Article Sidebar

Submitted
November 14, 2019
Accepted
January 10, 2020
Published
April 8, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 851 Download : 769

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examines the impacts of import duty and trade transaction cost reductions on economic performance, poverty, and income distribution inequality, through the top-down computable general equilibrium approach. Findings/Originality: It reveals that reducing import duty in agricultural decreases urban poverty but increases the poverty incidence at the rural and national levels. Reducing import duty in agricultural industry lowers urban and national poverty without affecting rural poverty. Meanwhile, the reductions of both import duty and transaction costs bring down the poverty incidence at all levels – urban, rural, and national. The inequality in rural and national income distribution increased due to the cuttings of import duty in agricultural and agricultural industry. However, it declined due to the reduction of transaction costs, and the combined transaction cost with import duty in agricultural or agricultural industry.

Keywords

top-down Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model trade policy

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Creative Commons License

Economic Journal of Emerging Markets by Center for Economic Studies, Universitas Islam Indonesia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Sukoco, S., Hartono, D., & Patunru, A. (2020). The impacts of liberalization and trade facilitation on economic performance, poverty and income inequality: An analytical study. Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, 12(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.20885/ejem.vol12.iss1.art6
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Anas, T., & Roesad, K. (2003). Regional cooperation towards multilateral arrangements on agriculture, labor, and environment in the context of globalization: The case of Indonesia (CSIS Working Paper Series No. WPE065). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://www.csis.or.id/working_paper_file/11/wpe065.pdf
  2. Davis, D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Stolper-Samuelson is dead: And other crimes of both theory and data. In A. Harrison (Ed.), Globalization and Poverty (pp. 87–107). University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0111
  3. Decaluwe, B., Lemelin, A., Maisonnave, H., & Robichaud, V. (2012). The PEP standard computation general equilibrium model: Single-country, static version. Canada: Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP). Retrieved from https://www.pep-net.org/pep-1-1-single-country-static-version
  4. Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2004). Trade, growth, and poverty. The Economic Journal, 114(493), F22–F49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2004.00186.x
  5. Erwidodo. (1999). Effects of trade liberalization on agriculture in Indonesia: Institutional and structural aspects (CGPRT Centre Working Papers No. 41). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.32698
  6. Hamad, M. M., Mtengwa, B. A., & Babiker, S. A. (2014). The impact of trade liberalization on economic growth in Tanzania. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(5), 514–532. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v4-i5/879
  7. Harrison, A. (2006). Globalization and poverty (NBER Working Paper Series No. 12347). Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12347
  8. Khobai, H., & Chitauro, M. (2018). The impact of trade liberalisation on economic growth in Switzerland (MPRA Paper No. 89884). Muenchen.
  9. Lofgren, H. (2003). Exercises in general equilibrium modeling using GAMS. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1.1.490.2426
  10. Ravallion, M., Datt, G., & Walle, D. (1991). Quantifying absolute poverty in the developing world. Review of Income and Wealth, 37(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1991.tb00378.x
  11. Sakyi, D., Villaverde, J., Maza, A., & Bonuedi, I. (2017). The effects of trade and trade facilitation on economic growth in Africa. African Development Review, 29(2), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8268.12261
  12. Statistics Indonesia. (2008a). Indonesia socio-economic survey (SUSENAS) 2008. Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from https://mikrodata.bps.go.id/mikrodata/index.php/catalog/44
  13. Statistics Indonesia. (2008b). Indonesia special survey on household savings and investments (SKTIR) 2008. Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from https://sirusa.bps.go.id/webadmin/doc/metadata2008.pdf
  14. Statistics Indonesia. (2008c). Statistical Year Book of Indonesia 2008: Social Accounting Matrix (SAM). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/
  15. Statistics Indonesia. (2008d). Tabel input output Indonesia updating 2008. Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2008/12/09/5b655674abcb2a3db901b10d/tabel-i-o-updating-2008.html
No Related Submission Found