Affiliation:
1. BANCO DE ESPAÑA
2. UNIVERSITY OF BAYREUTH, CEPII, IFO, CESIFO AND GEP
3. BANCO DE ESPAÑA AND OECD
4. DREXEL UNIVERSITY AND CESIFO
Abstract
The World Trade Organization (WTO) and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), are key institutions of the multilateral trading system. While the WTO is generally assumed to promote trade by reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers, existing estimates of its effect on trade vary widely in magnitude, sign, and significance. We collected 2,547 estimates from 71 papers and applied meta-analysis techniques to conduct a systematic quantitative review of the literature, complementing it with established advances in gravity models to obtain estimates of the WTO’s impact on trade. The meta-analysis shows that, on average, the literature finds a significant and positive trade effect of the WTO, although the estimates depend strongly on study characteristics. Moreover, we find no evidence of publication bias. Our structural gravity estimates confirm these findings: the WTO increases trade. However, the effects are heterogeneous across sectors and income levels of trading partners.
Reference41 articles.
1. Anderson, James E. (1979). “A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation”. American EconomicReview, 69(1), pp. 106-116. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v69y1979i1p106-16.html
2. Anderson, James E., and Eric van Wincoop. (2003). “Gravity with Gravitas: A Solutionto the Border Puzzle”. American Economic Review, 93(1), pp. 170-192. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455214
3. Anderson, James E., and Eric van Wincoop. (2004). “Trade Costs”. Journal of Economic Literature,42(3), pp. 691-751. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051042177649
4. Andrews, Isaiah, and Maximilian Kasy. (2019). “Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias”.American Economic Review, 109(8), pp. 2766-2794. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180310
5. Arkolakis, Costas, Arnaud Costinot and Andres Rodriguez-Clare. (2012). “New Trade Models,Same Old Gains?” American Economic Review, 102(1), pp. 94-130. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.94