Religion and international trade - Are they linked?

Came across this rather interesting analysis of the possible relationship of religion and international trade. Do similarities in religion and other cultural characteristics promote trade? One would never have thought about the possible co-relation between a religious orientation of a country and its trading relations. Trade after all was propelled by business interests. 

Tomas Rees writing in Epiphenom analysed the study of Chong Wha Lee titled "Does religion affect international trade in services more than trade in goods?" Do countries following similar religious traditions have a greater possibility of enhanced trade in goods and more so for services? the study indicated thus:

The results indicate that religion creates positive institutional and network effects, increasing international trade in goods and services; these effects enhance trade in services more than trade in goods; institutional effects exert a greater trade-creating effect than deliberately designed institutional regimes, but a lesser effect than historically established cultural regimes, such as common language and colonial ties; network effects on trade in services, although less significant than common language and colonial ties, promote trade to nearly the same degree as regional trade agreements and shared legal systems. Religion establishes co-religious networks that positively affect interpersonal trust, thereby reducing institutional distances between countries. This effect is similar to that of trading diaspora.

Another interesting tool to analyse the growth of trade in modern societies. It is not always about trade barriers, is it? 

China, national interest and the WTO

China's participation in the WTO is often a subject matter of intense debate and analysis. Experts have argued that since its accession to the WTO in 2001 China has benefitted immensely from its membership of the multilateral intruding institution and has seen unprecedented growth in trade. Critics have often argued that China takes advantage of the multilateral system for its benefit and continues to violate trade rules by subsidizing its export industry and "manipulating" its currency. "Made in China" products seem to permeate countries and is a source of tension.I have blogged about China and its participation in the multilateral system here and here.

This piece in the National Interest highlighted China's growth in the WTO system and why it is important for China to stay within the multilateral system.

"Now that China has arrived as a global trading powerhouse, it must take on more responsibility for maintaining the system from which it benefits.First, it needs to play by the rules. The current international order was created by Western powers, but China has profited from these rules more than any other country and thus should abide by them. 

Second, China can’t afford to play the “developing country” card forever. It’s true that China’s GDP per capita is only around $5,500 and that it is still working to lift millions of people out of poverty. But at the same time, some of its economic practices are proving to be counterproductive and are stoking protectionist impulses abroad, a dynamic that is certainly not in China’s own best interests. 

Finally, as a rising power, there will be an increasing number of global challenges to which China will be expected to contribute resources. Setting aside phrases such as “non-interference” and “responsible stakeholder” for a minute, if China wants to build a “new type of great power relationship” with the United States, then it must shoulder more great-power burdens."

Jayati Ghosh and C.P.Chandrasekhar in this piece in the Hindu Business Line have differentiated the growth of China with other developing countries (especially other BRICS countries) and highlighted the growth story of China in world trade. It is clear that in terms of share in world trade China has clearly benefitted from its participation.

(The charts above all present data calculated from the online database of the WTO, http://stat.wto.org/Home/WSDBHome.aspx?Language=E)

Are there lessons to be learnt from China's involvement in the multilateral trading system? Is China charting its own course within the framework of trade rules that other developing countries can learn from? Is there a national strategy to engage with the multilateral system in order to ensure that national interest is protected?

Is free trade a myth?

Do free trade and globalization have a positive impact on growth, wages and employment? Or do they adversely impact jobs, growth and local employment? I came across a blogpost in NYT's Economix that addressed this issue.

 The blogpost summarizes the views on the negative impact of globalization and free trade on wages and unemployment.

"For decades, economists resisted the conclusion that trade – for all of its many benefits — has also played a significant role in job loss and the stagnation of middle-class incomes in the United States. As recently as 2008, for instance, Robert Lawrence of Harvard, one of the country’s most respected trade experts, concluded that trade explained only a small share of growing income inequality and labor market displacement in the United States.

... 

One reason that economists may be uncomfortable talking about trade’s impact on jobs and wages may be concern that it could set off protectionist responses. And economists are right that expanded trade has certainly been good for the United States. It has brought us better and cheaper consumer goods, opened new export markets, lifted up many poor countries and strengthened American alliances around the world."

Citing studies that confirmed that growth in the U.S. was not taking place in sectors that were involved in trade, regions that faced competition from Chinese competition had higher unemployment and companies that were headquartered in the U.S. provided more jobs abroad than in the U.S. the post concludes that with growing markets in other countries trade should provide a boost to increasing opportunities and wages back in the U.S. A more critical analysis of free trade is found here which argues that the realities of trade in the renewable energy sector, especially solar, should necessitate protection in terms of increased State intervention.

Can we afford to ignore the principles of reduced barriers to trade in today's multilateral trade world? Though it may have a benefit, does it not have a huge cost too? What should the attitudes of countries be in the context of growing domestic pressures to increase trade barriers? While globalizing and reducing barriers may not be politically feasible, is it also economically unfeasible? 

International Trade and development - Nexus?

One is often confronted with the question as to the relationship of trade and development. Does international trade lead to a country's economic growth? Does it reduce inequality and poverty? Does the liberlisation of trade and reduction of barriers to trade impact a country's economic growth? Does international trade have a bearing on providing access to a majority of people within countries to growth and opportunity? There is an abundance of economic literature on this subject. Does increasing exports and restricting imports have a bearing on inequality? Liberalisation of trade is not an end in itself. It is a means to growth and development. 

Recently, the OECD released a detailed report titled "Policy Priorities for International Trade and Jobs" on international trade and growth which has various articles on the impact of international trade on employment, growth, poverty reduction and inequality. The conclusions of the Report as summarised by the press release was as follows:

The report, a product of the International Collaborative Initiative on Trade and Employment (ICITE)*, analyses the complex interactions between globalisation, trade and labour markets. Drawing on numerous studies covering different parts of the globe and countries at very different levels of development, the report highlights the powerful role trade can play in driving growth and improving employment. 

• Of the 14 main studies undertaken since 2000 reviewed in the report, all 14 have concluded that trade plays an independent and positive role in raising incomes. 

• Through its impact on productivity, trade also raises average wages. Over the  1970-2000 period, manufacturing workers in open economies benefitted from pay rates that were between 3 and 9 times greater than those in closed economies, depending on the region. In Chile, workers in the most open sectors  earned on average 25% more in 2008 than those in low-openness sectors.

• Fears of the impact of offshoring may be exaggerated. Studies for the United Kingdom, United States, Germany and Italy  demonstrate that off-shoring of intermediate goods has either no impact or, if any, a  positive effect on both employment and wages.

The report also shows, however, that openness to trade is not enough. Complementary policies – such  as sound macroeconomic policies, a positive investment climate, flexible labour markets and adequate social safety nets – are needed to realise the full benefits of trade."

The piece on Latin America was particularly interesting. Titled "An Updated Assessment of the Trade and Poverty nexus in Latin America" it analyses the possible links between liberalisation of trade, poverty reduction and growth. Dwelling on the complexity of analysing the relationship between international trade and poverty reduction, the article concludes:

"Despite the complexity of finding a clear connection between trade liberalisation and poverty reduction in both theoretical and empirical studies, there is a nearly general consensus among academics that protectionism is not a suitable policy tool for eradicating inequality and poverty. It is also widely acknowledged that trade liberalisation is a means to achieve growth with poverty reduction and not an end in itself. Trade integration alone is in fact not sufficient to generate sustained growth, even less to promote development with equity and poverty reduction. Indeed, the literature reviewed so far very often  emphasises the fact that the distributive outcome of trade integration is inextricably intertwined with a wide array of structural and policy determinants. 

          ...

Trade openness, inequality and poverty are wide multidimensional concepts. Measuring and attributing causal relations among these variables without carefully qualifying the specific dimensions explored or the particular transmission mechanisms at play may be misleading. It is important to disentangle the specific dimension of the trade and poverty nexus from the wider debate on globalisation and financial integration, the competing concepts of relative and absolute inequality and the objective and subjective dimension of poverty and deprivation.

Despite the impossibility to rigorously and unambiguously assert that trade openness is conducive to growth and poverty reduction, the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion. However, the majority of empirical macro studies also show that the impact of trade on growth and poverty is also generally small and that the causes of indigence are to be found elsewhere. But it is in fact extremely arduous to find evidence that supports the notion that trade protection is good for the poor. The question is therefore how to make trade and growth more pro-poor and not how to devise improbable alternatives to trade integration aiming at improving the livelihood of the poor.

          ...

Finally, considering that the trade and poverty nexus depends on a number of interconnected factors a consensus is emerging on the need to flank trade integration initiatives with a wide array of complementary policies. There is in fact increasing evidence that the outcome of trade opening may be regressive in the presence of distortions in complementary areas such macroeconomic policies, infrastructure, regulations, financial depth, labour markets, governance and human capital. 

It is therefore of the utmost importance to mainstream trade into the development agenda of Latin American countries and to align consensus, policy priorities and financial resources with the objective of making trade work for the poor. "

Can we generalise that international trade either negatively impacts poverty reduction or has a positive bearing on it? Is it a complex relationship that is far removed from sweeping generalisations? Can trade work for the poor? Can more people access opportunity by being part of the liberalised global economy? Is a liberalised trade regime only benefitting a few who can make use of the opportunities of open markets? Is protectionism the answer to the inequities of a liberalised system? What other national policies need to be in place to ensure that the benefits of international trade reach a large number of people? Is there a consensus on this? Do WTO rules facilitate the adoption of varied, multiple national strategies or do they restrict countries from adopting such policies? Is the relationship between trade and growth much more complex? While protectionism and inward looking policies may not necessarily bring about equitable growth, is there justification in having an uncritical endorsement of free trade and growth? Is there a middle path? Does the WTO rules allow, restrict or agnostic to countries taking this middle path?