Typologies of Trade Openness in Africa: A Principal Component and Cluster-Based Analysis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigates the determinants and typologies of trade openness across 40 African economies, addressing persistent gaps in integration despite decades of neoliberal reforms. By employing Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and hierarchical clustering, the research analyzes how institutional quality, human capital, regional trade agreements, and tariff policies collectively shape trade openness and economic growth trajectories. The analysis reveals three distinct country clusters: liberal diversified economies (e.g., Mauritius, South Africa), transitional reforming states (e.g., Ghana, Kenya), and protectionist, commodity-dependent nations (e.g., Nigeria, Angola). Key findings highlight a positive association between trade openness and robust institutions, human capital, and participation in trade agreements, while high tariffs significantly hinder openness. The results underscore the necessity of complementary institutional and policy frameworks for effective trade liberalization. Strategic policy recommendations include investment in value-added sectors, strengthening regulatory institutions, phased tariff liberalization, and enhanced regional integration. The study advances the understanding of Africa’s heterogeneous trade landscape and informs targeted development policies.
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
- Abdelmalki, L., & Sandretto, R. (2017). Le commerce international. Analyses, institutions et politiques des États. De Boeck Supérieur.
– Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2010). Why is Africa Poor? Economic History of Developing Regions, 25(1), 21–50.
– Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2010). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business.
– Amsden, A. H. (1991). Diffusion of development: The late-industrializing model and Greater East Asia. The American Economic Review, 81(2), 282–286.
– Aron, J. (2000). Growth and institutions: A review of the evidence. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(1), 99–135.
– Azevêdo, R. (2014). Les accords commerciaux régionaux “ne peuvent pas se substituer” au système commercial multilatéral. WTO.
– Bagoulla, C., & Figueiredo De Oliveira, G. (2022). Ouverture commerciale, transformations structurelles et croissance économique en Afrique. Région et développement, 54.
– Balassa, B. (1978). The ‘New Protectionism’ and the international economy. Journal of World Trade Law, 12(5).
– Baldwin, R. E., & Krugman, P. (1988). Market access and competition: A simulation study of 16K random access memories. In R. C. Feenstra (Ed.), Empirical Methods for International Trade (pp. 171–197). MIT Press.
– Barro, R. J. (1996). Institutions and growth, an introductory essay. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(2), 145–148.
– Baudry, P. (2021). La politique économique allemande : Retour du mercantilisme à l’époque de la mondialisation ? Revue française de science politique, 71(2), 219–237.
- Ben Hammouda, H., Oulmane, N., & Sadni Jallab, M. (2010). À Washington : d’un consensus à l’autre. In Crise... Naufrage des économistes ? De Boeck Supérieur.
– Bhagwati, J. N. (1958). Immiserizing growth: A geometrical note. Review of Economic Studies, 25(2), 201–205.
– Bhagwati, J. N. (1995). US trade policy: The infatuation with FTAs. Columbia University.
– Bhagwati, J. (1998). The capital myth: The difference between trade in widgets and dollars. Foreign Affairs, 77.
– Boissieu, C., & Chesneau, D. (2020). Le patriotisme économique a-t-il un sens ou la mondialisation en question? Maxima.
– Brasseul, J. (1993). Les nouveaux pays industrialisés. Armand Colin.
- Brender, J. A., & Spencer, B. J. (1984). Tariff protection and imperfect competition. In H. Kierzkowski (Ed.), Monopolistic Competition and International Trade (pp. 194–207). Clarendon Press.
- Broad, R., & Cavanagh, J. (1999). The death of the Washington consensus? World Policy Journal, 16(3).
– Carey, H. C. (1865). Principles of Social Science. Lippincott.
– Child, J. (1690). A New Discourse of Trade.
– CNUCED. (2017). Le commerce comme catalyseur de la mise en œuvre du Programme 2030. Nations Unies.
– CNUCED. (2021). Rapport sur le développement économique en Afrique 2021. Nations Unies.
– Cohen, D. (1997). Richesse du monde, pauvreté des nations (2nd ed.). Flammarion.
– Colbert, J.-B. (1863). Instruction aux maîtres des requêtes. In P. Clément (Ed.), Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert (Vol. II).
– Cramer, C., Sender, J., & Oqubay, A. (2020). African Economic Development: Evidence, Theory, Policy. Oxford University Press.
- Rodrik, D. (2008). Nations et mondialisation (C. Jaquet, Trans.). Éditions La Découverte.
- Delaite, M.-F., & Poirot, J. (2010). Patriotisme économique et développement durable. Développement durable et territoires, 1(3).
– Deyo, F. C. (1987). The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism. Cornell University Press.
- Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2001). Trade, growth, and poverty. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 632684.
– Ekodo, R., & Ngomsi, A. (2017). Trade openness and growth: Empirical evidence from CEMAC. Journal of Economics and Development Studies, 5(3), 58–67.
- Fitoussi, J.-P., & Saraceno, F. (2013). European economic governance: The Berlin-Washington consensus. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(3), 479–496.
– Francis, P. R. (2004). Mettre fin à la pauvreté grâce au commerce. Chronique de l’ONU.
- Fontagné, L., & Guérin, J.-L. (1997). L’ouverture catalyseur de la croissance. Économie internationale, 71(3).
- Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to Choose. Harcourt.
– Gautier, A. (1981). Les pays ateliers d’extrême-Orient. Bréal.
– Gern, J.-P. (1993). L'apport du commerce extérieur à la croissance. Revue Tiers Monde, 34(133).
– Graham, F. D. (1923). The theory of international values re-examined. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 38(1), 54–86.
– Grier, K. B., & Grier, R. M. (2021). The Washington consensus works: Causal effects of reform, 1970–2015. Journal of Comparative Economics, 49, 59–72.