Is the Washington Consensus Dead? Growth, Openness, and the Great Liberalization, 1970s-2000s

Antoni Estevadeordal

108 citations0/0 files storedNational Bureau of Economic Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Global trade and economics Economic Growth and Productivity Globalization, Economics, and Policies

Abstract

According to the Washington Consensus, developing countries' growth would benefit from a reduction in tariffs and other barriers to trade.But a backlash against this view now suggests that trade policies have little or no impact on growth.If "getting policies right" is wrong or infeasible, this leaves only the more tenuous objective of "getting institutions right" (Easterly 2005, Rodrik 2006).However, the empirical basis for judging recent trade reforms is weak.Econometrics are mostly ad hoc; results are typically not judged against models; trade policies are poorly measured (or not measured at all, as when trade volumes are spuriously used); and the most influential studies in the literature are based on pre-1990 experience (which predates the "Great Liberalization" in developing countries which followed the GATT Uruguay Round).We address all of these concerns --by using a model-based analysis which highlights tariffs on capital and intermediate goods; by compiling new disaggregated tariff measures to empirically test the model; and by employing a treatment-and-control empirical analysis of pre-versus post-1990 performance of liberalizing and nonliberalizing countries.We find evidence that a specific treatment, liberalizing tariffs on imported capital and intermediate goods, did lead to faster GDP growth, and by a margin consistent with theory (about 1 percentage point per annum).Endogeneity problems are considered and other observations are consistent with the proposed mechanism: changes to other tariffs, e.g. on consumption goods, though collinear with general tariffs reforms, are more weakly correlated with growth outcomes; and the treatment and control groups display different behavior of investment prices and quantities, and capital flows.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 108 citations exist upstream.

References

1992A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth 1991Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries 1989Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries 1944Great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time 2002Great Transformation: Political and Economic Origins of our Time 2004Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development 1995Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration 1982International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order

Cited by

2012Trade, income and the Baltic Dry Index 2010Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets: A Survey 2011Economies in Transition: How Important Is Trade Openness for Growth?*2010Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets 2011Tariffs and economic growth in the first era of globalization 2009International Finance and Growth in Developing Countries: What Have We Learned?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.