As was widely circulated by development practitioners, the key to sustained poverty alleviation
is trade (Bruno et al., 1998). However, it was posited that the early studies were based on
rather small samples, while the recent works have extended the sample and reached mixed
conclusions laced with great controversy. In general, empirical studies suffer from a number
of shortcomings and the question surrounding the correlation between trade and poverty
have not been resolved (Baldwin, 2000). Baldwin (2000) offers explanations for the differences among researchers of the trade-poverty nexus. While econometric analyses are limited by
the scope and comparability of available quantitative data, differences in what investigators
regard to as appropriate econometric models and sensitivity test analyses are based, in part,
on the personal policy predictions of authors which results in significant differences in the
conclusions reached under such quantitative approaches (Baldwin, 2000). Also, many
empirical studies on trade, poverty and sustainable development have, at least, being
conceptually deficient with development synonymously taken as sustainable development
for analyses. However, these concepts are not totally one and the same (Asefa, 2005).
|