SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

Trade Openness and Poverty Nexus: An Empirical Analysis on Selected Countries

Dışa Açıklık ve Yoksulluk İlişkisi: Seçilmiş Ülkeler Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz

Selen Yılmaz Uzlaşır0000-0001-7655-9255
Özlem Öztürk Çetenak(ANKARA HACI BAYRAM VELI UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES)0000-0002-4959-6031
Pages
1056–1072
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study discusses the asymmetric effects of trade openness policies on poverty within the framework of geographic and institutional dynamics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study empirically examines the effects of trade liberalization on poverty, a dynamic area of debate in the international economic literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the literature, alongside views arguing that trade reduces poverty through the channel of economic growth, there are also approaches that contend that high-income groups have disproportionately benefited from the increase in prosperity brought about by globalization, while the poor have been excluded from the process.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study discusses the asymmetric effects of trade openness policies on poverty within the framework of geographic and institutional dynamics.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2003–2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ticari Açıklık · Yoksulluk · Panel Veri Analizi

Abstract

This study empirically examines the effects of trade liberalization on poverty, a dynamic area of debate in the international economic literature. The benefits promised by Free Trade Theory appear to have materialized when examined in the context of today’s developed economies. Although it has been tested by major crises from time to time, the free-market system has gained acceptance in today’s world; as competing systems have collapsed one by one, it has taken their place and continued to expand its presence. In the literature, alongside views arguing that trade reduces poverty through the channel of economic growth, there are also approaches that contend that high-income groups have disproportionately benefited from the increase in prosperity brought about by globalization, while the poor have been excluded from the process. Building on these theoretical differences, this study seeks to answer the following question: “Does trade openness reduce poverty?”. The study examines data from 31 OECD countries for the 2003–2020 period using panel data analysis. The results of the panel data analysis indicate a positive relationship between trade openness and poverty across the OECD as a whole, suggesting that liberalization increases poverty. The study discusses the asymmetric effects of trade openness policies on poverty within the framework of geographic and institutional dynamics.

Özet

Bu çalışma, uluslararası iktisat literatüründe dinamik bir tartışma alanı olan ticari serbestleşmenin yoksulluk üzerindeki etkilerini ampirik olarak incelemektedir. Serbest Ticaret Teorisinin üretmeyi vaad ettiği yararlar, günümüz gelişmiş ekonomileri açısından incelendiğinde gerçekleşmiş gibi görünmektedir. Her ne kadar dönemsel olarak büyük krizlerle sınansa da serbest piyasa düzeni günümüz dünyasında kabul görmüş ve rakibi olan sistemler birer birer yıkılırken onların da yerini almış ve varlığını genişleterek devam ettirmiştir. Literatürde, ticaretin ekonomik büyüme kanalıyla yoksulluğu azalttığını savunan görüşlerin yanı sıra, küreselleşmenin getirdiği refah artışından ağırlıklı olarak yüksek gelir gruplarının faydalandığını ve yoksul kesimlerin süreçten dışlandığını ileri süren yaklaşımlar da mevcuttur. Bu teorik farklılıklardan hareketle çalışma, "Ticari açıklık yoksulluğu azaltır mı?" sorusuna yanıt aramaktadır. Çalışmada 31 OECD ülkesinin 2003–2020 dönemi verileri panel veri analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Panel veri analizi sonuçları, OECD genelinde ticari açıklık ile yoksulluk arasında pozitif bir ilişki olduğunu, yani serbestleşmenin yoksulluğu artırdığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, dışa açıklık politikalarının yoksulluk üzerindeki asimetrik etkilerini coğrafi ve kurumsal dinamikler çerçevesinde tartışmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uzlaşır, S. Y., Çetenak, Ö. Ö. (2026). Trade Openness and Poverty Nexus: An Empirical Analysis on Selected Countries. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 1056–1072. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1998604

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Abbott, K.W. (2003). Development policy in the new millennium and the Doha development round (SSRN Paper No. 431921). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.431921
  2. Baltagi, B.H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). U.S.: John Wiley & Sons.
  3. Bhagwati, J. and Srinivasan, T.N. (2002). Trade and poverty in the poor countries. American Economic Review, 92(2), 180–183. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802320189212
  4. Bibi, S. and Chatti, R. (2005). Trade liberalization and the dynamic of poverty in Tunisia: A layered CGE microsimulation analysis. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved from https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=1924
  5. Brooks, D.H. (2003). Trade and poverty: What are the connections? (ERD Policy Brief No. 13). Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/trade-and-poverty-what-are-connections
  6. Calderón, C., Loayza, N. and Schmidt-Hebbel, K. (2005). Does openness imply greater exposure? (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3733). https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3733
  7. Chen, S. and Ravallion, M. (2007). Absolute poverty measures for the developing world, 1981–2004 (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4211). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10986/7071
  8. Cockburn, J. (2002). Trade liberalisation and poverty in Nepal: A computable general equilibrium micro simulation analysis (CSAE Working Paper Series No. 2002-11). Retrieved from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:c23e606b-433d-4512-b76c-4c0813b699ec
  9. Dollar, D. and Kraay, A. (2002). Growth is good for the poor. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020139631000
  10. Dollar, D. and 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
  11. Driscoll, J.C. and Kraay, A.C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
  12. Durongkaveroj, W. (2024). Trade openness and the growth–poverty nexus: A reappraisal with a new openness indicator. Asian Development Review, 41(2), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0116110524400092
  13. Fischer, S. (2003). Globalization and its challenges. American Economic Review, 93(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321946750
  14. Frankel, J.A. and Romer, D.H. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American Economic Review, 89(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.379
  15. Gentilcore, G.A. (2017). Poverty across the globe: A cross-sectional analysis of the underlying causes. Keystone Journal of Undergraduate Research, 4(2), 64–70. Retrieved from https://www.ship.edu/academics/student-research/keystone-journal/volumes-archive/
  16. Goldberg, P.K. and Pavcnik, N. (2004). Trade, inequality, and poverty: What do we know? Evidence from recent trade liberalization episodes in developing countries. Brookings Trade Forum, 2004(1), 223–269. https://doi.org/10.1353/btf.2005.0006
  17. Goldberg, P.K. and Pavcnik, N. (2007). Distributional effects of globalization in developing countries. Journal of Economic Literature, 45(1), 39–82. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.45.1.39
  18. Gujarati, D.N. (2004). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  19. Gujarati, D.N. and Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  20. Hameed, A. and Nazir, A. (2009). Economic globalization and its impact on poverty and inequality: Evidence from Pakistan. ECO Economic Journal, 1(1), 1–22. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/
  21. Harrison, A. and Hanson, G. (1999). Who gains from trade reform? Some remaining puzzles. Journal of Development Economics, 59(1), 125–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(99)00008-5
  22. Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Le Goff, M. and Singh, R.J. (2014). Does trade reduce poverty? A view from Africa. Journal of African Trade, 1(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joat.2014.06.001
  24. MacDonald, R. and Majeed, M.T. (2010). Distributional and poverty consequences of globalization: A dynamic comparative analysis for developing countries (SIRE Discussion Paper No. SIRE-DP-2010-62). Retrieved from https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_165924_smxx.pdf
  25. Okungbowa, F.O.E. and Eburajolo, O.C. (2014). Globalization and poverty rate in Nigeria: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(11), 126–135. Retrieved from https://www.ijhssnet.com/
  26. Oyewale, I.O. and Amusat, W.A. (2013). Impact of globalization on poverty reduction in Nigeria. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(11), 475–484. Retrieved from http://ijcrb.webs.com/
  27. Özcan, G. and Kar, M. (2016). Does foreign trade liberalization reduce poverty in Turkey? Journal of Economic and Social Development, 3(1), 1–17. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/253255
  28. Perera, S., Siriwardana, M. and Mounter, S. (2017). The impact of trade liberalisation on poverty and welfare in South Asia: A special reference to Sri Lanka. In G. Staicu (Ed.), Poverty, inequality and policy (pp. 83-119). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69506
  29. Pradhan, B.K. and Mahesh, M. (2014). Impact of trade openness on poverty: A panel data analysis of a set of developing countries. Economics Bulletin, 34(4), 2208–2219. Retrieved from https://www.accessecon.com/
  30. Ravallion, M. (2006). Looking beyond averages in the trade and poverty debate. World Development, 34(8), 1374–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.10.015
  31. Spilimbergo, A., Londoño, J.L. and Székely, M. (1999). Income distribution, factor endowments, and trade openness. Journal of Development Economics, 59(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(99)00006-1
  32. Stolper, W.F. and Samuelson, P.A. (1941). Protection and real wages. The Review of Economic Studies, 9(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967638
  33. Twyford, P. (2003). Does trade liberalisation exacerbate or reduce poverty? Trade and globalisation in the lead up to the Cancun Ministerial. Council for International Development (CID) Trade Forum, Oxfam International.
  34. Ülger, M. (2025). The effects of foreign direct investment, trade openness, external debt stock and exports on economic growth in Sub-Saharan African countries. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 60(4), 3601–3623. https://doi.org/10.63556/tisej.2025.1600
  35. Winters, L.A. (2002). Trade liberalisation and poverty: What are the links? The World Economy, 25(9), 1339–1367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9701.00495
  36. Winters, L.A., McCulloch, N. and McKay, A. (2004). Trade liberalization and poverty: The evidence so far. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 72–115. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205104773558056