{"title":"贸易对不平等的影响:关于什么、何时、何地的新证据","authors":"A. Siddique","doi":"10.1093/CESIFO/IFAB005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The relationship between trade and inequality is complex, and the existing literature concludes that the impacts of trade on inequality are ambiguous. This article addresses this ambiguity and presents robust evidence that the effects of trade on inequality depend on economic development, when it occurred in recent decades, and their various measures. It proposes a novel identification strategy to solve for endogeneity problem in the literature by using trade as predicted by a gravity equation as an instrument for actual trade. It estimates the effect of both trade policies and trade volumes on inequality measured both before and after taxes and transfers. This article takes advantage of large and long panel data by conducting cross-examinations by economic development and economic history. The results show that international trade exacerbates inequality in the pre-taxes, but the effects disappear after taxes and transfers are adjusted; thus, it supports the compensation hypothesis. It increases inequality in rich economies while reducing it in poor economies, which confirms the standard Stolper and Samuelson theorem. Post-1991 trade experience was inequality increasing but pre-1991 trade was inequality decreasing; however, trade opening by reducing regulations, taxes, and tariffs was always inequality increasing. (JEL codes: D63, P33, and F63)","PeriodicalId":51748,"journal":{"name":"Cesifo Economic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CESIFO/IFAB005","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Trade on Inequality: New Evidence of What, When, and Where\",\"authors\":\"A. Siddique\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/CESIFO/IFAB005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The relationship between trade and inequality is complex, and the existing literature concludes that the impacts of trade on inequality are ambiguous. This article addresses this ambiguity and presents robust evidence that the effects of trade on inequality depend on economic development, when it occurred in recent decades, and their various measures. It proposes a novel identification strategy to solve for endogeneity problem in the literature by using trade as predicted by a gravity equation as an instrument for actual trade. It estimates the effect of both trade policies and trade volumes on inequality measured both before and after taxes and transfers. This article takes advantage of large and long panel data by conducting cross-examinations by economic development and economic history. The results show that international trade exacerbates inequality in the pre-taxes, but the effects disappear after taxes and transfers are adjusted; thus, it supports the compensation hypothesis. It increases inequality in rich economies while reducing it in poor economies, which confirms the standard Stolper and Samuelson theorem. Post-1991 trade experience was inequality increasing but pre-1991 trade was inequality decreasing; however, trade opening by reducing regulations, taxes, and tariffs was always inequality increasing. (JEL codes: D63, P33, and F63)\",\"PeriodicalId\":51748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cesifo Economic Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CESIFO/IFAB005\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cesifo Economic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/CESIFO/IFAB005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cesifo Economic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CESIFO/IFAB005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Impact of Trade on Inequality: New Evidence of What, When, and Where
The relationship between trade and inequality is complex, and the existing literature concludes that the impacts of trade on inequality are ambiguous. This article addresses this ambiguity and presents robust evidence that the effects of trade on inequality depend on economic development, when it occurred in recent decades, and their various measures. It proposes a novel identification strategy to solve for endogeneity problem in the literature by using trade as predicted by a gravity equation as an instrument for actual trade. It estimates the effect of both trade policies and trade volumes on inequality measured both before and after taxes and transfers. This article takes advantage of large and long panel data by conducting cross-examinations by economic development and economic history. The results show that international trade exacerbates inequality in the pre-taxes, but the effects disappear after taxes and transfers are adjusted; thus, it supports the compensation hypothesis. It increases inequality in rich economies while reducing it in poor economies, which confirms the standard Stolper and Samuelson theorem. Post-1991 trade experience was inequality increasing but pre-1991 trade was inequality decreasing; however, trade opening by reducing regulations, taxes, and tariffs was always inequality increasing. (JEL codes: D63, P33, and F63)
期刊介绍:
CESifo Economic Studies publishes provocative, high-quality papers in economics, with a particular focus on policy issues. Papers by leading academics are written for a wide and global audience, including those in government, business, and academia. The journal combines theory and empirical research in a style accessible to economists across all specialisations.