关税自由化对经济和社会效益的影响:可计算一般均衡在肯尼亚的应用

IF 1.4 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1111/polp.12601
Shadrack Muthami Mwatu, Nancy Nelima Nafula, John Gakuu Karanja
{"title":"关税自由化对经济和社会效益的影响:可计算一般均衡在肯尼亚的应用","authors":"Shadrack Muthami Mwatu,&nbsp;Nancy Nelima Nafula,&nbsp;John Gakuu Karanja","doi":"10.1111/polp.12601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>This study employed computable general equilibrium policy simulations to examine the impact of import tariff liberalization on socioeconomic outcomes including living standards, cost of living, gross domestic product (GDP) from expenditure, total investment expenditure, intermediate input demand, output, value-added, tariff revenue, sales tax revenue, indirect tax revenue, direct income tax revenue, factor income tax revenue, and factor demand. Findings from the simulations have policy implications touching on a need to embrace reciprocal tariff liberalization under agreements like strategic trade and investment partnerships and economic partnership agreements as they are associated with welfare gains, reduction in cost of living, and GDP growth. Targeted policy incentives could be directed to specific domestic sectors since tariff liberalization has negative impacts on investment expenditure. Incentives regarding intermediate inputs should be directed to the manufacturing and services sectors for liberalization of agrifood commodities. Targeted policy incentives should be directed to the manufacturing and services sectors which experience decrease in output with tariff reductions. Liberalization of manufactured commodities should be accompanied by value-added incentives directed to the agrifood and home production–home consumption sectors. For the liberalization of manufactured commodities, targeted policy incentives should be directed to the services sector which experiences job losses while for the liberalization of tariffs on imports of agrifood commodities, targeted policy incentives should be directed to the agrifood and the home production–home consumption sectors, which also lose jobs. These targeted policy incentives could support industrial activity and compensate for revenue loss, especially from customs duties.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\n \n <p>Gruber, Lloyd. 2013. “Trade, Growth, Poverty, and Politics: Toward a Unified Theory.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 41(5): 723–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12034.</p>\n \n <p>Onyango, Gedion, and Japheth Otieno Ondiek. 2022. “Open Innovation During the COVID-19 Pandemic Policy Responses in South Africa and Kenya.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 50(5): 1008–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12490.</p>\n \n <p>Soto, Gloria. 2012. “Environmental Impact of Agricultural Trade Liberalization under NAFTA.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 40(3): 471–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00354.x.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51679,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Policy","volume":"52 3","pages":"573-596"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of tariff liberalization on economic and social benefits: Computable general equilibrium application to Kenya\",\"authors\":\"Shadrack Muthami Mwatu,&nbsp;Nancy Nelima Nafula,&nbsp;John Gakuu Karanja\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/polp.12601\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <p>This study employed computable general equilibrium policy simulations to examine the impact of import tariff liberalization on socioeconomic outcomes including living standards, cost of living, gross domestic product (GDP) from expenditure, total investment expenditure, intermediate input demand, output, value-added, tariff revenue, sales tax revenue, indirect tax revenue, direct income tax revenue, factor income tax revenue, and factor demand. Findings from the simulations have policy implications touching on a need to embrace reciprocal tariff liberalization under agreements like strategic trade and investment partnerships and economic partnership agreements as they are associated with welfare gains, reduction in cost of living, and GDP growth. Targeted policy incentives could be directed to specific domestic sectors since tariff liberalization has negative impacts on investment expenditure. Incentives regarding intermediate inputs should be directed to the manufacturing and services sectors for liberalization of agrifood commodities. Targeted policy incentives should be directed to the manufacturing and services sectors which experience decrease in output with tariff reductions. Liberalization of manufactured commodities should be accompanied by value-added incentives directed to the agrifood and home production–home consumption sectors. For the liberalization of manufactured commodities, targeted policy incentives should be directed to the services sector which experiences job losses while for the liberalization of tariffs on imports of agrifood commodities, targeted policy incentives should be directed to the agrifood and the home production–home consumption sectors, which also lose jobs. These targeted policy incentives could support industrial activity and compensate for revenue loss, especially from customs duties.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\\n \\n <p>Gruber, Lloyd. 2013. “Trade, Growth, Poverty, and Politics: Toward a Unified Theory.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 41(5): 723–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12034.</p>\\n \\n <p>Onyango, Gedion, and Japheth Otieno Ondiek. 2022. “Open Innovation During the COVID-19 Pandemic Policy Responses in South Africa and Kenya.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 50(5): 1008–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12490.</p>\\n \\n <p>Soto, Gloria. 2012. “Environmental Impact of Agricultural Trade Liberalization under NAFTA.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 40(3): 471–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00354.x.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics & Policy\",\"volume\":\"52 3\",\"pages\":\"573-596\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12601\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究采用可计算的一般均衡政策模拟,研究进口关税自由化对社会经济成果的影响,包括生活水平、生活成本、支出产生的国内生产总值(GDP)、总投资支出、中间投入需求、产出、附加值、关税收入、销售税收入、间接税收入、直接所得税收入、要素所得税收入和要素需求。模拟结果具有政策含义,即需要在战略贸易与投资伙伴关系协定和经济伙伴关系协定等协定下实行互惠的关税自由化,因为这与福利收益、生活成本降低和国内生产总值增长相关。由于关税自由化会对投资支出产生负面影响,因此可以针对特定的国内部门采取有针对性的政策激励措施。有关中间投入的激励措施应针对制造业和服务业部门,以促进农业食品商品的自由化。有针对性的政策激励措施应针对因关税削减而产出减少的制造业和服务业部门。在实行制成品自由化的同时,还应向农业食品和家庭生产-家庭消费部门提供增值激励措施。就制成品自由化而言,有针对性的政策激励措施应针对服务部门,因为这些部门的就业机会会减少;就农产食品进口关税自由化而言,有针对性的政策激励措施应针对农产食品和家庭生产-家庭消费部门,因为这些部门的就业机会也会减少。这些有针对性的政策激励措施可以支持工业活动,弥补收入损失,尤其是关税损失。2013."贸易、增长、贫困与政治:Toward a Unified Theory." Politics & Policy 41(5).Politics & Policy 41(5):https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12034.Onyango, Gedion, and Japheth Otieno Ondiek. 2022."南非和肯尼亚在 COVID-19 大流行期间的开放式创新对策"。政治与政策》50(5):1008-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12490.Soto, Gloria.2012."北美自由贸易协定下农业贸易自由化的环境影响》。Politics & Policy 40(3):471–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2012.00354.x.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Impact of tariff liberalization on economic and social benefits: Computable general equilibrium application to Kenya

This study employed computable general equilibrium policy simulations to examine the impact of import tariff liberalization on socioeconomic outcomes including living standards, cost of living, gross domestic product (GDP) from expenditure, total investment expenditure, intermediate input demand, output, value-added, tariff revenue, sales tax revenue, indirect tax revenue, direct income tax revenue, factor income tax revenue, and factor demand. Findings from the simulations have policy implications touching on a need to embrace reciprocal tariff liberalization under agreements like strategic trade and investment partnerships and economic partnership agreements as they are associated with welfare gains, reduction in cost of living, and GDP growth. Targeted policy incentives could be directed to specific domestic sectors since tariff liberalization has negative impacts on investment expenditure. Incentives regarding intermediate inputs should be directed to the manufacturing and services sectors for liberalization of agrifood commodities. Targeted policy incentives should be directed to the manufacturing and services sectors which experience decrease in output with tariff reductions. Liberalization of manufactured commodities should be accompanied by value-added incentives directed to the agrifood and home production–home consumption sectors. For the liberalization of manufactured commodities, targeted policy incentives should be directed to the services sector which experiences job losses while for the liberalization of tariffs on imports of agrifood commodities, targeted policy incentives should be directed to the agrifood and the home production–home consumption sectors, which also lose jobs. These targeted policy incentives could support industrial activity and compensate for revenue loss, especially from customs duties.

Related Articles

Gruber, Lloyd. 2013. “Trade, Growth, Poverty, and Politics: Toward a Unified Theory.” Politics & Policy 41(5): 723–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12034.

Onyango, Gedion, and Japheth Otieno Ondiek. 2022. “Open Innovation During the COVID-19 Pandemic Policy Responses in South Africa and Kenya.” Politics & Policy 50(5): 1008–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12490.

Soto, Gloria. 2012. “Environmental Impact of Agricultural Trade Liberalization under NAFTA.” Politics & Policy 40(3): 471–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00354.x.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Politics & Policy
Politics & Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Toward a Conjunctural Analysis of New York City's Housing Movement Social Movements, Public Policy, and Informal Institutions: The Role of Patronage in Chile (2006–2022) Slow-Moving Welfare State Change in Quebec and “Movements From Below” Issue Information Populist Narratives and Personalized National Role Conception in Middle Powers: The Cases of Mexico and Turkey During the COVID-19 Pandemic
×
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