Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:25:47.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development strategy and trade liberalization: implications for poverty and environment in the Philippines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2004

IAN COXHEAD
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 53706, USA. E-mail: [email protected].
SISIRA JAYASURIYA
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

Poverty and environmental degradation or deforestation in developing countries have common determinants in underlying economic and institutional conditions that determine factor and product prices and incentives for migration and resource-depleting activities. These determinants include property rights failures (open access to forest lands) but also ‘government failures’ in the form of policies that indirectly promote resource use and retard poverty alleviation. A general equilibrium analysis identifies influences that such distortions have on poverty and environment. Using a numerical GE model, we consider likely effects of Philippine trade policy reforms of the 1990s on determinants of poverty, deforestation, and agricultural land expansion. These reforms marked a significant shift away from the import substitution industrialization strategy that characterized post-independence Philippine development. The results suggest that though reforms would increase poverty in the short term, in the longer run trade liberalization is poverty reducing. The environmental impact can also be positive, provided liberalized trade is combined with appropriate government action to address market failures.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper was made possible through support provided by the Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, US Agency for International Development through the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM CRSP) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement Number PCE-A-00-98-00019-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Agency for International Development. The content draws in part on analysis reported in Coxhead and Jayasuriya (2003a, 2003b). We are grateful to two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Remaining errors are ours alone.