QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS FOR ASSESSING TRADE FACILITATION

Saodat Umarova

doi:10.5281/zenodo.10696559

Saodat Umarova

Abstract. The assessment of trade facilitation requires both quantitative and qualitative research methods. This paper explores these methodologies and their contributions. Quantitative methods focus on measuring trade costs, time, and efficiency, utilizing models and indices like the Logistics Performance Index. Qualitative approaches examine stakeholder experiences and institutional contexts through interviews, case studies, and analysis. Integrating both methods provide insights for policymakers and researchers, showing the positive correlation between trade facilitation and economic growth, competitiveness, SME participation, and sustainable development. This highlights the importance of effective trade facilitation measures for fostering economic growth and promoting sustainability.

Keywords: trade facilitation, theoretical framework, international trade, quantitative and qualitative methods, trade competitiveness, soft infrastructure

References:

1. Bandyopadhyay, S. and S. Roy (2011), ‘Political Economy Determinants of Non-agricultural Trade Policy’, Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis Review, 93, 2, 89–104. 2. Beverelli, C., M. Boffa and A. Keck (2014), ‘ Trade Policy Substitution: Theory and Evidence From Specific Trade Concerns’, WTO Staff working paper ERSD-2014-18 (Geneva: WTO). 3. Cadot, O., A.-C. Disdier and L. Fontagné (2014), ‘North-South Standards Harmonization and International Trade’, World Bank Economic Review, 29, 2, 327–52. 4. Chen, M. X., T. Otsuki and J. S. Wilson (2006), ‘ Do Standards Matter for Export Success?’, Policy Research Working Paper Series 3809 (Washington DC: The World Bank). 5. Crivelli, P. and J. Gröschl (2016), ‘The Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Market Entry and Trade Flows’, The World Economy, 39, 3, 444–73. 6. De Sousa, J., T. Mayer and S. Zignago (2012), ‘Market Access in Global and Regional Trade’, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42, 6, 1035–52.