Эффекты регионального развития от торговой либерализации в теоретических и эмпирических исследованиях :: Единая Редакция научных журналов БФУ им. И. Канта

×

Ваш логин
Зарегистрироваться
Пароль
Забыли свой пароль?
Войти как пользователь:
Войти как пользователь
Вы можете войти на сайт, если вы зарегистрированы на одном из этих сервисов:
   
Дело науки – возведение всего сущего в мысль
Александр Герцен

DOI-генератор Поиск по DOI на Crossref.org

Эффекты регионального развития от торговой либерализации в теоретических и эмпирических исследованиях

Автор Федюнина А. А.
DOI 10.5922/2074-9848-2016-3-6
Страницы/Pages 93-112
Статья Загрузить
Ключевые слова международная торговля, торговая либерализация, региональное развитие
Keywords international trade, trade liberalisation, regional development
Аннотация Существующая теоретическая и эмпирическая литература о расширении международной торговли, торговой либерализации и экономическом развитии представлена обширными свидетельствами наличия взаимосвязей между этими процессами на национальном и отраслевом уровне в долгосрочном периоде. Однако практически неисследованным остается третье измерение равновесия страны под воздействием торговой либерализации — измерение внутристрановой, или региональной, динамики развития. Цель настоящего исследования — комплексный анализ теоретической и эмпирической литературы, посвященной феномену неравномерного пространственного влияния расширения международной торговли на национальную экономику и выявление факторов, предопределяющих различную динамику регионального развития. Первое: в отношении эффектов либерализации для разных типов экономикопределено, что расширение международной торговли выступает важным источником роста для регионов развивающихся стран в значительно большей степени, чем регионов развитых стран. Второе: в отношении эффектов либерализации для разных регионов внутри страны выявлено, что максимальный положительный эффект от расширения международной торговли получают приграничные регионы, а также регионы, обеспечивающие относительно менее высокие издержки доступа на зарубежные рынки. Третье: в отношении эффектов либерализации для регионов с разной отраслевой специализацией определено, что расширение международной торговли сопровождалось более высокими темпами роста в тех регионах, которые специализировались на отраслях сравнительного преимущества страны. Выводы, представленные в статье, могут быть использованы при разработке промышленной политики и политики регионального развития для малых экспортоориентированных экономик, какими являются страны Балтийского региона, а также для больших экономик c высоким уровнем неравномерного распределения производительных ресурсов на территории страны.
Abstract (summary) The existing theoretical and empirical literature focusing on interconnections between international trade, trade liberalisation, and economic development provides ample evidence pertaining to nations and industries. However, another dimension of trade liberalisation — the assessment of the level of national or regional development — needs further research. This article sets out to analyse theoretical and empirical research works focusing on a varied spatial effect of expanding international trade on national economies and identifies factors affecting regional development. Firstly, it is established that expanding international trade is a more important source of growth for the regions of developing countries than for those of developed ones. Secondly, in terms of the regional impact of liberalisation, expanding trade has the most positive effect on border regions and those associated with lower cost of access to international markets. Thirdly, the analysis of regions having different industrial specialisatio n suggests that expanding international trade contributes to higher growth rates in the regions, having globally competitive national industries. The conclusions presented in this article can be used for formulating an industrial policy and a regional development policy for both small export-oriented economies, namely, the Baltic Sea states, and larger economies having uneven distribution of production resources.
Список литературы 1. Alcalá F., Ciccone A. Trade and Productivity // The Quarterly journal of economics. 2004. N 119(2). Р. 613—646.
2. Behrens K. et al. Countries, regions and trade: On the welfare impacts of economic integration // European Economic Review. 2007. N 51(5). P. 1277—1301.
3. Brülhart M. The spatial effects of trade openness: a survey // Review of World Economics. 2011. N 147. P. 59—83.
4. Brülhart M., Crozet M., Koenig P. Enlargement and the EU periphery: the impact of changing market potential // The World Economy. 2004. N 27(6). P. 853—875.
5. Busse M., Königer J. Trade and economic growth: A re-examination of the empirical evidence. HWWI Research. 2012. URL: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/konfer/staff-seminar/paper/2012/Koeniger.pdf (дата обращения: 02.02.2016).
6. Castilho M., Menéndez M., Sztulman A. Trade Liberalization, Inequality, and Poverty in Brazilian States // World Development. 2012. N 40(4). P. 821—835.
7. Chiquiar D. Globalization, regional wage differentials and the Stolper—Samuelson theorem: evidence from Mexico // Journal of International Economics. 2008. N 74(1). P. 70—93.
8. Chiquiar D. Why Mexico’s regional income convergence broke down // Journal of Development Economics. 2005. N 77(1). Р. 257—275. 
9. Crozet M., Soubeyran P. K. EU enlargement and the internal geography of countries // Journal of Comparative Economics. 2004. N 32 (2). Р. 265—279. 
10. Daumal M. The impact of trade openness on regional inequality: the cases of India and Brazil // The International Trade Journal. 2013. N 27(3). P. 243—280. 
11. Dollar D. Outward-oriented developing economies really do grow more rapidly: evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976—1985 // Economic development and cultural change. 1992. N 40(3). P. 523—543.
12. Edwards S. Trade orientation, distortions and growth in developing countries // Journal of development economics. 1992. N 39(1). P. 31—57. 
13. Egger P., Huber P., Pfaffermayr M. A note on export openness and regional wage disparity in Central and Eastern Europe // The Annals of Regional Science. 2005. N 39(1). P. 63—71.
14. Ezcurra R., Rodríguez-Pose A. Does Economic Globalization affect Regional Inequality? A Cross-country Analysis //World Development. 2013. N 52. Р. 92—103.
15. Ezcurra R., Rodríguez-Pose A. Trade openness and spatial inequality in emerging countries // Spatial Economic Analysis. 2014. N 9(2). P. 162—182.
16. Faber B. Towards the spatial patterns of sectoral adjustments to trade liberalisation: The case of NAFTA in Mexico // Growth and Change, 2007. N 38(4). P. 567—594.
17. Fajgelbaum P., Coşar A. Internal Geography, International Trade, and Regional Specialization // National Bureau of Economic Research. 2013. NBER Working Paper No. 19697. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19697.pdf (дата обращения: 02.11.2015).
18. Fujita M., Krugman P. R., Venables A. The spatial economy: Cities, regions, and international trade. MIT press, 2001.
19. Golub S. S., Hsieh C.-T. Classical Ricardian theory of comparative advantage revisited // Review of International Economics. 2000. N 8(2). P. 221—234.
20. Gonzalez R. G. The effects of trade openness on regional inequality in Mexico // The Annals of Regional Science. 2007. N 41(3). P. 545—561.
21. Hanson G. Increasing returns, trade and the regional structure of wages // The Economic Journal. 1997. N 107(440). P.113—133.
22. Hanson G. Regional adjustment to trade liberalization // Regional Science and Urban Economics. 1998. N 28(4). P. 419—444.
23. Henderson J. Systems of cities in closed and open economies // Regional Science and Urban Economics. 1982. N 12(3). Р. 325—350.
24. Irwin D., Terviö M. Does trade raise income?: Evidence from the twentieth century // Journal of International Economics. 2002. N 58(1). Р. 1—18.
25. Kanbur R., Zhang X. Fifty years of regional inequality in China: a journey through central planning, reform, and openness // Review of development Economics. 2005. N 9(1). Р. 87—106.
26. Krugman P. Increasing Returns and Economic Geography // Journal of Political Economy. 1991. N 99(3). Р. 483—499. 
27. Krugman P. Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade // Journal of international Economics. 1979. N 9(4). Р. 467—479. 
28. Krugman P., Elizondo R. Trade policy and the third world metropolis // Journal of development economics. 1996. N 49(1). Р. 137—150. 
29. Lancaster K. Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition // Journal of international Economics. 1980. N 10(2). P. 151—175.
30. MacDougall G. D. A. British and American exports: A study suggested by the theory of comparative costs. Part 1 // The Economic Journal. 1951. N 61(244). P. 697—724.
31. Martincus C. V. Spatial Effects of Trade Policy: Evidence from Brazil // Journal of Regional Science. 2010. N 50(2). P. 541—569. 
32. Melitz M. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity // Econometrica. 2003. N 71 (6). Р. 1695—1725. 
33. Milanovic B. Half a World: Regional inequality in five great federations // Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy. 2005. N 10(4). Р. 408—448. 
34. Nunn N. Relationship-specificity, incomplete contracts, and the pattern of trade // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2007. Р. 569—600. 
35. Paluzie E. Trade policy and regional inequalities* // Papers in regional science. 2001. N 80(1). Р. 67—85.
36. Petrakos G., Rodríguez-Pose A., Rovolis A. Growth, integration and regional inequality in Europe // Discussion Paper Series. 2003. N 9 (3). Р. 39—62. 
37. Ramcharan R. Why an economic core: domestic transport costs // Journal of Economic Geography. 2009. N 9(4). Р. 559—581. 
38. Rauch J. E. Comparative advantage, geographic advantage and the volume of trade// The Economic Journal. 1991. N 101(408). Р. 1230—1244. 
39. Rodríguez-Pose A. Trade and regional inequality // Economic Geography. 2012. N 88. Р. 109—136.
40. Rodríguez-Pose A., Ezcurra R. Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis // Journal of Economic Geography. 2010. N 10. Р. 619—644.
41. Rodríguez-Pose A., Gill N. How does trade affect regional disparities? // World Development. 2006. N 34(7). Р. 1201—1222. 
42. Rodríguez-Pose A., Sánchez-Reaza J. Economic polarization through trade: trade liberalization and regional inequality in México. In Spatial Inequality and Development, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.
43. Villar O. Spatial distribution of production and international trade: a note // Regional Science and Urban Economics. 1999. N 29(3). Р. 371—380. 
44. Zhang X., Zhang K. How does globalisation affect regional inequality within a developing country? Evidence from China // Journal of Development Studies. 2003. N 39. Р. 47—67.
Reference 1. Alcalá, F. Ciccone, A. 2004, Trade and Productivity, The Quarterly journal of economics, Vol. 119, no. 2, p. 613—646.
2. Behrens, K. et al. 2007, Countries, regions and trade: On the welfare impacts of economic integration, European Economic Review, Vol. 51, no. 5, p. 1277—1301.
3. Brülhart, M. 2011, The spatial effects of trade openness: a survey, Review of World Economics, no. 147, p. 59—83.
4. Brülhart, M., Crozet, M., Koenig, P. 2004, Enlargement and the EU periphery: the impact of changing market potential, The World Economy, Vol. 27, no. 6, p. 853—875.
5. Busse, M., Königer, J. 2012, Trade and economic growth: A re-examination of the empirical evidence, HWWI Research, available at: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/konfer/staff-seminar/paper/2012/Koeniger.pdf (accessed 02.02.2016).
6. Castilho, M., Menéndez, M., Sztulman, A. 2012, Trade Liberalization, Inequality, and Poverty in Brazilian States, World Development, Vol. 40, no. 4, p. 821—835.
7. Chiquiar, D. 2008, Globalization, regional wage differentials and the Stolper — Samuelson theorem: evidence from Mexico, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 74, no. 1, p. 70—93.
8. Chiquiar, D. 2005, Why Mexico’s regional income convergence broke down, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 77, no. 1, р. 257—275.
9. Crozet, M., Soubeyran, P. K. 2004, EU enlargement and the internal geography f countries, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 32, no. 2, p. 265—279.
10. Daumal, M. 2013, The impact of trade openness on regional inequality: the cases of India and Brazil, The International Trade Journal, Vol. 27, no. 3, p. 243—280. 
11. Dollar, D. 1992, Outward-oriented developing economies really do grow more rapidly: evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976—1985, Economic development and cultural change, Vol. 40, no. 3, p. 523—543.
12. Edwards, S. 1992, Trade orientation, distortions and growth in developing countries, Journal of development economics, Vol. 39, no. 1, p. 31—57. 
13. Egger, P., Huber, P., Pfaffermayr, M. 2005, A note on export openness and regional wage disparity in Central and Eastern Europe, The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 39, no. 1, p. 63—71.
14. Ezcurra, R., Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2013, Does Economic Globalization affect Regional Inequality? A Cross-country Analysis, World Development, no. 52, p. 92—103. 
15. Ezcurra, R., Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2014, Trade openness and spatial inequality in emerging countries, Spatial Economic Analysis, Vol. 9, no. 2, p. 162—182. 
16. Faber, B. 2007, Towards the spatial patterns of sectoral adjustments to trade liberalisation: The case of NAFTA in Mexico, Growth and Change, Vol. 38, no. 4, p. 567—594.
17. Fajgelbaum, P., Coşar, A. 2013, Internal Geography, International Trade, and Regional Specialization, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working  Paper, no. 19697, available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19697.pdf (accessed 02.11.2015).
18. Fujita, M., Krugman, P. R., Venables, A. 2001, The spatial economy: Cities,  regions, and international trade, MIT press.
19. Golub, S. S., Hsieh, C.-T. 2000, Classical Ricardian theory of comparative  advantage revisited, Review of International Economics, Vol. 8, no. 2, p. 221—234. 
20. Gonzalez Rivas, G. 2007, The effects of trade openness on regional inequality in Mexico, The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 41, no. 3, p. 545—561. 
21. Hanson, G. 1997, Increasing returns, trade and the regional structure of wages, The Economic Journal, no. 107 (440), p. 113—133. 
22. Hanson, G. 1998, Regional adjustment to trade liberalization, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 28, no. 4, p. 419—444. 
23. Henderson, J. 1982, Systems of cities in closed and open economies, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 12, no. 3, p. 325—350. 
24. Irwin, D., Terviö, M. 2002, Does trade raise income?: Evidence from the twentieth century, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 58, no. 1, p. 1—18. 
25. Kanbur, R., Zhang, X. 2005, Fifty years of regional inequality in China: a journey through central planning, reform, and openness, Review of development Economics, Vol. 9, no. 1, р. 87—106.
26. Krugman, P. 1991, Increasing Returns and Economic Geography, ournal of Political Economy, Vol. 99, no. 3, p. 483—499. 
27. Krugman, P. 1979, Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade, Journal of international Economics, Vol. 9, no. 4, p. 467—479. 
28. Krugman, P., Elizondo, R. 1996, Trade policy and the third world metropolis, Journal of development economics, Vol. 49, no. 1, p. 137—150. 
29. Lancaster, K. 1980, Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition, Journal of international Economics, Vol. 10, no. 2, p. 151—175.
30. MacDougall, G. D. A. 1951, British and American exports: A study suggested by the theory of comparative costs. Part I, The Economic Journal, no. 61(244), p. 697—724.
31. Martincus, C. V. 2010, Spatial Effects of Trade Policy: Evidence from Brazil, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 50, no. 2, p. 541—569. 
32. Melitz, M. 2003, The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity, Econometrica, Vol. 71, no. 6, p. 1695—1725. 
33. Milanovic, B. 2005, Half a World: Regional inequality in five great federations, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol. 10, no. 4, p. 408—448. 
34. Nunn, N. 2007, Relationship-specificity, incomplete contracts, and the pattern of trade, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, р. 569—600. 
35. Paluzie, E. 2001, Trade policy and regional inequalities*, Papers in regional science, Vol. 80, no. 1, p. 67—85.
36. Petrakos, G., Rodríguez-Pose, A., Rovolis, A. 2003, Growth, integration and regional inequality in Europe, Discussion Paper Series, Vol. 9, no. 3, p. 39—62. 
37. Ramcharan, R. 2009, Why an economic core: domestic transport costs, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 9, no. 4, p. 559—581. 
38. Rauch, J. E. 1991, Comparative advantage, geographic advantage and the volume of trade, The Economic Journal, no. 101(408), p. 1230—1244. 
39. Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2012, Trade and regional inequality, Economic Geography, no. 88, р. 109—136.
40. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Ezcurra, R. 2010, Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis, Journal of Economic Geography, no. 10, p. 619—644.
41. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Gill, N. 2006, How does trade affect regional disparities? World Development, Vol. 34, no. 7, p. 1201—1222. 
42. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Sánchez-Reaza, J. 2005, Economic polarization through trade: trade liberalization and regional inequality in México. In: Spatial Inequality and Development, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. 
43. Villar, O. 1999, Spatial distribution of production and international trade: a note, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 29, no. 3, p. 371—380. 
44. Zhang, X., Zhang, K. 2003, How does globalisation affect regional inequality within a developing country? Evidence from China, Journal of Development Studies, no. 39, p. 47—67.

Назад в раздел