid and market access is not statistically significant. JEL Codes: F1, F35, O19
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
贸易援助与应急保护的关系
理论上,外援有望缓解阻碍受援国经济发展的制约因素。在承诺提供帮助的同时,捐助者似乎正在采取显然对发展中经济体有害的行动。一个例子是通过应急保护活动暗中绕过假定的以规则为基础的全球贸易体系。本文假设,一方面,贸易援助(AfT)有望通过更好地融入全球贸易秩序对受援国的出口产生积极影响,另一方面,援助国(捐助国)通过对受援国(出口国)实施应急保护来限制其进入本国市场的机会。本研究利用2003年至2018年(15年期间)106个美国应急基金受援国的应急保护案例数据,发现应急基金对应急保护活动的激增产生了显著的积极影响。这种影响完全是由对经济基础设施和服务的援助推动的,而另一个主要的援助类别- -生产部门- -对对受援国的保护的增加没有明显的影响。为了检验捐助者决策的异质性,本研究扩展到澳大利亚、加拿大、欧盟(EU)和新西兰等其他传统捐助者。本文发现澳大利亚的行为与美国相似;然而,对于加拿大和欧盟而言,援助与市场准入之间的关系在统计上并不显著。JEL代码:F1, F35, O19
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Trading in Turbulent Times: Unravelling the Interplay between Trade Policy Uncertainty and Geopolitics in Russian Mineral Resource Supply Search Friction and Costly Entry in the Specific Factors Model Trade Gap and Public Debt Sustainability in Nigeria Imported Inputs and Export Performance: A Gravity Analysis Book review: Rajib Bhattacharyya, Ramesh Chandra Das, and Achintya Ray (Eds.), COVID-19 Pandemic and Global Inequality: Reflections in Labour Market, Business and Social Sectors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1