Authors : Shahadat Hossain; Dr. Ji Jiali

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/35eusuje

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/mr3csyft

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jul175

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Contemporary trade governance is marked by an increasing number of Deep Trade Agreements (DTAs); however the developmental implications for emerging economies are subject to some level of contestation due to the existence of methodological biases and a lack of consideration of heterogeneity. This is an investigation that addresses four key deficiencies: (1) the bias of staggered Difference-in-Differences (DiD) designs is overcome using a multi-estimator strategy (Callaway & Sant'Anna 2021; Borusyak, Jaravel, & Portal 2021); (2) triple heterogeneity, which encompasses DTA type, depth and domestic institutional capacity, is systematically addressed; (3) institutional thresholds are estimated instead of postulated; (4) inclusive growth implications are taken into consideration beyond aggregate trade indicators. Empirical analysis of a panel consisting of 140 developing economies between the years 2000-2023 has shown that DTAs have led to an increase in exports by 12.7-14.2 per cent and foreign direct investment (FDI) by 2.3-2.5 percentage points and a decline in the Human Development Index (HDI) in rural areas by 0.7-0.8 per cent. The size of increases is about 2.3 times greater for countries that cross a Rule-of-law threshold of -0.5 on the World Governance Indicators scale. North-South deep agreements have the highest export benefits (28.2 percent growth). Vertical depth (i.e. granularity of commitments in core policy categories) outperforms horizontal depth (i.e. simple count of policy areas) in terms of manufacturing productivity and including labor standards in DTAs reduce rural-urban disparities by 50 per cent. Reduction of Trade Policy Uncertainty (TPU), instrumented on the number of veto players in partner governments, is the main channel, representing 33 per cent of the total effect. These findings recognize the need to align DTA accession with domestic institutional reforms and consciously draw policies to design inclusive policies to achieve equitable development gains.

Keywords : Deep Trade Agreements Staggered Difference-in-Differences Threshold Regression Inclusive Growth Developing Economies Trade Policy Uncertainty Global Value Chain Integration.

References :

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power prosperity and poverty. Crown Business.
2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. Accessed at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835352
3. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements really result in the increase of international trade by the members? Journal of International Economics, 71.(1), 72-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.03.005
4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(6):1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
5. Borusyak, K., Jaravel, X., & Spiess, J. (2021). Revisiting the event study designs: Robust and efficient estimation. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 136(4), pp. 2261 - 2309. https://doi.org/10.1086/715901
6. Busse, M., Königer, P., & Nunnenkamp, P. (2018). Do trade agreements enhance foreign direct investment? The role of institutional distance. World Development, 102, pp. 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.09.010
7. Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. (2021). Difference - in - differences with multiple time periods Journal of Econometrics, 225 (2), 200-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001
8. Chang, H. J. (2021). Bad samaritans: The myth of free trade and the secret history of capitalism. * (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Press.
9. Dür, A., Baccini, L., & Elsig, M. (2014). The way international trade agreements were designed: A new dataset. International Organisations. (353-375). Review of International Organisations, 9. doi:10.1007/s11558-013-9182-y
10. Eichengreen, B., Mehl, A., & Chiara, O. (2021). Deep trade agreements and Global value chains. Economic Policy, 36.(146), 1-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiz012
11. Freund, C. L., & Ornelas, E. (2023). Preferential trade agreements: Theory and fact. In G. Gopinath, E. Helpman & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook of international economics (Vol. 5, pp. 3-71). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hoe.2022.03.001
12. Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing and inference. *Journal of Econometrics, 93*,(2) 345 - 368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00025-1
13. Handley, K., & Limão, N. (2017). Trade and investment under policy uncertainty: Theory and firm evidence. Review of Economic Studies, 84-(2), 709-751. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdw042
14. Nagengast, P. (2023). Bias in difference-in-differences with staggered adoption: Evidence from trade policy. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 38(5), pp.895-918. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2941
15. Rodrik, D. (2022). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy, (Revised ed.). Princeton University Press.
16. Rodrik, D., & Subramanian, A. (2023). Trade agreements and inclusive growth: Evidence from sub-national data. *Journal of Development Economics*, 161, 102987. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-4766(22)102987
17. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. "Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71-102 https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
18. Roth, J., Sant'anna, P. H., Bilinski, A., & Poe, J. (2022). Pre-[pam] testing for parallel trends in difference-in-differences [PAM] designs. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40 (4), 1302-1315. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2020.1838724
19. Santos Silva, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88 (4), 641-658. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4
20. Shafaeddin, M. (2005). Trade liberalisation and industrialisation in developing countries: A critical survey of the literature. *UNCTAD Discussion Paper*, (193). https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tdr2005ch4_en.pdf
21. Sun, L., & Abraham, S. (2021). Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 225 (2), 175-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.002
22. Tsebelis, G. (2002). *Veto players: The way political institutions work* Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400828752
23. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Trade and development report 2023: Reforms for inclusive and sustainable growth.
24. United Nations Development Programme. (2017). *Subnational human development index (HDI) database*. https://hdr.undp.org/subnational-hdi
25. Viner, J. (1950). *The customs union issue*. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
26. World Bank Group. (2023). Deep trade agreements 2023: Navigating regulation convergence. Ten Years Economic Perspectives. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/39804
27. World Bank Group. (2024). DTA 2.0 index: The depth and breadth of trade agreements. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/dta-2-0-index.
28. World Trade Organization. (2023). RTA database: Regional trade agreements in force.*. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/rta_e.htm
29. International Monetary Fund. (n.d.). *Foreign direct investment (FDI) data base*. https://data.imf.org/FDI
30. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (n.d.). Economic complexity index (ECI). Observatory of Economic Complexity. https://oec.world/en/rankings/eci/
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development & World Trade Organisation. (n.d.). Value-added trade (TiVA) database.*. https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/tiva.htm
32. University of California, Davis. (2021). *Penn world table 10.0*. https://www.ggdc.net/pwt/pwt-10.0.html
33. World Bank Group. (n.d.). *World wide monitoring database on poverty (PovcalNet)*. https://povcalnet.worldbank.org/
34. World Bank Group. (n.d.). World development indicators.
35. World Bank Group. (n.d.). Worldwide governance indicators.*. https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
36. Centre d'etudes Prospectives et d информации Internationales. (n.d.). *Gravity dataSet*. https://cepii.fr/en/bdd_modele/presentation.asp?id=8