World Bank

About: World Bank is a other organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poverty. The organization has 7813 authors who have published 21594 publications receiving 1198361 citations. The organization is also known as: World Bank, WB & The World Bank.

Trading on Time

Abstract: We determine how time delays affect international trade, using newly-collected World Bank data on the days it takes to move standard cargo from the factory gate to the ship in 126 countries. We estimate a modified gravity equation, controlling for endogeneity and remoteness. On average, each additional day that a product is delayed prior to being shipped reduces trade by at least 1 percent. Put differently, each day is equivalent to a country distancing itself from its trade partners by 70 km on average. Delays have an even greater impact on developing country exports and exports of time-sensitive goods, such as perishable agricultural products. In particular, a day's delay reduces a country's relative exports of time-sensitive to time-insensitive agricultural goods by 6 percent.

The Real Impact of Improved Access to Finance: Evidence from Mexico

Abstract: This paper provides new evidence on the impact of access to finance on poverty. It highlights an important channel through which access affects poverty�the labor market. The paper exploits the opening of Banco Azteca in Mexico, a unique �natural experiment� in which over 800 bank branches opened almost simultaneously in preexisting Elektra stores. Importantly, the bank has focused on previously underserved low-income clients. Our key finding is a sizeable effect of access to finance on labor market activity and income levels, especially among low-income individuals and those located in areas with lower preexisting bank penetration.

Life During Growth

Abstract: A remarkable diversity of indicators shows quality of life across nations to be positively associated with per capita income. At the same time, the changes in quality of life as income grows are surprisingly uneven. Either in levels or changes, moreover, the effect of exogenous shifts over time is surprisingly strong compared to growth effects. This article reaches this conclusion with a panel dataset of 81 indicators covering up to four time periods (1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990). The indicators cover seven subjects: (1) individual rights and democracy, (2) political instability and war, (3) education, (4) health, (5) transport and communications, (6) inequality across class and gender, and (7) “bads.” With a SUR estimator in levels, income per capita has an impact on the quality of life that is significant, positive, and more important than exogenous shifts for 32 out of 81 indicators. With a fixed-effects estimator, growth has an impact on the quality of life that is significant, positive, and more important than exogenous shifts for 10 out of 81 indicators. With a first-differences IV estimator, growth has a causal impact on the quality of life that is significant, positive, and more important than exogenous shifts for six out of 69 quality of life indicators. The conclusion speculates about such explanations for the pattern of results as (1) the long and variable lags that may come between growth and changes in the quality of life and (2) the possibility that global socioeconomic progress is more important that home-country growth for many quality-of-life indicators.

Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met?

Abstract: While conservation activities are underfunded almost everywhere, the gap between current expenditure and what is needed is particularly extreme in the tropics where threatened species and habitats are most concentrated. We examine how to bridge this funding gap. Firstly, we try to identify who in principle should pay, by comparing the spatial distribution of the costs and the benefits of tropical conservation. The immediate opportunity costs of conservation often exceed its more obvious, management-related costs, and are borne largely by local communities. Conversely, we argue that the greatest benefits of conservation derive from ecological services, and from option, existence, and bequest values; these are often widely dispersed and enjoyed in large part by wealthier national and global beneficiaries. We conclude that the gap in funding tropical conservation should be borne largely by national and especially global communities, who receive most benefit but currently pay least cost. In the second part of the paper we review recent developments in order to examine how in practice increased funding may be raised. There are many growing and novel sources of support: private philanthropy, premium pricing for biodiversity-related goods via certification schemes, and the development of entirely new markets for environmental services. Despite their potential, we conclude that the principal route for meeting the unmet costs of tropical conservation will have to be via governments, and will inevitably require the transfer of substantial resources from north to south. This will be enormously difficult, both politically and logistically, but without it we believe that much of what remains of tropical nature will be lost.