Globalization and Economic Growth

8/27/23, 9:05 PM Globalization and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Complementarities | PLOS ONE
Globalization and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on

the Role of Complementarities
Parisa Samimi , Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi
Published: April 10, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824
Abstract
This study was carried out to investigate the effect of economic globalization on economic growth in OIC countries. Furthermore,
the study examined the effect of complementary policies on the growth effect of globalization. It also investigated whether the
growth effect of globalization depends on the income level of countries. Utilizing the generalized method of moments (GMM)
estimator within the framework of a dynamic panel data approach, we provide evidence which suggests that economic globalization
has statistically significant impact on economic growth in OIC countries. The results indicate that this positive effect is increased in
the countries with better-educated workers and well-developed financial systems. Our finding shows that the effect of economic
globalization also depends on the country’s level of income. High and middle-income countries benefit from globalization whereas
low-income countries do not gain from it. In fact, the countries should receive the appropriate income level to be benefited from
globalization. Economic globalization not only directly promotes growth but also indirectly does so via complementary reforms.
Citation: Samimi P, Jenatabadi HS (2014) Globalization and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on the Role of
Complementarities. PLoS ONE 9(4): e87824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824
Editor: Rodrigo Huerta-Quintanilla, Cinvestav-Merida, Mexico
Received: November 5, 2013; Accepted: January 2, 2014; Published: April 10, 2014
Copyright: © 2014 Samimi, Jenatabadi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author
and source are credited.
Funding: The study is supported by the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia, Malaysian International Scholarship (MIS).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Globalization, as a complicated process, is not a new phenomenon and our world has experienced its effects on different aspects of
lives such as economical, social, environmental and political from many years ago [1]–[4]. Economic globalization includes flows of
goods and services across borders, international capital flows, reduction in tariffs and trade barriers, immigration, and the spread of
technology, and knowledge beyond borders. It is source of much debate and conflict like any source of great power.
The broad effects of globalization on different aspects of life grab a great deal of attention over the past three decades. As
countries, especially developing countries are speeding up their openness in recent years the concern about globalization and its
different effects on economic growth, poverty, inequality, environment and cultural dominance are increased. As a significant subset
of the developing world, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries are also faced by opportunities and costs of
globalization. Figure 1 shows the upward trend of economic globalization among different income group of OIC countries.
Figure 1. Average economic globalization (KOF index) by income groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.g001
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087824 1/8
Although OICs are rich in natural resources, these resources were not being used efficiently. It seems that finding new ways to use
the OICs economic capacity more efficiently are important and necessary for them to improve their economic situation in the world.
Among the areas where globalization is thought, the link between economic growth and globalization has been become focus of
attention by many researchers. Improving economic growth is the aim of policy makers as it shows the success of nations. Due to
the increasing trend of globalization, finding the effect of globalization on economic growth is prominent.
The net effect of globalization on economic growth remains puzzling since previous empirical analysis did not support the existent
of a systematic positive or negative impact of globalization on growth. Most of these studies suffer from econometrics shortcoming,
narrow definition of globalization and small number of countries. The effect of economic globalization on the economic growth in
OICs is also ambiguous. Existing empirical studies have not indicated the positive or negative impact of globalization in OICs. The
relationship between economic globalization and economic growth is important especially for economic policies.
Recently, researchers have claimed that the growth effects of globalization depend on the economic structure of the countries
during the process of globalization. The impact of globalization on economic growth of countries also could be changed by the set
of complementary policies such as improvement in human capital and financial system. In fact, globalization by itself does not
increase or decrease economic growth. The effect of complementary policies is very important as it helps countries to be successful
in globalization process.
In this paper, we examine the relationship between economic globalization and growth in panel of selected OIC countries over the
period 1980–2008. Furthermore, we would explore whether the growth effects of economic globalization depend on the set of
complementary policies and income level of OIC countries.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section consists of a review of relevant studies on the impact of globalization on
growth. Afterward the model specification is described. It is followed by the methodology of this study as well as the data sets that
are utilized in the estimation of the model and the empirical strategy. Then, the econometric results are reported and discussed.
The last section summarizes and concludes the paper with important issues on policy implications.
Literature Review
The relationship between globalization and growth is a heated and highly debated topic on the growth and development literature.
Yet, this issue is far from being resolved. Theoretical growth studies report at best a contradictory and inconclusive discussion on
the relationship between globalization and growth. Some of the studies found positive the effect of globalization on growth through
effective allocation of domestic resources, diffusion of technology, improvement in factor productivity and augmentation of capital
[5], [6]. In contrast, others argued that globalization has harmful effect on growth in countries with weak institutions and political
instability and in countries, which specialized in ineffective activities in the process of globalization [5], [7], [8].
Given the conflicting theoretical views, many studies have been empirically examined the impact of the globalization on economic
growth in developed and developing countries. Generally, the literature on the globalization-economic growth nexus provides at
least three schools of thought. First, many studies support the idea that globalization accentuates economic growth [9]–[19].
Pioneering early studies include Dollar [9], Sachs et al. [15] and Edwards [11], who examined the impact of trade openness by
using different index on economic growth. The findings of these studies implied that openness is associated with more rapid growth.
In 2006, Dreher introduced a new comprehensive index of globalization, KOF, to examine the impact of globalization on growth in
an unbalanced dynamic panel of 123 countries between 1970 and 2000. The overall result showed that globalization promotes
economic growth. The economic and social dimensions have positive impact on growth whereas political dimension has no effect
on growth. The robustness of the results of Dreher [19] is approved by Rao and Vadlamannati [20] which use KOF and examine its
impact on growth rate of 21 African countries during 1970–2005. The positive effect of globalization on economic growth is also
confirmed by the extreme bounds analysis. The result indicated that the positive effect of globalization on growth is larger than the
effect of investment on growth.
The second school of thought, which supported by some scholars such as Alesina et al. [21], Rodrik [22] and Rodriguez and Rodrik
[23], has been more reserve in supporting the globalization-led growth nexus. Rodriguez and Rodrik [23] challenged the robustness
of Dollar (1992), Sachs, Warner et al. (1995) and Edwards [11] studies. They believed that weak evidence support the idea of
positive relationship between openness and growth. They mentioned the lack of control for some prominent growth indicators as
well as using incomprehensive trade openness index as shortcomings of these works. Warner [24] refuted the results of Rodriguez
and Rodrik (2000). He mentioned that Rodriguez and Rodrik (2000) used an uncommon index to measure trade restriction (tariffs
revenues divided by imports). Warner (2003) explained that they ignored all other barriers on trade and suggested using only the
tariffs and quotas of textbook trade policy to measure trade restriction in countries.
Krugman [25] strongly disagreed with the argument that international financial integration is a major engine of economic
development. This is because capital is not an important factor to increase economic development and the large flows of capital
from rich to poor countries have never occurred. Therefore, developing countries are unlikely to increase economic growth through
financial openness. Levine [26] was more optimistic about the impact of financial liberalization than Krugman. He concluded, based
on theory and empirical evidences, that the domestic financial system has a prominent effect on economic growth through boosting
total factor productivity. The factors that improve the functioning of domestic financial markets and banks like financial integration
can stimulate improvements in resource allocation and boost economic growth.
The third school of thoughts covers the studies that found nonlinear relationship between globalization and growth with emphasis
on the effect of complementary policies. Borensztein, De Gregorio et al. (1998) investigated the impact of FDI on economic growth
in a cross-country framework by developing a model of endogenous growth to examine the role of FDI in the economic growth in
developing countries. They found that FDI, which is measured by the fraction of products produced by foreign firms in the total
number of products, reduces the costs of introducing new varieties of capital goods, thus increasing the rate at which new capital
goods are introduced. The results showed a strong complementary effect between stock of human capital and FDI to enhance
economic growth. They interpreted this finding with the observation that the advanced technology, brought by FDI, increases the
growth rate of host economy when the country has sufficient level of human capital. In this situation, the FDI is more productive
than domestic investment.
Calderón and Poggio [27] examined the structural factors that may have impact on growth effect of trade openness. The growth
benefits of rising trade openness are conditional on the level of progress in structural areas including education, innovation,
infrastructure, institutions, the regulatory framework, and financial development. Indeed, they found that the lack of progress in
these areas could restrict the potential benefits of trade openness. Chang et al. [28] found that the growth effects of openness may
be significantly improved when the investment in human capital is stronger, financial markets are deeper, price inflation is lower,
and public infrastructure is more readily available. Gu and Dong [29] emphasized that the harmful or useful growth effect of financial
globalization heavily depends on the level of financial development of economies. In fact, if financial openness happens without any
improvement in the financial system of countries, growth will replace by volatility.
However, the review of the empirical literature indicates that the impact of the economic globalization on economic growth is
influenced by sample, econometric techniques, period specifications, observed and unobserved country-specific effects. Most of the
literature in the field of globalization, concentrates on the effect of trade or foreign capital volume (de facto indices) on economic
growth. The problem is that de facto indices do not proportionally capture trade and financial globalization policies. The rate of
protections and tariff need to be accounted since they are policy based variables, capturing the severity of trade restrictions in a
country. Therefore, globalization index should contain trade and capital restrictions as well as trade and capital volume. Thus, this
paper avoids this problem by using a comprehensive index which called KOF [30]. The economic dimension of this index captures
the volume and restriction of trade and capital flow of countries.
Despite the numerous studies, the effect of economic globalization on economic growth in OIC is still scarce. The results of recent
studies on the effect of globalization in OICs are not significant, as they have not examined the impact of globalization by empirical
model such as Zeinelabdin [31] and Dabour [32]. Those that used empirical model, investigated the effect of globalization for one
country such as Ates [33] and Oyvat [34], or did it for some OIC members in different groups such as East Asia by Guillaumin [35]
or as group of developing countries by Haddad et al. [36] and Warner [24]. Therefore, the aim of this study is filling the gap in
research devoted solely to investigate the effects of economic globalization on growth in selected OICs. In addition, the study will
consider the impact of complimentary polices on the growth effects of globalization in selected OIC countries.
Model Specification
This study uses a dynamic panel data model to investigate the effect of globalization on economic growth. The model can be shown
as follows:
(1)
where i is country index, t is time index, and are the parameters to be estimated, GDP is the logarithm of real GDP per capita,
KOF is economic globalization, CV is a vector of other control variables that affect economic growth, is unobserved country-
specific effect term, and is the usual error term. The group of control variables is comprised of variables frequently used in the
growth literature including government consumption, secondary school enrolment as a proxy for human capital, inflation (consumer
price index), domestic investment, liquid liability to capture the financial development and ICRG as an index for institutional quality.
Methodology and Data

In Eq.1, the existence of lag per capita GDP produces the well-known dynamic panel bias due to the correlation between the
and disturbance term, . In other words, is a function of , as is time-invariant, therefore, is also a
function of . It means that Eq. 1 has a severe endogeneity problem that happens when the lag of dependent variable, as one of
the regressors, is correlated with one component of the error term [37]. In addition, In Eq.1, the fixed effects or time-invariant
country characteristics ( ), might be correlated with the explanatory variables which violates the assumptions underlying the
classical linear regression model. In this case, the simple ordinary least squares (OLS) or fixed and random effects approaches can
produce highly misleading results.
This paper applies the generalized method of moments (GMM) panel estimator first suggested by Anderson and Hsiao [38] and
later developed further by Arellano and Bond [39]. This flexible method requires only weak assumption that makes it one of the
most widely used econometric techniques especially in growth studies. The dynamic GMM procedure is as follow: first, to eliminate
the individual effect form dynamic growth model, the method takes differences. Then, it instruments the right hand side variables by
using their lagged values. The last step is to eliminate the inconsistency arising from the endogeneity of the explanatory variables.
The consistency of the GMM estimator depends on two specification tests. The first is a Sargan test of over-identifying restrictions,
which tests the overall validity of the instruments. Failure to reject the null hypothesis gives support to the model. The second test
examines the null hypothesis that the error term is not serially correlated.
The GMM can be applied in one- or two-step variants. The one-step estimators use weighting matrices that are independent of
estimated parameters, whereas the two-step GMM estimator uses the so-called optimal weighting matrices in which the moment
conditions are weighted by a consistent estimate of their covariance matrix. However, the use of the two-step estimator in small
samples, as in our study, has problem derived from proliferation of instruments. Furthermore, the estimated standard errors of the
two-step GMM estimator tend to be small. Consequently, this paper employs the one-step GMM estimator.
In the specification, year dummies are used as instrument variable because other regressors are not strictly exogenous. The
maximum lags length of independent variable which used as instrument is 2 to select the optimal lag, the AR(1) and AR(2) statistics
are employed. There is convincing evidence that too many moment conditions introduce bias while increasing efficiency. It is,
therefore, suggested that a subset of these moment conditions can be used to take advantage of the trade-off between the
reduction in bias and the loss in efficiency. We restrict the moment conditions to a maximum of two lags on the dependent variable.
Data and Empirical Strategy
We estimated Eq. (1) using the GMM estimator based on a panel of 33 OIC countries. Table S1 in File S1 lists the countries and
their income groups in the sample. The choice of countries selected for this study is primarily dictated by availability of reliable data
over the sample period among all OIC countries. The panel covers the period 1980–2008 and is unbalanced. Following [40], we
use annual data in order to maximize sample size and to identify the parameters of interest more precisely. In fact, averaging out
data removes useful variation from the data, which could help to identify the parameters of interest with more precision.
The dependent variable in our sample is logged per capita real GDP, using the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates and
is obtained from the Penn World Table (PWT 7.0). The economic dimension of KOF index is derived from Dreher et al. [41]. We use
some other variables, along with economic globalization to control other factors influenced economic growth. Table S2 in File S2
shows the variables, their proxies and source that they obtain.
We relied on the three main approaches to capture the effects of economic globalization on economic growth in OIC countries. The
first one is the baseline specification (Eq. (1)) which estimates the effect of economic globalization on economic growth.
The second approach is to examine whether the effect of globalization on growth depends on the complementary policies in the
form of level of human capital and financial development. To test, the interactions of economic globalization and financial
development (KOF*FD) and economic globalization and human capital (KOF*HCS) are included as additional explanatory
variables, apart from the standard variables used in the growth equation. The KOF, HCS and FD are included in the model
individually as well for two reasons. First, the significance of the interaction term may be the result of the omission of these
variables by themselves. Thus, in that way, it can be tested jointly whether these variables affect growth by themselves or through
the interaction term. Second, to ensure that the interaction term did not proxy for KOF, HCS or FD, these variables were included in
the regression independently.
In the third approach, in order to study the role of income level of countries on the growth effect of globalization, the countries are
split based on income level. Accordingly, countries were classified into three groups: high-income countries (3), middle-income (21)
and low-income (9) countries. Next, dummy variables were created for high-income (Dum 3), middle-income (Dum 2) and low-
income (Dum 1) groups. Then interaction terms were created for dummy variables and KOF. These interactions will be added to the
baseline specification.
Findings and Discussion
This section presents the empirical results of three approaches, based on the GMM -dynamic panel data; in Tables 1–3.Table 1
presents a preliminary analysis on the effects of economic globalization on growth. Table 2 displays coefficient estimates obtained
from the baseline specification, which used added two interaction terms of economic globalization and financial development and
economic globalization and human capital. Table 3 reports the coefficients estimate from a specification that uses dummies to
capture the impact of income level of OIC countries on the growth effect of globalization.
Table 1. Baseline results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.t001
Table 2. Economic globalization and Growth: Interaction terms.

Table 3. Growth effect of globalization at different income levels of countries.

The results in Table 1 indicate that economic globalization has positive impact on growth and the coefficient is significant at 1
percent level. The positive effect is consistent with the bulk of the existing empirical literature that support beneficial effect of
globalization on economic growth [9], [11], [13], [19], [42], [43].
According to the theoretical literature, globalization enhances economic growth by allocating resources more efficiently as OIC
countries that can be specialized in activities with comparative advantages. By increasing the size of markets through globalization,
these countries can be benefited from economic of scale, lower cost of research and knowledge spillovers. It also augments capital
in OICs as they provide a higher return to capital. It has raised productivity and innovation, supported the spread of knowledge and
new technologies as the important factors in the process of development. The results also indicate that growth is enhanced by
lower level of government expenditure, lower level of inflation, higher level of human capital, deeper financial development, more
domestic investment and better institutions.
Table 2 represents that the coefficients on the interaction between the KOF, HCS and FD are statistically significant at 1% level and
with the positive sign. The findings indicate that economic globalization not only directly promotes growth but also indirectly does
via complementary reforms. On the other hand, the positive effect of economic globalization can be significantly enhanced if some
complementary reforms in terms of human capital and financial development are undertaken.
In fact, the implementation of new technologies transferred from advanced economies requires skilled workers. The results of this
study confirm the importance of increasing educated workers as a complementary policy in progressing globalization. However,
countries with higher level of human capital can be better and faster to imitate and implement the transferred technologies.
Besides, the financial openness brings along the knowledge and managerial for implementing the new technology. It can be helpful
in improving the level of human capital in host countries. Moreover, the strong and well-functioned financial systems can lead the
flow of foreign capital to the productive and compatible sectors in developing countries. Overall, with higher level of human capital
and stronger financial systems, the globalized countries benefit from the growth effect of globalization. The obtained results
supported by previous studies in relative to financial and trade globalization such as [5], [27], [44], [45].
Table (3) shows that the estimated coefficients on KOF*dum3 and KOF*dum2 are statistically significant at the 5% level with
positive sign. The KOF*dum1 is statistically significant with negative sign. It means that increase in economic globalization in high
and middle-income countries boost economic growth but this effect is diverse for low-income countries. The reason might be
related to economic structure of these countries that are not received to the initial condition necessary to be benefited from
globalization. In fact, countries should be received to the appropriate income level to be benefited by globalization.
The diagnostic tests in tables 1–3 show that the estimated equation is free from simultaneity bias and second-order correlation. The
results of Sargan test accept the null hypothesis that supports the validity of the instrument use in dynamic GMM.
Conclusions and Implications
Numerous researchers have investigated the impact of economic globalization on economic growth. Unfortunately, theoretical and
the empirical literature have produced conflicting conclusions that need more investigation. The current study shed light on the
growth effect of globalization by using a comprehensive index for globalization and applying a robust econometrics technique.
Specifically, this paper assesses whether the growth effects of globalization depend on the complementary polices as well as
income level of OIC countries.
Using a panel data of OIC countries over the 1980–2008 period, we draw three important conclusions from the empirical analysis.
First, the coefficient measuring the effect of the economic globalization on growth was positive and significant, indicating that
economic globalization affects economic growth of OIC countries in a positive way. Second, the positive effect of globalization on
growth is increased in countries with higher level of human capital and deeper financial development. Finally, economic
globalization does affect growth, whether the effect is beneficial depends on the level of income of each group. It means that
economies should have some initial condition to be benefited from the positive effects of globalization. The results explain why
some countries have been successful in globalizing world and others not.
The findings of our study suggest that public policies designed to integrate to the world might are not optimal for economic growth
by itself. Economic globalization not only directly promotes growth but also indirectly does so via complementary reforms.
The policy implications of this study are relatively straightforward. Integrating to the global economy is only one part of the story.
The other is how to benefits more from globalization. In this respect, the responsibility of policymakers is to improve the level of
educated workers and strength of financial systems to get more opportunities from globalization. These economic policies are
important not only in their own right, but also in helping developing countries to derive the benefits of globalization.
However, implementation of new technologies transferred from advanced economies requires skilled workers. The results of this
study confirm the importance of increasing educated workers as a complementary policy in progressing globalization. In fact,
countries with higher level of human capital can better and faster imitate and implement the transferred technologies. The higher
level of human capital and certain skill of human capital determine whether technology is successfully absorbed across countries.
This shows the importance of human capital in the success of countries in the globalizing world.
Financial openness in the form of FDI brings along the knowledge and managerial for implementing the new technology. It can be
helpful in upgrading the level of human capital in host countries. Moreover, strong and well-functioned financial systems can lead
the flow of foreign capital to the productive and compatible sectors in OICs.
In addition, the results show that economic globalization does affect growth, whether the effect is beneficial depends on the level of
income of countries. High and middle income countries benefit from globalization whereas low-income countries do not gain from it.
As Birdsall [46] mentioned globalization is fundamentally asymmetric for poor countries, because their economic structure and
markets are asymmetric. So, the risks of globalization hurt the poor more. The structure of the export of low-income countries
heavily depends on primary commodity and natural resource which make them vulnerable to the global shocks.
The major research limitation of this study was the failure to collect data for all OIC countries. Therefore future research for all OIC
countries would shed light on the relationship between economic globalization and economic growth.
Supporting Information
File S1.
Sample of Countries.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.s001
(DOCX)
File S2.
The Name and Definition of Indicators.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.s002
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: PS. Performed the experiments: PS. Analyzed the data: PS. Contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools: PS HSJ. Wrote the paper: PS HSJ.
References
1. Baldwin RE, Forslid R (2000) Trade liberalisation and endogenous growth: A q-theory approach. Journal of International Economics 50: 497–517.
View Article Google Scholar
2. Bhandari AK, Heshmati A (2005) Measurement of Globalization and its Variations among Countries, Regions and over Time. IZA Discussion Paper
No.1578.
3. Collins W, Williamson J (1999) Capital goods prices, global capital markets and accumulation: 1870–1950. NBER Working Paper No.7145.
4. Obstfeld M, Taylor A (1997) The great depression as a watershed: international capital mobility over the long run. In: D M, Bordo CG, and Eugene N
White, editors. The Defining Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the Twentieth Century. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press: NBER Project Report series. 353–402.
5. Borensztein E, De Gregorio J, Lee JW (1998) How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics 45: 115–
135.
6. Grossman GM, Helpman E (1991) Endogenous Product Cycles. The Economic Journal 101: 1214–1229.
7. De Melo J, Gourdon J, Maystre N (2008) Openness, Inequality and Poverty: Endowments Matter. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3981.
8. Berg A, Krueger AO (2003) Trade, growth, and poverty: a selective survey. IMF Working Papers No.1047.
9. Dollar D (1992) Outward-oriented developing economies really do grow more rapidly: evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976–1985. Economic development and
cultural change 40: 523–544.
10. Dollar D, Kraay A (2002) Growth is Good for the Poor. Journal of economic growth 7: 195–225.
11. Edwards S (1998) Openness, productivity and growth: what do we really know? Economic Journal 108: 383–398.
12. Fischer S (2003) Globalization and its challenges. American Economic Review 93: 1–30.
13. Grossman GM, Helpman E (1990) Trade, Innovation, and Growth. The American economic review 80: 86–91.
14. Harrison A (1996) Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries. Journal of development economics 48: 419–447.
15. Sachs J, Warner A, Åslund A, Fischer S (1995) Economic reform and the process of global integration. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1995: 1–
118.
16. Barro R, Sala-i-Martin X (2004) Economic Growth. New York: McGraw Hill.
17. Vamvakidis A (1998) Regional integration and economic growth. The World Bank Economic Review 12: 251.
18. Levine R, Renelt D (1992) A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. The American economic review 82: 942–963.
19. Dreher A (2006) Does Globalization Affects Growth? Empirical Evidence from a New Index. Applied Economics 6: 1091–1110.
20. Rao BB, Vadlamannati KC (2011) Globalization and growth in the low income African countries with the extreme bounds analysis. Economic Modelling 28:
795–805.
21. Alesina A, Grilli V, Milesi-Ferretti G, Center L, del Tesoro M (1994) The political economy of capital controls. In: Leiderman L, Razin A, editors. Capital
Mobility: The Impact on Consumption, Investment and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 289–321.
22. Rodrik D (1998) Who needs capital-account convertibility? In: Fischer S, editor. Should the IMF Pursue Capital Account Convertibility?, Essays in
international finance. Princeton: Department of Economics, Princeton University. 55–65.
23. Rodriguez F, Rodrik D (2000) Trade policy and economic growth: a skeptic's guide to the cross-national evidence. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 15:
261–325.
24. Warner A (2003) Once more into the breach: Economic growth and integration. Center for Global Development 12: 1.
25. Krugman P (1993) International Finance and Economic Development. In: Giovannini A, editor. Finance and Development: Issues and Experience.
Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 11–24.
26. Levine R (2001) International financial liberalization and economic growth. Review of International Economics 9: 688–702.
27. Calderón C, Poggio V (2010) Trade and Economic Growth Evidence on the Role of Complementarities for CAFTA-DR Countries. World Bank Policy
Research, Working Paper No.5426.
28. Chang R, Kaltani L, Loayza NV (2009) Openness can be good for growth: The role of policy complementarities. Journal of development economics 90:
33–49.
29. Gu XH, Dong BM (2011) A Theory of Financial Liberalisation: Why are Developing Countries so Reluctant? World Economy 34: 1106–1123.
30. Samimi P, Lim GC, Buang AA (2011) Globalization Measurement: Notes on Common Globalization Indexes. Knowledge Management, Economics and
Information Technology 1(7).
31. Zeinelabdin AR (1998) The role of foreign direct investment in OIC countries. Journal of economic cooperation among Islamic countries 15: 1–30.
32. Dabour N (2000) The Role of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Development and Growth in OIC Member Countries. Journal of economic cooperation 21:
27–55.
33. Ates D (2005) Economic liberalization and changes in fundamentalism: The case of Egypt. Middle East Policy 12: 133–144.
34. Oyvat C (2011) Globalization, wage shares and income distribution in Turkey. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society 4: 123–138.
35. Guillaumin C (2009) Financial integration in East Asia: Evidence from panel unit root and panel cointegration tests. Journal of Asian Economics 20: 314–
326.
36. Haddad ME, Lim JJ, Saborowski C (2010) Trade Openness Reduces Growth Volatility When Countries are Well Diversified. Policy Research Working
Paper Series NO. 5222.
37. Mammi I (2012) Essays in GMM estimation of dynamic panel data models. Lucca, Italy: IMT Institute for Advanced Studies.
38. Anderson TW, Hsiao C (1981) Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components. Journal of the American Statistical Society 76: 598–606.
39. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. The Review
of Economic Studies 58: 277–297.
40. Baltagi BH, Demetriades PO, Law SH (2009) Financial development and openness: Evidence from panel data. Journal of development economics 89:
285–296.
41. Dreher A, Gaston N, Martens P (2008) Measuring globalisation: Gauging its consequences: Springer Verlag.
42. Brunner A (2003) The long-run effects of trade on income and income growth. IMF Working Papers No. 03/37.
43. Osang T, Pereira A (1996) Import tariffs and growth in a small open economy. Journal of Public Economics 60: 45–71.
44. Alfaro L, Chanda A, Kalemli-Ozcan S, Sayek S (2006) How does foreign direct investment promote economic growth? Exploring the effects of financial
markets on linkages. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
45. Chang CP, Lee CC (2010) Globalization and Economic Growth: A Political Economy Analysis for OECD Countries. Global Economic Review 39: 151–173.
46. Birdsall N (2002) A stormy day on an open field: asymmetry and convergence in the global economy. In: Gruen D, O'Brien T, Lawson J, editors.
Globalisation, living standards and inequality. Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia and Australian. 66–87.
47. Solt F (2009) Standardizing the World Income Inequality Database. Social Science Quarterly 90: 231–242 SWIID Version 233.230, July 2010.
48. Beck T, Demirgüç-Kunt A, Levine R (2009) Financial Institutions and Markets across Countries and over Time. Policy Research Working Paper No.4943.

Globalization and Economic Growth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization and Economic Growth

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization and Economic Growth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/27/23, 9:05 PM Globalization and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Complementarities | PLOS ONE

Globalization and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on

Published: April 10, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824

Editor: Rodrigo Huerta-Quintanilla, Cinvestav-Merida, Mexico

Figure 1. Average economic globalization (KOF index) by income groups.

Methodology and Data

Data and Empirical Strategy

Table 1. Baseline results.

Table 2. Economic globalization and Growth: Interaction terms.

Table 3. Growth effect of globalization at different income levels of countries.

You might also like