•
Edit or Je fe
Renat o Valdivieso ( editor[at]revistaespacios.com)
•
•
•
•
•
Com it é Edit or ia l
Arnoldo Pirela ( UCV, Venezuela)
Claudio Bifano ( UCV, Venezuela)
Gabr iel E. Sanoj a ( UCSB, EEUU)
Paul Valdivieso ( ALK, Polonia)
Rogelio E. Chovet ( UVeHC, Francia)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Com it é de Ase sor es
Alexis Mercado ( UCV, Venezuela) alexis_m s[ at ] yahoo.es
Anderson Cat apan ( UTFPR, Brasil) andecat apan[ at ] yahoo.com .br
Anderson Soncini Pellisari ( UFES, Brasil) asoncinipellisar i[ at ] gm ail.com
Arnoldo Pirela ( UCV, Venezuela) arnoldo.pirela[ at ] gm ail.com
Bruno Mart ins August o Gom es ( UFPR, Brasil) gom esbm a[ at ] gm ail.com
Carlos A. Tom elin ( UNI VALI , Brasil) t om elin[ at ] univali.br
Carlos Fernando Jung ( FACCAT, Brasil) car losfernandoj ung[ at ] gm ail.com
Claudio Bifano ( UCV, Venezuela) claudio.bifano[ at ] ciens.ucv.ve
Daniel Arruda Coronel ( UFSM, Brasil) daniel.coronel[ at ] uol.com .br
Erica Pugliesi ( UFSCAR, Brasil) epugliesi[ at ] gm ail.com
Francisco Anibal Ganga Cont reras ( ULAGOS, Chile) fganga[ at ] ulagos.cl
Gabr iel E. Sanoj a ( UCSB, EEUU) gesanoj a[ at ] csb.edu
Jhon Wilder Zart ha Sossa ( UPB, Colom bia) j hon.zart ha[ at ] upb.edu.co
Joao Luis Peuchena Tom az ( UNI PAMPA, Brasil) prof.peruchena[ at ] gm ail.com
Jose Henrique Bassi de Souza ( UFABC, Brasil) j osehenrique.souza[ at ] ufabc.edu.br
Juliano Cost a Gonçalves ( UFSCAR, Brasil) j uliano[ at ] ufscar.br
Manuel A. Garzón Cast rillón ( FI DEE, Colom bia) m anuelalfonsogarzon[ at ] fidee.org
Rafael Mozar da Silva ( UNI SI NOS, Brasil) r afm ozart [ at ] unisinos.br
Sani de Car valho Rut z da Silva ( UTFPR, Brasil) sani[ at ] ut fpr.edu.br
•
W e bm a st er
Rogelio - Paco- Chovet ( Venezuela) rogelio[ at ] chovet .com
Í N D I CE ( 1 - 4 1 pa ge s)
1. I nfluê ncia do diâ m e t r o do r olo e do núm e r o de se m e nt e s no t e st e de com pr im e nt o de
plâ nt ula s de fe ij ã o. Jéssica Caet ano Dias CAMPOS; Verônica Soares MACHADO; Deyner Dam as
Aguiar SI LVA; I gor Leonardo VESPUCCI ; Fernando Ribeiro Teles CAMARGO; Sueli Mart ins de
Freit as ALVES
2. Pr odu çã o de m uda s de ca fé a r á bica e m dir e fe nt e s com bina çõe s de subst r a t os e dose s de
supe r fosfa t o sim ple s. Denys Mat heus Sant ana Cost a SOUZA; Yuri Ferreira AMORI M; Adalbert o
Brit o de NOVAES; Thaís Moura SANTANA; Gust av o Mat t os ABREU; Adenio Louzeiro de AGUI AR
JUNI OR
3. Aplica cione s de la Te or ía de los Ju e gos e n e l Pr oce so de D ir e cción y Adm inist r a ción
Est r a t é gica de Em pr e sa s: M a r k e t in g e I nv e st iga ción y D e sa r r ollo. Priscila FERNÁNDEZ
Duque; Said DI EZ Farhat
4. China ’s Soft Pow e r : Ch a nging Pr ior it ie s. Vladim ir Fyodorovich PECHERI TSA; Anna
Vladim irovna BOYARKI NA
5. As t r a nsfor m a çõe s a lim e nt a r e s na socie da de m ode r na : a coloniza çã o do a lim e nt o na t ur a l
pe lo a lim e nt o indust r ia l. BALEM, Tat iana Aparecida; ALVES, Et hyene de Oliveira; COELHO,
Juliano de Carvalho; MELLO, Andressa Lúcia Pereira
6. N e gocios inclusiv os: U na r e visión t e ór ica de sde la diná m ica colom bia na . GARI ZABAL,
Mildred; SÁNCHEZ, Madelin; ESTRADA- LÓPEZ Hilda
7. A a gr icult ur a fa m ilia r e os cir cuit os cur t os de com e r cia liza çã o de a lim e nt os: e st u do de
ca so da fe ir a livr e do m unicípio de Ja gua r ã o, RS, Br a sil. Monica Nardini da SI LVA; Sam ant a
Tolent ino CECCONELLO; Shirley Grazieli Nascim ent o ALTEMBURG; Fernanda Novo da SI LVA;
Cláudio BECKER
8. D inâ m ica s de cu r t o e de lon go pr a zo na in dúst r ia da r e giã o Sul do Br a sil. Elano Ferreira
ARRUDA; Andressa Paiva de ALENCAR; Pablo Urano de Carvalho CASTELAR
9. I nflue ncia de la s e st r a t e gia s de m a r k e t in g e n la ge ne r a ción de há bit os de consum o de
bie n e s su nt ua r ios e n los consum idor e s de ba j os ingr e sos de l Ecua dor . Mónica- Pat riciaCOSTA- Ruiz; Verónica- Alexandra ARMI JOS- Buit rón; Jhoana Elizabet h PALADI NES Benít ez
10. Et ha nol vigor t e st t o a sse ss ph ysiologica l qu a lit y of a nn ua l r ye gr a ss se e ds. Jerffeson
Arauj o CAVALCANTE; Ricardo Miot t o TERNUS; Tanina Lopes de ALMEI DA; Fernanda REOLON;
Ádam o de Sousa ARAÚJO; Gizele I ngrid GADOTTI ; Dario Munt de MORAES
11. Uncov e r in g Th e Re t a il Sce ne I n I ndia . SM Zulaikha FATI MA; Charu BI SARI A; Aj ay PRAKASH
12. M ult iplica çã o in v it r o de Aca cia m e a r nsii D e W ild: I n flu ê n cia de dife r e nt e s cla sse s e
con ce nt r a çõe s de r e gu la dor e s v e ge t a is. Ecléia Alexandra Polt ronieri Buda SALLES; Giovana
Bom fim de ALCANTARA; Marguerit e Germ aine Ghislaine QUOI RI N; Ant onio Nat al GONÇALVES;
Ant onio Rioyei HI GA
13. Ge r m ina çã o de se m e n t e s e e st a be le cim e nt o de plâ nt ula s de a lgodã o subm e t ida s a
dife r e nt e s conce nt r a çõe s de N a Cl e PEG 6 0 0 0 . Hallyson OLI VEI RA; Ronaldo do NASCI MENTO;
Arm indo Bezerra LEÃO; José Albert o Ferreira CARDOSO; Rafaela Félix Basílio GUI MARÃES
14. Aplica ción Pot e n cia l de la s I m á ge ne s de la s Ve na s de l D e do: I de nt ifica ción de Pe r sona s
por M e dio de Com pon e nt e s Pr in cipa le s y Re de s N e ur ona le s. Yazm in VASQUEZ Barrer a;
Marisol GÓMEZ Cam acho; Carlos Art uro BELTRÁN Góm ez; Jhonat an CAMACHO Nav arro; Marco
Fidel FLÓREZ Franco
15. O D e se nvolvim e nt o Su st e nt á v e l no e ix o da I nt e r disciplina r ida de : u m a br e v e r e fle x ã o
cr ít ica . Í t alo Renan Ferr eira GI RÃO; Davi Rodrigues RABELO; I zaur a I zadora Ferreira AVELI NO;
Karla Nayar a de Sousa CAJUÍ ; Nágila Fernanda Furt ado TEI XEI RA
16. Aná lise dos fa t or e s de cr e scim e nt o da s r e ce it a s de e x por t a çõe s br a sile ir a s de su co de
la r a nj a : 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 1 5 . Giuliano Raphael Rocha BROCANELLI ; Vit ória Alves da Cost a FERRAZ;
Adriano Marcos Rodrigues FI GUEI REDO
17. Aplica ción w e b pa r a la visua liza ción de se nsor e s de l sist e m a de a le r t a s t e m pr a na s de los
a r r oy os de Ba r r a nquilla - Colom bia . SEPULVEDA Oj eda, Jorge Ant onio
18. O pe r fil do ge ot ur ist a do Pa r que Est a dua l do I t a colom i, Our o Pr e t o e M a r ia na
( M G) . Ricardo E. FONSECA FI LHO; Jasm ine C. MOREI RA
19. D e m ocr a cia y clie nt e lism o e n Colom bia . Arm ando ESTRADA Villa; William CERÓN Gonsalez
20. Pe r fil de la s a gr oindust r ia s fa m ilia r e s de los m unicipios de M a r m e le ir o ( PR) , N ova
Aur or a ( PR) , Tole do ( PR) y Concór dia ( SC) , Br a sil. Marcos Robert o Pires GREGOLI N; Gr aciela
Caroline GREGOLI N; Mar cel Moreira BRI TO; Heros TARGANSKI ; Giovana RI VA; Luciana Oliveira de
FARI ÑA
21. Ge r m ina çã o e cr e scim e nt o de plâ nt ula s de Aca cia m e a r nsii de W ilde m a n com uso de
gibe r e lina e dife r e nt e s m é t odos de pr odu çã o de se m e nt e s. Miguel Pesch TRAMONTI NI ;
Paulo César FLÔRES Junior; Ant onio Rioyei HI GA; Giovana Bom fim de ALCANTARA
22. Efe it o de dife r e nt e s a n t iox ida nt e s e lum in osida de no cont r ole da ox ida çã o e
m ult iplica çã o in vit r o de ge nót ipos de ca na - de - a çú ca r . Giovana Bom fim DE ALCANTARA;
Marília Pereira MACHADO; Ricardo August o de Oliveira; João Carlos BESPALHOK FI LHO
23. La a ct iv ida d innova dor a de la s PYM E e spa ñola s e n u n cont e x t o de r e ce sión. Fernando
MERI NO; María A. PRATS; Federico PABLO- MARTÍ
24. Est r e sse hídr ico e sa linida de na ge r m ina çã o de se m e nt e s de M im osa
sca br e lla Be nt h. Eduar da Dem ari AVRELLA; Bruna BARATTO; Júlio Rieger LUCCHESE; Márcio
Carlos NAVROSKI ; Claudim ar Sidnei FI OR
25. Os Efe it os do Pa ct o pe la Sa úde na s D e spe sa s D e st ina da s a o Fina ncia m e nt o da Sa úde
Pública : um a a ná lise dos quinze m a ior e s m u nicípios da m a cr or r e giã o Sul, Br a sil. Rogélio
Gerônim o dos SANTOS 1; Raoni Felipe Alm eida ANDRE 2; Sidnei Pereira do NASCI MENTO
26. Sist e m a t iza ción de Ex pe r ie n cia s ( SE) : I ndica dor e s y e le m e nt os r e pr e se nt a t iv os pa r a la
inve st iga ción e duca t iv a . Juan Diego VI LLAMI ZAR ESCOBAR; Jorge Winst on BARBOSA- CHACÓN
27. Aná lise do ge r e ncia m e nt o de r iscos e m cont r a t os de obr a s pública s pe la e la bor a çã o de
m a t r ize s de m a t ur ida de . Daniel Mat os CALDEI RA; Michele Tereza Marques CARVALHO; Vanessa
Lequest eboum es Borges VI ANA; Ana Beat riz Souza PI ÑA
28. I m pa ct o de los ba n cos de l ba r r io e n zona s r u r a le s de la cost a e cua t or ia na : U n e st udio de
cua t r o ca sos. Eduardo GUZMÁN Barquet ; María Belén SALAZAR Raym ond
29. Aná lisis cie nciom é t r ico de la inv e st iga ción de sist e m a s fot ovolt a icos int e gr a dos a
e dificios de sde e l a ñ o 2 0 0 0 a 2 0 1 7 . I ván SARMI ENTO Niet o; Yulinet h CARDENAS Escorcia;
Guillerm o VALENCI A Ochoa
30. Est udo de pr ospe cçã o t e cnológica da le ishm a nia a ssocia da a na noca r r e a dor e s e
im ida zol. Tam ires Andrade da SI LVA; Paulo Fernando da S. SANTOS- JÚNI OR; Érica Erlanny da
Silva RODRI GUES; Laleska Barros Cast ro dos SANTOS; Edeildo Ferreira da SI LVA- JÚNI OR; José
Wilson Curcino dos SANTOS; Cam ila Br aga DORNELAS; João Xavier de ARAÚJO- JÚNI OR; Ticiano
Gom es do NASCI MENTO
31. H ow t o im pr ov e colla bor a t ion be t w e e n in dust r y, gove r nm e nt a n d u nive r sit ie s t o fa ce
indust r y cha lle n ge s: t h e ca se of t h e Chile a n M ining Pr ogr a m m e ‘Alt a Le y’.Verónica ROA;
Julio GONZÁLEZ ; Jorge TORRES
32. Búsqu e da y r e copila ción de in for m a ción: Apor t e s pa r a e l de sa r r ollo de e st a dos de l
a r t e . Nat alia Andrea FLOREZ MANTI LLA; Jorge Winst on BARBOSA- CHACÓN; Am ilkar RUBI O
RODRÍ GUEZ
33. Asse ssm e nt of im pa ct s of t h e st a t e int e r ve nt ion in for e ign t r a de on e conom ic
gr ow t h. Mayis GULALI YEV; Suriya ABASOVA; Shahla HUSEYNOVA; Reyhan AZI ZOVA; Tabriz
YADI GAROV
34. M ount a in t our ism in Ka za k hst a n a s a n im por t a nt fa ct or of physica l e du ca t ion. Marina
PROKOFI EVA; Nur keldy ESPENBETOV; Rizvanul SHAKI ROVA; Oleg LUTHEROVI CH; Tat iana
I MANGULOVA
35. Agr icult ur a l k now le dge a nd inn ova t ion syst e m in Sout h Ka za k hst a n Re gion: Sust a ina ble
a gr icult u r a l int e nsifica t ion of in nova t ion e nt e r pr ise s. V. SEI TOVA; K. STAMKULOVA
36. The cha r a ct e r ist ic fe a t ur e s of t he de ve lopm e nt of t ou r ism in t h e m ount a inous r e gions of
Ka za k hst a n. Nurkeldy ESPENBETOV; Osm an SARDAROV; Alina PESTOVA; Gulnar USHKULAKOVA;
Tat iana I MANGULOVA
37. Opt im iza t ion pr oble m s dist r ibut ion of inv e st m e nt s for t he im ple m e nt a t ion st r a t e gy of
dom e st ic t our ism in Ka za k hst a n. Aigerim TULBAYEVA; Madina ABDI KARI MOVA; Mahm oud
GANI TAEV; Tat iana I MANGULOVA Alina PESTOVA
38. I nfr a e st r ut u r a de t r a n spor t e e de se n volvim e nt o e conóm ico: um a a ná lise a pa r t ir da
const r u çã o da fe r r ovia Tr a nsnor de st ina . Erika Vanessa Alves da SI LVA; Bruno Vieira
BERTONCI NI ; Francisco Gildem ir Ferreira da SI LVA
39. Com pe t it ivida d y cr e cim ie nt o e con óm ico de la s e m pr e sa s colom bia na s: Re for m a s
t r ibut a r ia s ( 2 0 1 0 – 2 0 1 5 ) . Juan Diego CEDEÑO Ram írez; Nat halia Andrea ARDI LA Ort ega; Alba
Ligia LÓPEZ Rodríguez
40. Rosqu e a m e nt o com m a chos m á quina t r a t a dos com con diciona dor m e t á lico. Fernando
Sant os de OLI VEI RA; Elesandro Ant onio BAPTI STA; Nivaldo Lem os COPPI NI
41. Pr oble m s of pr ope r t y m a r k e t de v e lopm e nt in Russia in t he m ode r n cont e x t . Juliya
Sergeevna TSERTSEI L; Vikt oriya Vladim irovna KOOKUEVA
ISSN 0798 1015
HOME
Revista ESPACIOS !
ÍNDICES !
A LOS AUTORES !
Vol. 38 (Nº 47) Year 2017. Page 33
Assessment of impacts of the state
intervention in foreign trade on
economic growth
Evaluación de los impactos de la intervención estatal en el
comercio exterior sobre el crecimiento económico
Mayis GULALIYEV 1; Suriya ABASOVA 2; Shahla HUSEYNOVA 3; Reyhan AZIZOVA 4; Tabriz
YADIGAROV 5;
Received: 03/10/2017 • Approved: 06/10/2017
Content
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Data, Analysis, and Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
References
ABSTRACT:
RESUMEN:
With development of globalization and integration of
national economies the question on the state
intervention in economy became more sharply. In
modern economic and political conditions all
governments in the world has intervention in economy
but in different levels. Thus, almost nobody challenges
the fact about necessity intervention in economy. Thus,
assesment of relationship between some
macroeconomic indicators and intervention levels in
economy has great scientific and practical value.
Keywords index of leftness (rightness) of economy,
foreign trade subindex, economic liberalization,
government intervention in economy
Con el desarrollo de la globalización y la integración de
las economías nacionales, la pregunta sobre la
intervención estatal en la economía se hizo más aguda.
En las modernas condiciones económicas y políticas,
todos los gobiernos del mundo tienen intervención en la
economía, pero en diferentes niveles. Así, casi nadie
cuestiona el hecho de la intervención de necesidad en la
economía. Así, la evaluación de la relación entre
algunos indicadores macroeconómicos y los niveles de
intervención en la economía tiene un gran valor
científico y práctico.
Palabras clave: índice de izquierda (derecha) de la
economía, subíndice del comercio exterior, liberalización
económica, intervención del gobierno en la economía
1. Introduction
The development of science and technology causes an increase in the consumer demand. As
the demand volume increases, goods and services exchange between two countries expands.
Not a state has the opportunity to meet the demand of its nation in full, that’s why it has to
exchange goods and services with other states. However, each country should have necessary
amount of currency in order to acquire necessary goods and services. Export is, therefore,
necessary to realize import. Nonetheless, each country imports necessary amount of goods and
services only in two cases. Firstly, these goods and services aren’t produced in the country.
Secondly, the production of goods and services of the same quality in the given country is more
expensive. It means that trade between two countries is not obligatory, it is of voluntary and
mutually beneficial nature.
However, it is all good only at first sight. It actually happens that seemingly mutually beneficial
international trade brings a number of problems. Firstly, continuous imports of goods, which
aren’t produced in a country, prevent development of personnel, skills and expertise necessary
for manufacture of these products in years to come. Secondly, imports of the goods, which are
produced in a country, provoke additional competition for local goods and generally displace
them from the market. This is detrimental to local manufacturers’ incomes and causes further
social problems. Generally, the quality of an imported product is much different from the quality
of a local product, and competitive environment on the market, therefore, changes subject to
new criteria.
Considering the importance of foreign economic activity of each country, it should be noted that
its limitation to some extent is necessary. For example, the import has to have such limits in
order to 1) protect country’s local manufacturers against economic damage; 2) prevent the
import of poor or low-quality products.
Export business is a specific activity, which is maintained by all countries. Nonetheless, this
activity should have limits too. In other words, export business should fall within the limits to
prevent profound effects on domestic prices. On the other hand, the uncontrolled freedom of
goods export may eventually depress demand for local products within a country and lead to a
disbalance between demand and supply. Thus, export business brings additional currency to a
country and its main task is to provide currency supply for import. Export, therefore, should be
on such a level to not stimulate import in the future.
Over the time as international economic relations, and, particularly, states’ foreign trade,
evolve, the issue of its control and regulation has been a major focus of interest. As a result,
two opposite points of view regarding foreign trade activities was formed. The first
(protectionism) involves protection of domestic market against adverse external influence of
different economic and political factors and protection of local businesses on the domestic
market; the second (free trade), on the contrary, provides for removal of any constraints in
international trade (in a broad sense of this word – economic relations between states).
There’s no such country in the world that carries out foreign trade activity and doesn’t try to
expand it. At the same time, there’s no such country that doesn’t make efforts to protect its
domestic market. Protectionism and free trade, therefore, manifest itself to a greater or lesser
degree in all countries. For this reason discussions shouldn’t be focused on which of these
approaches is “good” and which is “bad”. The major issue is to determine which approach is the
most optimal for a certain country. In other words, country’s foreign trade should be “free”
(free trade) to the extent necessary to keep its domestic market safe (protectionism).
Researchers, who attack protectionism, believe that export of cheaper foreign products of
higher quality to the country’s domestic market is nothing else but protection of domestic
customers’ rights. The constitutions of most countries recognize the right of buying a quality
product on the market as a basic law. Then why the consumers’ right is being violated by
creating additional privileges for local goods? For example, the import of toys is restricted in
some countries, where toys are manufactured. However, all families have a right to buy more
beautiful and interesting toys for their children. So why should these families and their children
be divested of that right? Such restrictions to different consumer goods were used extensively
in the territory of the former USSR. Such restrictions shaped a “black market” and promoted
expanding the illegal economy in the country.
However, there are entirely different cases. For example, the import of cheap and low-quality
oils even of unknown origin with a low purchasing power, and by the means of advertising the
product becomes more available to population. To buy or not to buy this product – this is
consumer’s right. However, not all consumers can be classified as highly skilled “experts” of
goods. It means that government should control imports of goods in order to take care of its
citizens’ health. Such control can impose restrictions on the import of substandard goods to the
domestic market. Thus, “protectionism” and “free trade” cannot be considered two views
completely contradicting each another. As a matter of fact, there is a different, high or low
degree of protectionism.
Thus, the key issue for the economy of any country is not “the need for restriction” of state’s
foreign trade, but “the degree of necessary restrictions”. For every country it is necessary to
find optimum between liberalization and dirigisme on foreign trade. This optimum is not
universal for any country and depends on many economic or non-economic factors, including
mentality of the society and democratization. Restriction of any aspect, including foreign trade
activity, to a greater or lesser degree is government intervention in the economy. The level of
government intervention in the economy is measurable and can be evaluated with different
indicators. So to develop any methodology for measuring balance between liberalization of
foreign trade rejims and dirigisme is necessary to stimulate sustainable economic growth.
Liberalization issues of foreign trade as researching object has been investigating for a long
time. But until now there is not clear methodology to find optimum for liberalization of foreign
trade regime to maintain sustainable development and economic security. Some countries
which as usual agitate liberal foreign trade rejimes, e.g. USA and UK and etc. sometimes put
very strong restrictions in foreign trade. It means liberalization is not unique methods for
development. To find balance between liberalization of foreign trade and protectionism is same
to find balance between domestic market interest and integration to world economy. So
strengthening of liberalization of foreign trade connected with government intervention in this
area of economy.
The relationship problems between food security and liberalization of economy isvestigated by
many researches. Essential sense of ajastment programs that supported by World Bank and
IMF to decrease poverty in developing countries is liberalization of economy in generaly and
foreign trade in particulaly (Gera, Nina, 2004). Relationship between food security and
liberalization of foreign trade investigated by R. Isgenderov and etc. (Iskenderov, Gulaliyev,
Nasirova, 2015) According to the their findings the foreign trade liberalization level and
economic growth play special role for ensuring food security. As well as there is no need to
choose the agrarian sector as a strategic priority for ensuring food security if the country has no
competitive advantage in this sector in the globalization condition.
As well as the investigation by Tweeten (1999), and Dorosh (2001) show that economic growth
and trade liberalization are important means for attaining food security.
Some researches, e.g. Jenkins and Scanlan (2001) argue that trade liberalization doesn’t
decrease domestic food security, on the contrary trade liberalization increase food supply. Some
researchers, e.g. argue that foreign trade liberalization can increase imports and this can create
dangerous situation for domestic agricultural production (Friedmann, 1982).By the analyzing of
many papers that argue about negative or positive impacts of foreign trade liberalization on
economic development and food security we can conclude that essential problems connected
with difficulties to find optimum of the foreign trade liberalization level. When liberalization
presses is going towards optimum, and then such programs stimulate economic growth. On the
contrary, when liberalization prosess is going far from optimum and then such programs is
preventing economic growth and food security. So the essential question for every country is to
find optimum for liberalization of foreign trade. But it is necessary to take into account that the
optimum level for foreign trade liberalization connected with country’s economic situation and
different non-economic characteristics, e.g. ethnical and social mentality.
Thus government intervention to economy should take into account countries specification for
the foreign trade liberalization optimum. Some authors, e.g. Edwards (1993), Balassa B.
(1965),W. Max Corden (1966) call this “optimum” as effective rate of protection. They try to
measure this rate as ratio of difference between domestic value added and world value added
on any industry to world value added on this industry.
Effective rate of protection methodology is esed by Little, I., etc. (1970) as well as with Balassa
B. (1971), for assessment of foreign trade liberalization on the some developing countries’
economies. But these studies don’t take into account many aspects of foreign trade
liberalization issues.
“Government intervention in the economy” and “economic freedom” are contradictory terms,
but in fact there are only acts, rules, regulations and other restrictive or prohibitive limits of the
law, which realize “government intervention in the economy”. Full or partial absence of such
limits creates “economic freedom”.
It is, therefore, possible to evaluate “economic freedom” in each country by measuring
economic indicators relating to restrictive or prohibitive limits.
Different international organizations, research and development centres conduct such
evaluations. For example, the Fraser Institute, The Heritage Foundation, World Bank, World
Economic Forum and other organizations carry out comparative evaluation regarding
government intervention in the economy. The Heritage Foundation relates “economic freedom”
with 4 main aspects, which can be under government control to a greater or lesser degree and
influence the economic environment: a) supremacy of law; b) government size; c) regulation
effectiveness; d) degree of market openness.
“Doing business” rankings prepared by World Bank is a comparative evaluation, they cover 11
aspects: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering
property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders,
enforcing contracts, resolving insolvencies, regulation of labour market.
Index of leftness (rightness) of economy (Muzaffarli, 2014) developed by the Institute of
Economics of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences is one of such evaluation methods.
The procedure is based on the fundamental principle, i.e. the line of economic activity in each
country depends heavily on the legislation of that country. Changes in legal acts more or less
influence economic development. Any act is of restrictive and regulatory nature. For this reason
the degree of restriction and regulation as well as coverage fields of such intervention is a main
feature that differentiates acts. The same is true for foreign trade, since economical-politic tools
used in foreign trade activity, for example, import taxes and duties, import and export quota,
administrative restrictions, direct grants, export incentives are indicators of government
intervention in foreign trade activity. Based on the main principle of Index of leftness
(rightness) of economy (IL(R)E), a decrease in such intervention is attributed to adoption of
“right” laws, and an increase – with “left” laws. Reducing or increasing the degree of
intervention, in other words, adopting laws using “rightism” or “leftism” approaches doesn’t
produce the same effect in all countries. It means that adopting laws using “rightism” approach
can lead to economic growth in some countries, while in other countries it can be achieved
through adoption of laws using “leftism” approaches.
Hypothesis:
• The main hypothesis is that reducing government intervention in the area of foreign trade is
necessary, but insufficient for economic growth. In other words, reducing government
intervention in the area of foreign trade doesn’t always lead to economic development.
• Another hypothesis is that government intervention in foreign trade is typical even for
developed countries, but such intervention is limited.
• Freedom of foreign trade for developing countries doesn’t always lead to economic
development.
2. Methods
According to the methodology the modelcreated forms of state intervention are main criteria to
distinguish different economic systems (models of market economy) and bipolar, e.g. both
objectives pursued by the regulation of foreign trade that, in fact, mutually exclude one another
– the freedom of imports and domestic market protection – have a right to exist. As well as the
modelcreated forms of state intervention are subjects for political competition, i.e. for the leftwing political groups (parties, organizations, think tanks) a higher priority is, as a rule, the
internal market protection, while for the right-wing groups – the freedom of foreign trade.
According to the methodology the leftness or rightness of economy is measurable and can be
assessed by the Index. There is not any overall (universal for all economies) optimal value of
IL(R)E. Moreover, optimum point of Index for a single country also changes over time under the
influence of a variety of economic and non-economic factors. Nevertheless, the cumulative
economic growth for several years in any particular country provides a certain ground to define
how close the IL(R)E of that country is to its optimal level – the methodology called indicative.
It can also be useful in evaluation of government regulation changes in separate sectors of the
economy. If government introduces more liberal (or stricter) regulation in any sector of the
economy, and as a result, the development pace of that sector becomes higher than that of
other sectors (or higher than overall economic growth rate), then policies are chosen properly
and reforms of same nature should be continued.
N. Muzaffarli suggests comparative analysis through identification of public intervention in
economy as rate of implementation of "leftist" or "rightist" ideas respectively. By "public
intervention in economy" Muzaffarli generally deems activities by "public institutions". Precise
public institutions do not operate for their own sake but rather have to comply with enforced
legislation. Hence, ideological persuasions by decision makers around precise economic
challenges resolution are specified in the core essence of the decisions made. For example, if
leftist parties constitute majority at the Parliament of any country, leftist ideas will underlie
decision making process. And the other way round, rightist ideology will gain the upper hand in
decisions made provided the legislation is adopted by the rightist majority. It happens that
leftist or rightist insight of decision makers shapes the economic system within a given time. To
put it more correctly, it is precisely politics that constrains or expands public intervention in
economy.
Leftness and Rightness are issues of political and economic system. The key aspect that
distinguishes these two insights lies in different views around evaluation of essential and
satisfactory rate of public intervention in social life and, in particular, in economy: as compared
to the rightists, the leftists promote more extensive and strict intervention. Indeed, bearers of
leftist or rightist ideas contribute to emerging fundamentally new system of economic relations
pursuant to their political and economic ideologies. For instance, the Bolshevik coup in Russia
provoked drastic changes in real economic relations through private property ban, large-scale
expropriation and collectivization policies.
N. Muzaffarli discerns precise forms of public intervention in economy and grounds
measurability of different forms of intervention. He asserts that a certain set of indicators will
enable us to make rather valid conclusions on prevalence of Leftness or Rightness of economy
based upon relevant analysis of the above-mentioned set and to provide grounded country-bycountry comparison of public intervention rates. The suggested assessment should specify
concrete political and ideological forms of public intervention in economy. Among them one
might mention the following: 1) public property and public property-based entrepreneurship
percentage; 2) redistribution of income through taxation; 3) social programs implementation;
4) price regulation; 5) planning of economy; 6) foreign trade regulation; 7) arrangement of
favorable conditions for business activities.
Muzaffarli-proposed "index of leftness (rightness) of economy" only encompasses assessment
of intervention of the government in its capacity of regulatory institution in the fields of real
economy. As distinct from similar indices, the suggested indicator enables to evaluate
correlation between the current economic system and actual political environment. On the other
hand, by keeping track of IL(R)E you can elicit development trends in political and economic
outlook in any given country. This method also provides opportunities for revelation of the
optimum rate of economic development-oriented public intervention.
IL(R)E is an integral index that consists of several indexes, including foreign trade subindex. In
turn, foreign trade subindex is made up of three sub-subindices. The first relates to foreign
trade procedures. Favourable rules for carrying out foreign trade activity are vital for an
exporter or an importer. World Bank uses three indicators to define favourable foreign trade
procedures: a) amount of necessary documents for conducting export-import operations; b)
time necessary for executing export-import operations; c) export-import operations execution
cost. The sub-subindex named the ease of conducting export-import procedures index is
calculated as the simple average value of these three indicators. Certainly, such estimates are
made with some assumptions. For example, it’s assumed that cargo is dry, safe, not
ammunition, one of main export (import) goods of the country, weights 10 tons, costs $20 000,
etc. Foreign trade activity is carried out by a local limited-liability company. That company has
no exclusive privileges and counts 60 employees. Such assumptions in the course of estimation
may cause some inaccuracies, however they allow comparatively evaluating the state’s foreign
trade procedures.
The second sub-subindex of foreign trade subindex is the freedom of foreign trade index. The
freedom of foreign trade index is calculated by the Fraser Institute. To measure this index
supposedly different indicators are evaluated, including tariffs (relation of foreign trade taxes to
overall volume of foreign trade, average tariff rate, tariff rate deviation from average tariff
rate), regulation barriers (non-tariff trade barriers, ease of imports and exports documentation
execution), exchange rate on the black market, free capital flow and population’s freedom of
action (restriction to foreign property, capital supervision, freedom of the entry and leave of
foreigners to a country).
The third sub-subindex of foreign trade subindex is the participation in international trade or
economic value of imports index. World Economic Forum calculates indicators of this subsubindex using the methodology of The Global Enabling Trade Report once every two years.
This index is calculated based on 4 sub-subindices weighting equal 25%: a) import tariffs and
duties, taxes paid by exporters to enter the foreign market; b) quality of frontier and customs
services; c) infrastructure; d) working environment.
The fourth sub-subindex of foreign trade subindex is the freedom of trade index, which is
calculated using the methodology developed by The Heritage Foundation. For this index
weighted average tariff rate for a country is calculated based on the tariff rate applied to this
product and the share of each imported product in the total imports and it is indexed with an
opposite sign (i.e. not with trade restriction, but an indicator of free trade), and then “penalty”
points (0, 5, 10, 15 or 20 points) in respect to non-tariff barriers are derived from this index.
Thus, based on the methodology of international rating agencies, foreign trade subindex, which
is a part of IL(R)E, allows roughly assessing the impact of political struggle attributes (economic
laws, rules, standards) on the economy. This subindex as IL(R)E is designed to assess not all
kinds of state intervention, but such an intervention that could create a model for a certain
period. The use of such assessment makes it possible to determine and forecast the economic
results of fluctuations in any field of government’s economic policy and in the area of foreign
trade. Relations between the performance of foreign trade index and other macroeconomic
indicators based on this methodology can, therefore, reflect positive or negative effect of
implemented economic reforms.
3. Data, Analysis, and Results
Foreign trade subindices, sub-subindices and points by sub-subindices based on the
methodology of IL(R)E for 66 countries as of 2015 are shown in Table 1. GDP per capita in 66
countries is also reflected there. It stands to reason that the table includes countries with
different geographic location, level of economic development, population and territory size, etc.
Comparing states with different economic political geographic and other indicators provides
some information what impact foreign trade conditions have on the economic development of
one or another country.
Possible maximum and minimum limits of points for each index are taken into account when
measuring sub-subindices of IL(R)E foreign trade subindex. The following minimum and
maximum values are taken in the indexation research: freedom of trade sub-subindex (0;10),
economic evaluation of import (0;10), free trade (0;100).
Table 1
Relation between foreign trade subindex, its sub-subindices and GDP per capita for some states
Economic
Freedom
of
Freedom
value of
foreign
of
import
trade
foreign
(point)
(The
trade
World
Fraser
sub-
Economic
Institute,
subindex
Forum,
2014)
Economic
value of
import
subsubindex
Freedom of
trade
Freedom
(point) The
of trade
Heritage
sub-
Foundation,
subindex
Foreign
GDP
trade
($/per
subindex
capita)
2015)
2014)
United States
7,7
0,77
5,3
0,72
87
0,87
0,21
54629,5
Albania
7
0,7
5,9
0,82
87,8
0,878
0,20
4564,4
Germany
7,8
0,78
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
47773,9
Australia
7,7
0,77
5,6
0,77
86,4
0,864
0,20
61979,9
Austria
7,8
0,78
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
51122,4
Azerbaijan
6,8
0,68
4,3
0,55
76
0,76
0,34
7886,5
8,2
0,82
4,9
0,65
82,4
0,824
0,23
43962,7
7,6
0,76
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,24
7851,3
7,3
0,73
5,3
0,72
87,2
0,872
0,23
4851,7
Great Britain
8,6
0,86
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,20
46297
Brazil
7,1
0,71
4
0,5
69,6
0,696
0,36
11726,8
7,2
0,72
5
0,67
76,6
0,766
0,28
6483,9
United Arab
Emirates
Bulgaria
BosniaHerzegovina
Republic of
South Africa
Czech
Republic
7,9
0,79
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
19502,4
China
6,7
0,67
4,2
0,53
71,8
0,718
0,36
7590
Denmark
8,2
0,82
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,22
60718,4
Armenia
7,3
0,73
5,8
0,8
85,4
0,854
0,21
3873,5
Estonia
8,3
0,83
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,21
20147,8
Finland
8,4
0,84
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,21
49842,7
France
8
0,8
4,9
0,65
83
0,83
0,24
42725,7
Georgia
8,5
0,85
6
0,83
88,6
0,886
0,14
4435,2
India
6,2
0,62
2,9
0,32
64,6
0,646
0,47
1581,5
Indonesia
6,8
0,68
5,4
0,73
74,8
0,748
0,28
3491,9
Iran
2,6
0,26
2,4
0,23
41,4
0,414
0,70
5442,9
Ireland
8,7
0,87
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,20
54339,3
Spain
7,7
0,77
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
29721,6
Israel
7,9
0,79
5,3
0,72
88,6
0,886
0,20
37206,2
Sweden
7,9
0,79
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
58898,9
Switzerland
7,2
0,72
4,6
0,6
90
0,9
0,26
85616,6
Italy
7,6
0,76
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,24
35222,8
Canada
7,7
0,77
5,7
0,78
88,4
0,884
0,19
50230,8
Cyprus
7,7
0,77
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
27194,4
Latvia
8,1
0,81
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,22
15692,2
Lithuania
7,6
0,76
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,24
16489,7
Luxembourg
8,1
0,81
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,22
116613
Hungary
7,7
0,77
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
14026,6
Macedonia
7,7
0,77
5,5
0,75
86,2
0,862
0,21
5455,6
Malaysia
7,6
0,76
4,8
0,63
80
0,8
0,27
11307,1
Malta
8,1
0,81
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,22
22776,2
Mexico
7
0,7
5,2
0,7
85,6
0,856
0,25
10325,6
Egypt
6,2
0,62
3,3
0,38
70
0,7
0,43
3365,7
Moldova
6,8
0,68
5
0,67
79,8
0,798
0,28
2238,9
Montenegro
7,7
0,77
5,7
0,78
84,8
0,848
0,20
7378,3
Netherlands
8,5
0,85
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,21
52138,7
Norway
7,4
0,74
5
0,67
89,4
0,894
0,23
97299,6
Poland
7,4
0,74
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,24
14336,8
Portugal
7,9
0,79
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
22124,4
Kazakhstan
5,5
0,55
3,8
0,47
79
0,79
0,40
12601,6
Qatar
7,8
0,78
5,9
0,82
81,8
0,818
0,19
96732,4
Kirghizia
6,5
0,65
4,7
0,62
80,2
0,802
0,31
1268,9
Romania
7,8
0,78
4,9
0,65
88
0,88
0,23
10000
Russia
6,1
0,61
3,3
0,38
75
0,75
0,42
12735,9
Source: calculated and compiled by the author
The relations between foreign trade subindex and GDP per capita are shown on Chart 1. It’s
shown that countries with a high level of GDP implement more liberal foreign economic policy.
Among 66 countries all countries with GDP per capita over $20 thousand have foreign trade
subindex below 0,26. It’s impossible to claim the opposite, since more liberal foreign trade
conditions of a country, for example, foreign trade subindex below 0,26 doesn’t guarantee the
absolute high level of GDP per capita. The above-stated hypothesis is, therefore, correct, i.e.
reducing government intervention in foreign trade is necessary, but insufficient for economic
growth. In other words, reducing government intervention in the area of foreign trade doesn’t
always lead to economic development. One of the researched countries, Saudi Arabia, is an
exception to the hypothesis. However, it should be noted that oil exports play a leading part in
its GDP per capita, and the relation between foreign trade conditions and GDP reflects the level
of country’s economic liberality inadequately. Among the researched countries Iran has the
greatest foreign trade subindex, i.e. it’s the most “left” country, and Singapore, the most “right”
country, has the lowest.
Chart 1
Relation between foreign trade subindex and GDP level per capita (2015)
All L(R)IE components, including foreign trade subindex and its sub-subindices, are dynamic
indices. The dynamism of these indicators depends on the government intervention dynamics.
Any measures adopted by the government with regard to different branches of economy,
particularly, foreign trade, such as tariff shift, increasing or decreasing non-tariff barriers,
reforms in customs policy, etc. are reflected in the values of foreign trade subindex and its subsubindices. Such reforms usually play a “model-forming” part in the country’s economy. These
reforms, depending on its nature, either direct the country’s foreign trade activity towards
liberalization (“to the right”) or protectionism (“to the left”). As we have already mentioned, the
trend of the country’s foreign trade activity “to the right” is necessary, but insufficient for
economic growth, since the country’s economic development depends not only on foreign trade.
The direction “to the right” in the foreign trade of developing countries, therefore, creates
potential conditions for its future development.
Table 2
Foreign trade subindex performance in Azerbaijan
Freedom of
foreign
trade
Freedom of
The Heritage
Economic
(point) The
trade (point)
Index
Foundation,
Fraser
Institute,
Index
2014) The
2015)
value of
import
Index
Subindex of
foreign trade
(point)
Fraser
Institute,
2014)
2000
55
0,45
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,436
2001
66,8
0,332
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,397
2002
74,4
0,256
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,371
2003
71,6
0,284
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,381
2004
69,2
0,308
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,389
2005
69,2
0,308
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,389
2006
72,6
0,274
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,377
2007
77,6
0,224
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,361
2008
78,4
0,216
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,358
2009
78,4
0,216
5,92
0,408
4,3
0,45
0,358
2010
77,1
0,229
6,48
0,352
4,3
0,45
0,344
2011
77,1
0,229
6,54
0,346
4,3
0,45
0,342
2012
77,2
0,228
6,79
0,321
4,3
0,45
0,333
2013
77,2
0,228
6,79
0,321
4,3
0,45
0,333
2014
77,2
0,228
6,79
0,321
4,3
0,45
0,333
2015
76
0,24
6,79
0,321
4,3
0,45
0,337
2016
75,8
0,242
6,79
0,321
4,3
0,45
0,338
Source: calculated and compiled by the author
The performance of foreign trade subindex and its sub-subindices in Azerbaijan over the last 15
years is presented in Table 2. As it seen from the table, indicators of foreign trade subindex and
all its sub-subindices represent a steady downward trend. In other words, foreign trade
conditions in Azerbaijan over the last 15 years have had a trend “to the right”. This trend can
be observed on Chart 2. The conditions of foreign trade of Azerbaijan in 2000-2003 were
rapidly liberalized. Although the process of liberalization slightly slowed down in the following
years, it was stable in 2005-2012. As it seen from the chart, since 2013, especially following
devaluation in 2015, protectionist trends in the foreign trade of Azerbaijan have intensified. And
it makes sense, since countries all over the world practice taking “leftism” decisions, when they
face economic problems. Nonetheless, the need for protecting the domestic market called for
adoption of protectionist decisions over the last year due to national currency devaluation in
Azerbaijan, however that decisions weren’t sweeping, and “rightism” in foreign trade persists.
Chart 2
Foreign trade subindex
As it seen from the first chart, in developing countries, where GDP per capita is below 20 thous.
USD, foreign trade subindex for 2015 is between 0,1-0,7. This indicator is 0,34 in Azerbaijan
and within this range. But there’s no country that took part in the research, where this indicator
exceeds 0,26. It means that foreign trade subindex should decrease and foreign trade policy
should acquire the “rightism” trend to make GDP per capita values exceed 20 thousand USD.
Table 3
Relation between foreign trade subindex and some macroeconomic indicators
GDP
Foreign trade
Foreign trade
USD) (Import-
Export (mln.
turnover (mln.
balance (mln.
(ASSC,
ASSCI,2015)
USD)
USD)
USD)
2015) G
It
Et
Bt=Et+It
Bt=Et-It
(mln.
Import (mln.
USD)
subindex
Xt
Foreign trade
2000
0,436
5272,8
1172071,3
1745220,0
2917291
573148,7
2001
0,397
5707,7
1431107,4
2314206,4
3745314
883099
2002
0,371
6235,9
1665484,0
2167400,0
3832884
501916
2003
0,381
7276,0
2626181,0
2590377,5
5216559
-35803,5
2004
0,389
8680,4
3515930,0
3615449,8
7131380
99519,8
2005
0,389
13238,7
4211221,8
4347151,2
8558373
135929,4
2006
0,377
20983,0
5266743,5
6372165,0
11638909
1105422
2007
0,361
33050,3
5713525,3
6058222,3
11771748
344697
2008
0,358
48852,5
7169980,9
47756040,2
54926021
40586059
2009
0,358
44297,0
6123110,5
14701358,8
20824469
8578248
2010
0,344
52909,3
6600611,6
21360210,2
27960822
14759599
2011
0,342
65951,6
9755968,7
26570898,3
36326867
16814930
2012
0,333
69683,9
9652870,6
23907983,7
33560854
14255113
2013
0,333
74164,4
10712502,5
23975416,8
34687919
13262914
2014
0,333
75234,7
9187697,6
21828608,9
31016307
12640911
2015
0,337
52969,5
9221402,8
11424477,3
20645880
2203075
2016
0,338
-
-
-
-
-
Note: The table is compiled based on authors’ calculations with the
use of Azerbaijan National Committee of Statistics data.
4. Discussion
The relation between foreign trade subindex performance and GDP volume, foreign trade
turnover and foreign balance over the last 15 years in Azerbaijan is shown in Table 3. As it
shown in the table, GDP volume increases as foreign trade conditions improve. This fact proves
once again that despite foreign trade subindex is distributed in a wide range in developing
countries, their economic development depends on foreign trade liberalization and reduction of
government interference in foreign trade activity.
Chart 3
Interrelation between foreign trade subindex and GDP
Chart 4
Statistics and tests for Interrelation between foreign trade subindex and GDP
As it seen from Chart 3 and Chart 4, there’s a strong correlation relationship between foreign
trade subindex and GDP of Azerbaijan (R = 0,8859). If we compare interrelation between GDP
volume and foreign trade subindex in the above-named 66 states and Azerbaijan, we can
conclude that liberalization of foreign trade conditions is necessary to increase GDP volume in
Azerbaijan. There’s, therefore, no reason to implement protectionism policy in the country
because of concerns related to national currency devaluation, and the process of liberalization
should continue. There’s a probability that foreign trade liberalization will produce a negative,
and protectionism policy – a positive effect, however one has to agree with the fact that
sustainable economic development requires a stable trend of “rightnessism” in foreign trade.
We can compare these results with the results of Kwan and Cotsomitis (1991) on Chinese
economic growth and foreign trade. According to their investigation there is positive
relationship between these variables. Tong (1995) also explored the relationship between
economic growth and import. He recognized that import at different times contributed to
economy differently, but on the whole, there was a positive correlation between import and
economic growth. According to the results of Summers’ (1997) investigation, who analysed the
relationship between external trade and growth in Australia and Canada, imports and exports
play different roles in economic growth of Canada and Austrialia. Import plays a significant role
in Canada but no evidence was found to support the export-led growth in Australia. Aurangzeb
(2006) examined the link between exports, productivity and economic growth in Pakistan.
According to these his conclusion there is good relationship between these variables.
5. Conclusions
Our results on relationship between foreign trade liberalization and economic grouth
corresponds with results of many researchers, including Marie Daumal and Selin Özyurt There
are many investigations that have results on positive relationship between foreign trade and
GDP. Yaya Keho (2017), Feder (1983), Akeem (2011), Ezike et al. (2012), Ahmed et al.; (2008)
and many other researchers concluded that there is positive relationship between trade
openness and economic growth. By our investigation we have concluded, that:
1. Rreducing government intervention in the area of foreign trade is necessary, but insufficient
for economic growth. In other words, reducing government intervention in the area of foreign
trade doesn’t always lead to economic development.
2. There’s government intervention in foreign trade in developed countries, but such
intervention is limited.
3. Freedom of foreign trade in developing countries doesn’t always lead to economic
development.
4. Over the last 15 years foreign trade subindex in Azerbaijan has represented a steady
downward trend.
5. There’s no reason to take protectionist measures because of concerns related to devaluation
of the national currency of Azerbaijan.
References
Ahmed, A.D., Cheng, E., Messinis, G. (2008). The Role of Exports, FDI and Imports in
Development: New Evidence from Sub-Saharan African Countries. Melbourne: Center for
Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University. Working Paper No. 39.
Akeem, U.O. (2011). Performance Evaluation of Foreign Trade and Economic Growth in Nigeria.
Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, vol. 2, n. 2.
Aurangzeb, A. (2006). Export, Productivity and Economic Growth in Pakistan: A Time Series
Analysis. The Lahore Journal of Economics, vol. 11, n. 1, pp. 1 – 18.
Azerbaijan State Statistical Commitee- Export-ASSCE. (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.azstat.org/MESearch/details?lang=az&type=2&id=277&departament=4
Azerbaijan State Statistical Committee - Import-ASSCI. (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.azstat.org/MESearch/details?lang=az&type=2&id=276&departament=4
Azerbaijan State Statistical Commitee-ASSC. (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.stat.gov.az/source/system_nat_accounts/
Balassa, B. (1965). Tariff protection in industrialized countries: An evaluation. Journal of
political economics, n.76, pp. 573-94.
Balassa, B. (1971). The structure of protection in developing countries. Baltimore: Johons
Hopkins University press.
Corden, W.M. (1966). The structure of tariff system and the effective protection rate. Journal of
political economics, no. 74, pp. 221-37.
Daumal, M., Özyurt, S. (2011). The Impact of International Trade Flows on Economic Growth in
Brazilian States. Review of Economics and Institutions, vol. 2, n. 1, Article 1. Winter. Retrieved
from: www.rei.unipg.it ISSN 2038-1379 DOI 10.5202/rei.v2i1.5
Dorosh, P.A. (2001). Trade Liberalization and National Food Security: Rice Trade between
Bangladesh and India. World Development, vol. 29, n. 4, pp. 673-689.
Edwards, S. (1993). Openness, Trade Liberalisation and Growth in Developing Countries.
Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 31, n. 3, pp. 1358–1393.
Ezike, J.E., Ikpesu, F., Amah, P. (2012). Macroeconomic Impact of Trade on Nigerian Growth: An
Empirical Evaluation. Research Journal of Business Management and Accounting, vol. 1, n. 4,
pp. 079 - 083.
Feder, G. (1982). On Export and Economic Growth. Journal of Development Economics, 12, pp.
59 – 73.
Friedmann, H. (1982). The political economy of food: the rise and fall of the postwar
international food order. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 88, pp. S248–S286.
Gera, N. (2004). Food Security under Structural Adjustment in Pakistan. Asian Survey, vol. 44,
n. 3, pp. 353-368.
Iskenderov, R., Gulaliyev, M., Nasirova, O. (2015), Assessment of major factors of food security.
Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, vol. 10, n. 58, (October 2016),
pp. 128-138.
Jenkins, J. Craig and SCANLAN, Stephen J. (2001). Food Security in Less Developed Countries,
1970 to 1990. American Sociological Review, vol. 66, n. 5, pp. 718-744.
Keho, Y. (2017). The impact of trade openness on economic growth: The case of Cote d’Ivoire.
Cogent Economics & Finance, vol. 5, pp. 1332820. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2017.1332820
Kwan, A.C.C., Kwok, J.A. (1996). Economic Growth and Exogeneity: Taiwan 1953-88. The
American Economist, vol. 28, n. 4, pp. 467-471(5).
Little, I., Scitovsky, T., Scott, M. (1970). Industry and Trade in Some Developing Countries.
London and New York: Oxford University Press for OECD.
Summers, P.M. (1997). Trade and Growth in Settler Economies: Australian and Canadian
Comparisons. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute Working Paper 9/97/.
The Fraser Institute. (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.freetheworld.com/2014/EFW2014POST.pdf
The Heritage Foundation. (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?
view=by-region-country-year
The Heritage Foundation. (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2015/book/index_2015.pdf
Tong, J. (1995). Growth and Causality in China. Journal of Development Economics, vol. 18, pp.
1 – 12.
Tweeten, L. (1999). The Economics of Global Food Security. Review of Agricultural Economics,
vol. 21, n. 2, pp. 473-488.
World Economic Forum. (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalEnablingTrade_Report_2014.pdf
1. Ph.D. Head of Department of Methodology and Econometric Issues of State Regulation of Economy. Institute of
Economics of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. Baku, Azerbaijan. gulaliyevm@yahoo.com
2. Ph.D. Candidate of Department of Globalization and Foreign Economic Relations. Institute of Economics of the
Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. Baku, Azerbaijan. shahry2004@mail.ru
3. Ph.D. Docent of Department of Theoretical and Applied Economics. Azerbaijan State University of Economics (UNEC).
Baku, Azerbaijan. h-sehla@mail.ru
4. Ph.D. Candidate. Azerbaijan State University of Economics (UNEC). Baku, Azerbaijan. reyhan_azizova@mail.ru
5. Ph.D. Candidate of Department of Globalization and Foreign Economic Relations. Institute of Economics of the
Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. Baku, Azerbaijan. ceyranchol@rambler.ru
Revista ESPACIOS. ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 38 (Nº 47) Year 2017
Indexed em Scopus, Google Schollar
[Index]
[In case you find any errors on this site, please send e-mail to webmaster]
©2017. revistaESPACIOS.com • ®Rights Reserved